Why I disagree with PeTA: There's really only one reason

Two interesting critiques of PeTA have been published back to back, one by Veganacious (yesterday, 1 October), and another by Katie Drummond (today, 2 October). Both are bloggers. Both are former members of PeTA. In the interests of full disclosure, I have never been a member of PeTA. I like a good critique, though, and I don't want to be left out.


It is difficult to capture Veganacious' critiue in a point-form outline. I suggest anyone read the piece for him or herself in full. In short, however, Veganacious writes that PeTA "have made so many missteps that I cannot consider them a positive force in the fight for the liberation of animals." I do not disagree. In particular, she criticizes PeTA for the following:

1. You use tacky tactics.
2. You are dishonest.
3. You support some of the most egregious companies
4. You partner with companies who show no conscience.
5. You have a scary attitude towards rescue that ends in death.
6. Your kill ratios are getting higher each year.
7. You refuse challenges.
8. You have become a destructive force.

I am not sure I understand all of these points in detail, but I think I agree with all of the above.

Again, my caveat about point form outlines applies. I suggest anyone read Drummond's piece for him or herself in full. In short, however, of PeTA, Drummond writes that "You are extreme � yes. Sadly for you, and even more sad for the human and non-human animals you get your hands on, that�s not a good thing. Here are five reasons for my loathing, though I�m sure there are many, many more." In particular, she criticizes PeTA for the following:

1. Your sensationalism is sexist, tacky and counterproductive.
2. Freezers filled with dead animals kinda negates the idea of animal advocacy.
3. Owning stocks in Dominoes Pizza is a problem.
4. You�re in bed with KFC.
5. You equate veganism with sexiness. And sexiness with weight loss.

I am not sure I understand all of these points in detail, but again, I think I agree with the spirit of most of them, even if I'm not sure about the clarity of the claim that "freezers filled with dead animals kinda negates the idea of animal advocacy." According to Newsweek, however, PeTA has killed more than 17,000 nonhuman animals since 1998.

However, as an abolitionist, my disagreement with PeTA is not a personal expression of my like or dislike. It is also not a matter of their tactics. It is more fundamental. Why do I disagree with PeTA?

1. As an animal advocacy organization, PeTA believes in, proposes, promotes, acts on and, indeed, trades on an ideology that is inimical to abolitionist veganism and violates the rights of animals (both human and non).

That's my chief disagreement: I object to their objectives (regulating animal use), their strategies (welfare reforms) and their tactics (antic-based activism, confusing messages, promoting nonhuman animal use as morally acceptable, killing adoptable nonhuman animals, etc.) -- in short, the works. There are several important corollaries. For example, they do not embody in their positions and work the Six Principles of the Animal Rights Position:

1. The abolitionist approach to animal rights maintains that all sentient beings, humans or nonhumans, have one right: the basic right not to be treated as the property of others.

If they believed this, they certainly wouldn't promote animal use they way that they do. Nor do they embody in their positions and work the view that:

2. Our recognition of the one basic right means that we must abolish, and not merely regulate, institutionalized animal exploitation�because it assumes that animals are the property of humans.

If they believed this, they certainly wouldn't promote reforms that regulate the use of nonhuman animals rather than the abolition of animal use. Nor do they embody in their positions and work and the view that:

3. Just as we reject racism, sexism, ageism, and heterosexism, we reject speciesism. The species of a sentient being is no more reason to deny the protection of this basic right than race, sex, age, or sexual orientation is a reason to deny membership in the human moral community to other humans.

If this were important, their campaigns and other work would not involve the frequently speciesist antics and problems that that they do (particularly the killing of adoptable companion animals). Nor do they embody in their positions and work and the view that:

4. We recognize that we will not abolish overnight the property status of nonhumans, but we will support only those campaigns and positions that explicitly promote the abolitionist agenda. We will not support positions that call for supposedly �improved� regulation of animal exploitation. We reject any campaign that promotes sexism, racism, heterosexism or other forms of discrimination against humans.

If this were important, their campaigns would not involve the frequently sexist, racist, sizeist, etc., antics and problems that that they do. Nor do they embody in their positions and work and the view that:

5. We recognize that the most important step that any of us can take toward abolition is to adopt the vegan lifestyle and to educate others about veganism. Veganism is the principle of abolition applied to one�s personal life and the consumption of any meat, fowl, fish, or dairy product, or the wearing or use of animal products, is inconsistent with the abolitionist perspective.

If this were important, they would trouble themselves to promote abolitionist veganism exclusively rather than veg*nism infrequently and ambiguously.  Finally, it is not clear to me that they embody in their positions and their work the view that:

6. We recognize the principle of nonviolence as the guiding principle of the animal rights movement. Violence is the problem; it is not any part of the solution.

Assuming that we agree that killing nonhuman animals unjustifiably is violent I would hope so!), PeTA definitely doesn't qualify as a nonviolent organization. Assuming that racism, sexism and speciesism are a type of violence, then PeTA fails further to meet this criterion even with respect to human animals.

To be clear, I don't hate PeTA. I disagree strongly with their positions and their work. I believe their objectives, their strategies and their tactics are inimical to mine as an abolitionist vegan. Having said that, I don't want to leave anyone, even inadvertantly, with the impression that simply criticizing PeTA is enough to be an abolitionist.  It is important to understand and work according to the Six Principles and, if we criticize, to criticize any organization regardless of how they self-identify insofar as they fail to live up to the Six Principles.

However, I do  want the organization's members, its supporters, the greater animal advocacy movement and the public to understand what PeTA is really doing wrong from an abolitionist perspective, and that's their consistent failure to understand, take seriously and act according to the Six Principles of the Animal Rights Position and all of the myriad ways they consistently violate the rights of both human and nonhuman animals while encouraging others to do the same.That's not very helpful to animals.

If you are not vegan now, and you want to be helpful to animals, today's a good day to take the rights of animals seriously, to go vegan, and to work toward abolition, and that includes PeTA.  If anyone at PeTA has questions, they should ask Ingrid Newkirk to agree to debate Gary L. Francione.  I'm sure he can explain it better than I can.