Planet Debate 2011 September/October l-d release Animal Rights
AT: “Animal Rights Counterproductive for Animals – Undermines Movements/Advocacy”
Download 1.43 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- AT: “Animal Rights Counterproductive for Animals – Undermines Movements/Advocacy”
AT: “Animal Rights Counterproductive for Animals – Undermines Movements/Advocacy”NON UNIQUE – THE MOVEMENT HASN’T MADE ANY PROGRESS Stallwood, PETA, 1996, Animal Rights: the changing debate, ed. Robert Garner, p. 197 For all its accomplishments, however, the animal advocacy movement did not march as far during its first 20 years as other movements for social change had marched during theirs. The animal advocacy movement has not effected anywhere near the amount of federal or state legislation promoting its agenda as the women’s and the civil rights movements have for theirs. Although Singer, Tom Regan, and others have legitimized the moral status of animals as a topic worthy of philosophical discussion, concern for animals has yet to be established as an accepted discipline in the academic catalogue, as women’s and African American studies have been. There is no animal viewpoint in the literature, as there are women’s, black, and increasingly so, gay and lesbian viewpoints. There is no animal rights caucus in Congress with the leverage of the black and women’s caucuses. There is no animal advocacy magazine with the circulation and the influence of women’s and black publications. NON UNIQUE – ANIMAL MOVEMENTS INCREASINGLY FOCUS ON RIGHTS OVER WELFARE Silverstein, Professor, Lafayette College of Government and law, 1996, Unleashing Rights: law, meaning and the animal rights movement, p. 75-6 In the realm of political activism, animal rights ha become the dominant language of the contemporary movement. To be sure, animal rights language continues to compete with the welfare movement’s language of compassion. Nevertheless, popular debates and discussion regarding animals are not dominated by the language of rights. Moreover, the movement increasingly combines the language of compassion with the language of rights, arguing that humans should provide compassionate, kind, and caring treatment to animals because animals have a right to such treatment. ARGUMENT THAT RIGHTS AND LEGAL STRATEGIES ARE VULNRABLE TO CO-OPTATION IS NOT-UNIQUE, WOULD MEAN THAT WE HAVE NO TOOLS AVAILABLE Helena Silverstein, Professor, Lafayette College of Government and law, 1996, Unleashing Rights: law, meaning and the animal rights movement, p. 229 Of course, it must be admitted that employing the language and institutions of the existing system may foster co-optation. Upon entry into the mainstream, the possibility of co-optation increases. This may be the biggest danger of using the legal system and its prevailing languages. At the same time, it may be the biggest danger of using any part of the existing system. Short of revolution, all methods of challenge are vulnerable to co-optation. And revolution is not always the best or even the most viable way to achieve social change. Hence, when the legal system is critiqued for its co-optive tendencies, we should not forget that it is not the only part of the system that has such tendencies. Furthermore, there are various ways to minimize the dangers of co-optation when using law. Examining the animal rights movement from the bottom up points to two important ways of minimizing co-optation: maintaining a critical strategic understanding of law and deploying law in multiple ways and multiple locations.
It is therefore not at all surprising that movement literature generally takes as given the ethical argument that justifies bringing animals into the moral community. It is also not surprising that the movement relies on rights terminology to do this. Rights language carries within it notions of fairness and equity. Rights are recognized and accepted within our culture as a primary symbol of justice. As such, rights language possesses a power that invokes images of right and wrong. AT: “Animal Rights Counterproductive for Animals – Undermines Movements/Advocacy”NO LINK – ADVOCATES FOR ANIMAL INTERESTS HAVE NOT BEEN SEDUCED BY THE MYTH OF RIGHTS – THEY USE THE DISCOURSE VERY STRATEGICALLY Silverstein, Professor, Lafayette College of Government and law, 1996, Unleashing Rights: law, meaning and the animal rights movement, p. 85-86 To discover whether the animal rights movement’s appropriation of rights confirms or contrasts with critical perspectives of the language, I conducted in-depth interviews with animal advocates. These interviews sought to ascertain how activists view and deploy rights language. Although activists’ perspectives on rights were mixed, three overwhelming points emerged from these interviews. First, activists did not demonstrate a false, unrealistic, or naïve hope in rights. Their views were critical, cautious and balanced. Activists recognized the potential benefits of rights language but at the same time articulated the problematic side of rights. Second, activists revealed a strategic understanding of the meaning of rights. While they expressed strong and committed ethical views regarding the role and value of animals, activists also maintained a strategic approach to advancing their ethics. Third, the critical and strategic approach taken by activists offer reconstructions of rights that challenge predominant views and seek to recast the meaning of rights. Overall, the interviews indicated that activists are not captured by the myth of rights. To the contrary, activists’ views and uses of the language seek to promote what Scheingold calls “a politics of rights”. In so doing, activists strategically constitute the meaning of rights. RIGHTS DISCOURSE DOES NOT FRACTURE THE ANIMAL MOVEMENT* Silverstein, Professor, Lafayette College of Government and law, 1996 Unleashing Rights: law, meaning and the animal rights movement, p. 233 It is important to note that internal movement splits are not peculiar to rights. Divisions within a movement, and therefore within movement identity, could result without the turn to rights. Had liberation become the dominant label and framework for animal advocacy, that, too, would have split the movement’s identity. While the turn to rights certainly affects the way the lines are drawn and defined, rights themselves are not the sole reason for internal disunity. TURN – NON GOVERNMENTAL Animal rights action leads to violence KNIAZ, @ University at Buffalo, 1995 Buffalo Law Review, Animal Liberation and the Law: Animals Board the Underground Railroad 1995 (lexis) One such instance in which the fruits of direct action exposed activities at a particular laboratory involved a raid at the University of Pennsylvania Head Injury Clinic. In May 1984, members of the Animal Liberation Front broke into experimenter Thomas Gennarelli's laboratory. During the raid, the liberators caused approximately $ 20,000 in damage and stole 60 hours of videotapes. DIRECT ACTION GIVES SYMPATHY TO ANIMAL ABUSERS KNIAZ, @ University at Buffalo, 1995 Buffalo Law Review, Animal Liberation and the Law: Animals Board the Underground Railroad 1995 (lexis)
Directory: file -> view view -> Western Europe after wwii view -> Author study: paul fleischman view -> Qpa1 7ela study Guide view -> Arctic Oil/Gas Neg view -> November 1970 Approximately 150,000-500,000 deaths Bhola Cyclone Bangladesh view -> Grade Level: 6 Unit of Study: Caribbean glce view -> Citation: Duffield, Katy view -> Table of Contents Lesson # view -> Chinese Wind Energy Disad Download 1.43 Mb. Share with your friends:
|