Planet Debate 2011 September/October l-d release Animal Rights
Animal Rights Flawed – CLS Kritik
Download 1.43 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Animal Rights Flawed – CLS Kritik
Animal Rights Flawed – CLS KritikUSING THE LAW AND RIGHTS TO CHALLENGE POWER COUNTERPRODUCTIVE Helena Silverstein, Professor, Lafayette College of Government and law, 1996, Unleashing Rights: law, meaning and the animal rights movement, p. 82 The strongest critique of law and rights leveled by critical scholars contends that the use of the legal system is harmful to those seeking social change. According to this critique, asserted predominantly by scholars within the school of thought known as Critical Legal Studies (CLS), the harm stems from the hegemonic character of the legal system, that is, from the fact that the law encompasses a particular ideology beneficial to the status quo. In a capitalist society, the underlying hegemonic ideology is founded upon notions of individualism and autonomy. These ideological biases underlying the law impede community and egalitarian values and support existing power structures. Those who think they are advancing change through use of the law are instead replicating and legitimating the dominant values, structures, and ideology of the system. Rather than making real strides, this replication strengthens those in power to the detriment of the marginalized. Like the overall hegemonic nature of the legal system, rights also lead to reinforcement of dominance. For those who seek change, the problem with asserting rights is that it results in co-optation. “People don’t realize that what they’re doing is recasting the real existential feelings that led them to become political people into an ideological framework that coopts them into adopting the very consciousness they want to transform.” (Gabel and Kennedy, 1984, p. 26). WORKING THROUGH THE LAW FOR ANIMAL RIGHTS FAILS – HAVE TO COMPROMISE THE IDEALS OF THE MOVEMENT TO EFFECT LEGAL CHANGE Gary L. Francione, Professor of Law, Rutgers University, 1996, Rain Without Thunder, p. 162-3 Based on the structural defects of animal welfare and of the legal and political institutions that brandish the property status of animals in enforcing some version of animal welfare, there are probably some compelling reasons for animal rights advocates to spend their limited time and resources on incremental changes achieved through various forms of education, protest, and boycotts. The primary reason is that judicial or legislative change ought by formal “campaigns” requires some sort of “insider” status as discussed by Garner. Once an animal advocacy group decides to pursue activity other than public education, or more precisely, once the group decides that it want to have an affect on legislation or regulatory policy, it becomes necessary to seek “insider status” in order to “achieve access to government” and “to influence policymakers.” Garner states that it “is easy to see why insider status is valued so highly. Access to government gives groups an opportunity to influence policy development at the formulation stage, thereby avoiding the difficult and often fruitless task of reacting against government proposals” that “are unlikely to change fundamentally” once they are formulated. Garner recognizes that this “insider” status may be used to marginalize animal advocates through, for example, the creation of government advisory bodies that do little, if anything, but that give the mistaken impression that animal concerns are being taken seriously. Nevertheless, he holds to the view that “insider status can allow pressure groups to have a significant input into the formulation of public policy.” This insider status, however, is largely dependent upon a group’s being perceived by government as “moderate and respectable.” Garner observes that although moderation and respectability are relative terms, “it is clear that the radical demands of the ‘rights’ faction of the animal protection movement are not regarded as acceptable enough” to give rights advocates “insider status.” Garner argues that insider status is necessary for animal advocates to be effective, yet states explicitly throughout his book that despite moderate status that animal welfarists have enjoyed, “the animal protection movement has made relatively little progress in influencing decision makers. Animal Rights Flawed – CLS KritikLAW INEFFECTIVE TO ACHIEVE ANIMAL LIBERATION GOALS Gary Yourofsky, Animal Liberationist, 2004, Terrorists of Freedom Fighters: reflections on the liberation of animals, eds. Best & Nocella, p. 130 Remember, outlawing an act does not make that act morally wrong. And legal avenues are not necessarily the best ones for facilitating substantive change. Laws have always been broken by free-thinking, radical individuals who realize that it is impossible to make progressive changes within a corrupt, discriminatory system. Nelson Mandela, Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King, Jr., Mohandas Gandhi, Henry David Thoreau and Jesus, to name a few, were routine, radical lawbreakers who went to jail for disobeying unjust laws. We see them as heroes today, but in their time they were considered by many to be villains and radicals. The word “radical” has a negative connotation in society today; however, it is simply the Latin word meaning “root,” and what radicals do is to bypass pseudo-solutions and get to the root of a problem. Everyone should realize that all social justice activists were considered radical in their time. It is only after social justice activists die and society begins to evolve and comprehend their actions that the radical is placed on a pedestal and embraced. SEEKING CHANGE THROUGH THE LEGAL SYSTEM REQUIRES SIGNIFICANT CONCESSIONS TO THE RADICAL AGENDA Gary L. Francione, Professor of Law, Rutgers University, 1996, Rain Without Thunder, p. 164 But whether to pursue “insider” status as Garner understands the notion, is at least one of the issues that needs further consideration: should the advocate of animal rights seek “insider” status when, as Garner acknowledges, such insider status comes only when the animal rights advocate is willing to be “moderate” in demand and “respectable” in presentation? It is, of course, not particularly difficult to understand why “insider” status is particularly problematic when considered in the context of animal rights theory. Insider status requires negotiation and compromise with those on the inside of legislative and executive branches of government. Again, no one seriously doubts that one of the government’s primary functions, especially in a capitalistic economy, is to protect property rights. And animals are a most important species of property. It is unlikely that any society with strong property notions will be inclined to compromise property rights for solely or primarily moral concerns. There is a fundamental political difference between the rights position and the welfare position. The rights position is essentially an outsider position; it is the position of social protest that challenges basic social institutions that have facilitated the exploitation of nonhumans. As I noted in Chapter One, animal welfare does not require fundamental changes in industries that exploit animals, whereas the ethic of animal rights clear does. Rights advocates are trying to change—and in m an cases ultimately trying to end—the operation of institutionalized animal exploiters. The welfarist seeks to influence the system from the inside as one of the participants in the system. When Garner makes the observation that those who accept the status of outsiders are like those who claim to be content to drive ten-year-old automobiles, he fails to understand that for at least some people a choice about fundamental moral issues is different from a decision about automobiles. 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:
|