On Wednesday night, Global TV (in Canada) aired an hour-long documentary produced and narrated by retiring newsreader Kevin Newman entitled “No Country for Animals.” I was hopeful that this documentary would be educational and valuable given that press for it suggested a strong animal rights component (from The Star, “Kevin Newman Tackles Animal Rights“). Unfortunately the program was marred by the standard confusions that are peddled in the media regarding the treatment of animals: “rights” stands in for “welfare” thereby excluding actual discussions of rights; a being can at once have “rights’ and be subjected to the capricious whims of a more powerful being. Newman’s conclusion is in line with the rest of animal “welfare” movement: the state should take a stronger role in enforcing existing animal welfare standards and improve them when necessary, focusing upon confinement (gestation crates and battery cages) and transportation because animals are “sentient,” and that consumers should go out of their way to purchase “happy meat,” again because animals are “sentient.” Accordingly, we are shown trucks overladen with pigs and cows, puppy mills, and auction houses, but at no point are we shown a slaughterhouse. A sentient being, we are told, can suffer and we owe it to the animal to not force it to suffer. However, the rule is not applied to animals because they merit moral consideration, but because the treatment of animals reflects upon the society as a whole: a civilized country cannot act in this way. In other words, “animal welfare” is not for the benefit of the lives animals, but for the benefit of the conscience of the human consumer.
The problem with Newman’s documentary–and most “exposes” we find in the newspapers and on TV–is that they begin with the correct premise: an animal can suffer and an animal has an interest in not suffering. After this Newman’s documentary becomes hopelessly confused. He is correct to point out that animals are treated as chattel under Canadian law and that this entails that an animal can be reasonably and legally treated as though it were no different from a table or an iPod. (However, the paragons of animal welfare that Newman points to–Switzerland, the Netherlands and Italy–also treat animals as property.) This, Newman seems to believe, is what enables and justifies confinement in gestation crates, battery cages, 52 hour legal transport times, and puppy mills. However, Newman then makes two incongruent moves from this point. First, he claims that killing an animal is not a harm to that animal (thus we need not concern ourselves with slaughterhouses) and therefore humans can consume flesh and other animal products without a guilty conscience. Second, animals should not be treated as though they are property, but with “love.” In effect, so long as we “love” the animals we consume, it is perfectly reasonable to “consume” those animals. However, to be a sentient being and not to be property (i.e., not to be chattel no different than a slave or a teacup) excludes being subject to the whims of a more powerful being (i.e., not to be consumed for the mere pleasure of a human). Put in other terms, one cannot coherently “love” an animal and produce that animal for consumption. The “organic” and “humane” farmer treats their animals as property in the same way as the industrial “farmer,” but markets their products through different terms: “humane,” “happy,” “loved.”
Rather than destroying industries that exploit animals for trivial purposes, Newman proposes that “activists” (one such “activist” is a “poultry scientist”) work with governments and corporations to reform the more egregious practices and perfect the less offensive ones. Consumers should press their butchers to supply “heritage breeds” and “happy meat” produced by farmers who “love” their animals. The true solution to the problem–adopt a vegan diet as a moral stance–is immediately excluded as “unrealistic” and “too difficult” by the “activist” at the centre of the documentary. (She is involved with Canadians for Ethical Treatment of Farm Animals [CETFA], which as its name suggests, is concerned only with “treatment” and not “use”–in other words, their goal is to make the exploitation of animals more efficient.) This is silly. After all, vegans live by one simple rule: avoid insofar as it is possible consuming animal products. Meat eaters must constantly make decisions: is this a meat that I can eat? (Why can I eat cow but not dog? Why can I eat pig but not human? Why can I eat goat but not snake?) Is this a fluid I can drink? (Why can I drink cow and goat milk, but not donkey or cat?) Meat eaters who will only consume ostensibly “happy meat” are even further hampered: Given that labels like “free range” and “organic” are largely meaningless, how can I know that these chickens are happy? Given that this animal was slaughtered, how can I know that it went to its death happily? The life of a meat eater is infinitely more difficult and complex than that of a vegan. The only distinction is that meat eating is normalized while abstaining from animal products is not.
As a result, rather than an interesting program, what was aired was “Michael Pollan for Dummies,” with the standard phrases: “humane treatment,” “happy meat,” “pay more, eat less,” “reputable breeder” and the like.
(More congratulatory discussion can be found here, here, and here.)
