A Friend of a Friend of Mine was Killed Today

Haudenosaunee hunters in Short Hills. Note the deer in the back of the truck

Let’s say you’ve noticed that a stray cat has been hanging around your backyard. You love animals – who doesn’t? – and you want to help him out if you can. Maybe he’s a feral cat and you’ve tried getting close to him but he’s just too clever for that.

Still, over time, and because you’re putting out food for him, he’s become used to your presence. He tolerates you. You’re kind of like his guardian angel, and naturally you look forward to seeing him out there every day. Regardless of what he thinks about you, you’re his friend.

So how would you feel to learn, upon coming home one night, that your friend, this stray cat who calls your backyard home, was shot through the head, killed by a neighbour who perhaps didn’t share your love of cats, or just enjoyed killing animals?

This happened today to a friend of mine. Only the victim wasn’t a cat. It was a whitetail deer. He was killed in Short Hills Provincial Park during the first day of the now semi-annual First Nations deer hunt. My friend, protesting at the gates of the park, instantly recognized the antlers sticking out of the back of one of the hunter’s trucks as it left the park tonight.

The buck, with his incredibly massive and unusual looking rack, was a frequent visitor to my friend’s backyard, which borders the park in the south end.  In fact, my friend had showed me pictures of this magnificent animal only a few days earlier. Now he was dead, because someone else saw him as a THING to eat.

Had this been a cat or dog, the public would be up in arms and demanding the killer be charged with animal cruelty. But because it’s a deer, the law says it’s okay. How is this okay? How is a deer any different than a cat or dog? Aren’t they all mammals and, given the choice, would rather live than die?

What kind of world do we live in where someone can kill someone else’s friend and get away with it? Why is it someone’s “right” to end another’s life?

A friend of a friend of mine was killed today. The killers are celebrating the death of this animal even as I write these words but as far as I’m concerned, this is a sad day for humanity.

P.S. To my friend, I’m sorry for your loss.

Cultures of Violence

MNR and Haudenosaunee representatives at White Meadows

So it appears we’re going to have another native deer hunt in Short Hills. That will be the second one this year, only this time the park will be closed for all four weekends in November, up from two weekends back in January. 

The announcement came from the Ministry of Natural Resources on September 19 at White Meadows Farms in Pelham, where the MNR staged an impromptu open house to answer the public’s questions.

A few representatives of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy also attended, to clear up any misconceptions people might have about the “harvest” and why we (anyone not native to Canada) need to respect the natives’ culture.

Nearly every viewpoint was heard that night. Farmers who want the deer culled because they’re eating the crops, residents who want to protect the deer, local hunters angry that only natives can hunt in the park, people against treaty rights, tree huggers, animal rights activists, NIMBY’s and more.

Now I sympathize with the Haudenosaunee and what the “white man” did to their ancestors, how they were driven off their lands and how they’re struggling to keep their traditions alive today.

It was our culture of violence that was responsible for almost wiping them off the map. Our progenitors saw themselves as “superior” to the so-called savages and this arrogance justified the near-annihilation of them. It was a terrible time in our history and I hope it is never repeated.

But the natives also perpetuate this culture of violence. They see the deer as resources, things to be "harvested", as if these animals were fruits and vegetables. They see themselves as "superior" to other forms of life, as if all the earth were here for them to do as they please.

Just as we do. We exterminate, slaughter, hunt and “harvest” any and every species that gets in our way, has a pleasing taste or gives a good chase. I can’t look at a native hunter as the “bad guy” while my own people commit even worse atrocities to other sentient beings.

When asked why the natives have to kill deer that are so habituated to human beings it’s like shooting fish in a barrel (according to the MNR, Short Hills is the first provincial park to allow hunting since the late 1970’s) the Haudenosaunee ambassador replied, “Don’t you eat chickens?”

He makes a good point. With the exception of a few vegetarians and vegans in the audience, everyone there that night eats animals of one kind or another. Why are we so appalled at the killing of a few doe-eyed ungulates but don’t think twice about the animals we eat three times a day?

The cows, pigs, chickens and other animals we breed, raise and butcher for food are just as vulnerable, just as cute and just as worthy of our compassion as those whitetail deer. We chastise one culture of violence but fail to acknowledge our own.

If you really care about animals and want to reduce the amount of suffering and violence in the world, go vegan.

