Quote:
Originally Posted by
ElaineV 
For the record, I am not advocating that everyone should support animal welfare laws. I am ONLY advocating that animal advocates should not attack or interfere with other advocates' work on animal welfare laws, even if they believe that work is an ineffective strategy for animal liberation. There is absolutely no proof that any particular strategy is counterproductive; there is only evidence that suggests some strategies may be more effective than others. And there is more evidence - for a myriad of reasons - that supports an incremental welfare-based stratgey than a "strictly abolitionist strategy". Please read Change of Heart by Nick Cooney or Animal Impact by Caryn Ginsberg.
If someone cares passionately about the injustice perpetrated daily against sentient non-humans and strongly feels that a particular strategy is a profligate use of limited resources in tackling deeply embedded speciesist practices, why would they not criticise said strategy? If one believes there are alternative, more fruitful avenues to animal liberation, shouldn't one actively promote those beliefs and criticise those reforms that are perceived to be largely ineffective.
It depends on what you consider to constitute "attacking and interfering" with welfare laws. Disseminating information, either online or in person, that questions spending vast amounts of money, time, effort etc. on attempting to legislate for changes in routine factory farm procedures and conditions? Promoting vegan advocacy as a more efficient use of resources? Would you categorise this as an effort to thwart welfare reform?
Aside from the case you mentioned, where Francione recommended voting against Proposition 2 in California (or at minimum, abstaining from voting), I can't really think of too many instances that involve abolitionists seeking to undo a welfare reform. On this particular issue, he argued that people should vote against because it would send a message to animal welfare groups that "humane use" is never justified and that the legal change would only placate public moral concern about consuming tortured beings and cause them to increase their consumption.
I disagree with Francione because voting against the initiative would never be construed as a rejection of use under all circumstances, especially given that practically everyone voting against Prop 2 did so because of fears of job losses, businesses suffering and having to pay higher prices for eggs. There is no cultural context in which a vote against could be interpreted as an unequivocal rejection of animal use. Secondly, despite some anecdotal evidence, there is limited, if any, empirical evidence that establishes a causal link between welfare reform and increased consumption of animal products.
Nevertheless, the majority of abolitionist animal advocates aren't conveniently situated with regards to fighting welfare reform because they operate in an environment in which the dominant paradigm is one of exploitation being justified if a certain arbitrary degree of consideration is given to suffering. Much of the literature criticising welfare reform focuses on the limited economic costs that are supposedly imposed on producers, the effects on productivity of implementing a particular method, the partnership between institutional exploiters and animal protection groups that results from or precedes such legislative change and whether diverting all resources into only advocating for veganism would lead to quicker and greater strides on the road to liberating animals from oppression. These points I certainly see as being worthy of consideration and serious discussion and, despite proclamations from both sides, the matter is far from settled.