Final Thoughts on the Short Hills Deer Hunt

“The assumption that animals are without rights and the illusion that our treatment of them has no moral significance is a positively outrageous example of Western crudity and barbarity. Universal compassion is the only guarantee of morality.” – Arthur Schopenhauer

Rights are bullshit - there, I said it. They’re an illusion, a pie-in-the-sky ideal. More like “wouldn’t it be nice if things were this way” rather than the way things actually are. They’re principles, propositions and beliefs, not carved-in-stone laws. Sometimes they’re called natural rights and sometimes they’re called inalienable rights, like the right to life. But they’re still all bullshit.

If we all have the right to an education and clean water, why are so many of us without either? And doesn’t a child have the right to go to school without being murdered by a gun-wielding maniac? But it happens. Without respect for another person’s life, what good are rights?

Aerial shot of protest and blockade at Pelham Road entrance

And then there are those whose rights seem to carry more weight than the rights of others. Take the First Nations deer hunt in Short Hills Provincial Park a few weeks ago. According to the Ministry of Natural Resources, the native deer hunt in Short Hills was “a traditional hunt by First Nations exercising their treaty rights.”

Because the First Nations wanted to exercise their treaty rights, my rights – including the right to enjoy a public park I help maintain – were not only secondary to the natives’ treaty rights, but for the first two weekends in January, were actually taken away.

Why didn’t I have the right to enter a provincial park funded in part by my tax dollars? My “right” to hike through a provincial park was suspended so a group of natives who don’t even live in the area could exercise their treaty rights. Their “rights” trumped mine.

And why were the native hunters allowed to drive their trucks and suburban assault vehicles into the heart of a provincial park when non-native hunters, during their hunting season, are not?

On the second Saturday and Sunday of the hunt, Niagara Regional Police shut down Pelham Road, stopping any vehicular traffic from driving past the Pelham Road entrance to Short Hills where the protesters were set up.

Niagara Regional Police shut down Pelham Road

This effectively killed any chance the protesters had to educate passersby about the deer hunt at Short Hills. Sure, the protesters still had the “right” to assemble peacefully, and they still had the “right” to exercise their freedom of speech. Unfortunately, the only ones around to listen to their message were a couple of pigeons sitting on the telephone line across the street.

The police said they shut down the road because they were concerned about public safety (somebody being hit by a car because they might stand too close to the road was the reason given). Then why wasn’t the deer hunt shut down when the police learned that several groups of protesters were inside the park? So much for public safety…

Because of the political tension surrounding the hunt and out of a fear of being labeled racists, the police ignored the rights of one group of citizens to accommodate the rights of another.

And what about the rights of the animals not to be hunted down and killed? What gives anyone the right to take the life of another? Whether you’re native or non-native, if you kill other animals when you don’t have to (meaning the human body doesn't require animal flesh to maintain good health or nutrition), saying you respect those animals is just more bullshit.

When killing becomes a “right”, perhaps it’s time to say that certain “rights” are wrong. Instead of the Idle No More movement, I’d like to see a Killing No More movement. Extending our circle of compassion to include the animals is the first step.

Veganish: It's Okay to Hurt Animals Once in a While

There’s a new fad strutting its stuff these days. It’s called veganishism. It’s also known as half-assed veganism, lazy veganism or veganism-for-people-who-think-it’s-cool-to-say-they’re-vegan-when-they-really-aren’t. It refers to people who are “mostly” vegan but still eat animal products now and then.

The Urban Dictionary (urbandictionary.com) defines it as “An eating practice for people who kinda want to be vegan, but sometimes just need to eat some cheese or chicken.” It is also described as “guilt free veganism”.

Surprisingly, a number of vegans are promoting the idea of “veganish” so as to, if I understand correctly, make people who care about animal suffering and exploitation, but can’t quite adhere to a 100% vegan diet* feel less guilty if they “fall off the wagon” from time to time.

Other advocates of occasional veganism are motivated by personal health or a cleaner, more sustainable environment, rather than violence to other animals. As noted above, many, if not most advocates for “veganishism” only focus on food issues and don’t address the other aspects of veganism, such as clothing, animal experimentation, hunting and fishing, and all other areas of animal oppression.

CarpeVegan.com explains veganish this way:

“If someone smokes a pack of cigarettes a day, they’re clearly a smoker; but if, once or twice a year, they get drunk at a party and smoke a cigar, then they’re a non-smoker who smokes every once in a while. We propose a similar way of thinking for veganism: if 95%’ish of the time you’re vegan, you’re vegan or veganish.”

Advocates for veganishism argue that as long as people are trying to be vegan, they should be referred to as vegans, or veganishes (?) because in spirit, if not actually in practice, they are vegans. They also contend that more people would be willing to try veganism if they didn’t have to be 100% vegan at the get-go, and if they weren’t attacked for not living up to some vegans’ perfect, yet “impossible” standards.

From an animal rights point of view, promoters of veganishism believe fewer “food” animals would suffer and die because given the choice between vegan and veganish, more people would choose the latter because it’s easier.

Now to me, veganish is no different from occasional vegetarianism or occasional carnism. I have no problem with the word vegan, its definition or adhering to its principles. But the bastardization or watering down of the word to make it more appealing to people troubles me.

To be vegan is to eliminate, as much as possible, ALL forms of cruelty towards other animals. And, I might add, ALL the time. Not whenever you feel like and not whenever it’s convenient. It’s a moral position (and a stand against violence), not one that you can ignore when it suits you and not one that changes day to day.

I have some friends who consider themselves "vegetarians in principle" because they say they love animals and they feel bad for them when they’re killed for food - but they still eat them. I think veganish is the same thing: you don't have to be vegan in practice, just in principle, kinda like Mark Bittman's Vegan Until Six program or the Conscientious Carnivores. If you cause suffering to animals once in a while, that's okay, because you're not really vegan - you're veganish!

Let’s look at it another way. If I reduced the amount of beatings I inflicted on my child by 95% I would still be a child abuser. If I was pulled over for speeding I could argue that since I go the speed limit 95%-ish of the time I really wasn’t speeding at all. The police officer would then tear up the ticket, tell me to have a nice day and let me go own my way - yeah right!

My point is that if you reduce your cruelty to animals, even by 80, 90 or 95%, but intentionally cause their suffering and death once in a while, you’re still causing their suffering and death. This is not something to celebrate.

Would we applaud the person who goes 364 days a year without sexually molesting a child or murdering another human being but “falls off the wagon” and destroys someone else’s life just that one time? How is this any different from “veganishism”? I’ll tell you: it’s no different because it still causes someone else to suffer.

And if you’re saying to yourself, “But he can’t compare the murder of a human being with the use of animals,” then you aren’t really an animal rights activist. That’s because equal consideration is at the heart of the animal rights movement. If you wouldn’t want someone to use, imprison, torture or slaughter you, then you don’t do it to someone else, whether that someone has two legs, four legs, wings or gills.

It’s easy to fall off the wagon if you’re vegetarian or vegan for health reasons or to reduce your carbon footprint. You can always assure yourself that, if you slip up, cheat or cave in one day, you can just make up for it the next day. What’s the harm?

We all consume things that aren’t 100% healthy for us, but we believe that “anything in moderation” is okay, or if we eat something bad “once in a while” it’s not going to kill us. After all, we’re not perfect and we all impact the planet negatively, to some degree, each and every day. In this context, falling off the wagon occasionally is no big deal.

But if you’re vegan for ethical reasons, because you believe that using and slaughtering animals are forms of violence and morally WRONG, then falling off the wagon occasionally becomes a BIG DEAL, because every time you consume animal products, you’re contributing to the suffering, exploitation and killing of other animals.

The whole idea of “veganish” seems to want to pat people on the back who aren’t fully committed to a lifestyle of compassion, and to make people feel good when they do eat animals. I think this is a mistake (and imagine how confusing it is to non-vegans!).

None of us are perfect and there's no such thing as a 100% consciously or unconsciously aware vegan - your car alone most likely contains animal by-products of one kind or another and we all support animal exploitation to a degree, even if it's buying vegan food at a grocery store that sells animal products - but the goal is to eliminate, as much as humanly possible, those products from your life.

If you want to cut down on your animal consumption for health, the environment or the animals, great! But making up a word to make people feel good about the occasional suffering and death they’re causing doesn’t change the fact that unless you’re vegan, you’re still part of the problem, just as you’re part of the problem if you murder, rape and steal (even if it’s only 5, 4, 3, 2 or 1% of the time).

I don't think anyone should be shamed or ridiculed because they're trying to be vegan, but stumble once in a while. If you’re vegan in every other aspect of your life but just can’t give up cheese, then you’re definitely reducing the amount of suffering in the world.

My advice to them is to do your best to be vegan. Don’t beat yourself up if you slip up once in a while, just get back on the wagon and move forward. Seek out vegan organizations to help you find cruelty-free alternatives and to reassure you that you’re doing the right thing when you’re feeling weak. You’ll find that other vegans will be more than happy to share their experiences and expertise with you!

But if you're “okay” with causing the suffering, exploitation and slaughter of other sentient beings, even once in a while, you're NOT vegan, and all the variations in the world (veganish, veganesque, etc.) won’t change the fact that until you DO go vegan, you’re still part of the problem, not the solution.

Does the individual cow, chicken or pig suffer any less if someone is veganish? As long as there is a demand for animal products - any amount of animal products - animals will continue to suffer and die. There’s no such thing as slaughter-lite, death-free death or exploitation-ish. The idea of veganish is just as absurd.

*According to Donald Watson, co-founder of the British Vegan Society and creator of the word, veganism “denotes a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude - as far as is possible and practical - all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of humans, animals and the environment."

A Bridge Too Far

"No! No different! Only different in your mind. You must unlearn what you have learned." – Yoda to Luke, The Empire Strikes Back

I have this friend. He’s a great guy, concerned about the environment, social justice issues, local and international politics, sustainable living, heritage preservation and so on. He has so much integrity, passion and commitment that he started an online newspaper, devoting most of his free time and energy to inform and educate the masses (and he doesn’t even get paid for it!).

He’s also a huge animal lover. For as long as I can remember he’s written about issues concerning animals. He’s always condemned local and national acts of animal cruelty. He’s called for stronger laws to protect animals we call pets from abuse. He’s written against the insidious past-time known as sport hunting. And he’s been a relentless pain in the butt towards those who keep whales in captivity.

He supports local animal rights groups when they hold their protests and vigils, advertises and covers various lectures and symposiums to enlighten the public on animal issues, and even features animal adoptions on his website.

Yet despite all his concern and compassion for other living beings, he still supports the exploitation, suffering and slaughter of animals for food. He still EATS animals and animal products.

We’ve talked about it a lot, and I’ve even offered to take him out and treat him to a delicious vegan meal at a restaurant just down the street from his house. So far he hasn’t taken me up on it.

In a recent email, my friend wrote:

“please don't ask me if I am vegan yet .... as much as I share your passion for all creatures great and small on this planet, that probably ain't going to happen for me. .... not eating an egg is a bridge too far.”

It’s not the first time I’ve heard this. Many people I’ve spoken with over the years have expressed the same sentiments. But does this make my friend a hypocrite? Is it hypocritical to condemn those who exploit and kill animals for commercial gain or personal satisfaction, only to support other forms of violence towards animals?

What’s the difference between stealing whales from the wild (or breeding them in captivity) to live as slaves for human entertainment, and breeding cows, pigs and chickens to live as slaves destined for slaughter (yes, cows and chickens are slaughtered when they can’t produce any more milk or eggs) because people enjoy the taste of their flesh and secretions?

And what’s the difference between the family who buys a season’s pass to the marine park and the family who buys a ham for Easter?

I can picture my friend interviewing someone who kills animals for their fur. “Isn’t it cruel to kill an animal just to make someone else look good?” he asks. The fur trapper then replies:

“please don't ask me if I am going to give up killing animals for the fur industry .... as much as I share your passion for all creatures great and small on this planet, that probably ain't going to happen for me. .... not trapping animals is a bridge too far.”

Or how about the person who keeps whales in tiny concrete tanks?

“please don't ask me if I am going to stop displaying whales .... as much as I share your passion for all creatures great and small on this planet, that probably ain't going to happen for me. .... not displaying whales (and jeopardizing the success of my business) is a bridge too far.”

Cruelty is cruelty, and suffering is suffering. It is no less so just because it’s being done to a different kind of animal. That doesn’t mean I think my friend is a cold-blooded killer or cruel animal collector, but in regards to reducing animal suffering and ultimately the amount of unnecessary violence in the world, if you’re not part of the solution…

So what IS the solution for my friend? Put your money where your mouth is. Like Gandhi said, be the change you want to see in the world. If you’re against animal exploitation, slavery and cruelty, go vegan. Can’t give up eggs yet? Then give up everything except eggs. A little bit is better than nothing at all. But don’t write it all off because you’re too old or too set in your ways.

Or as Yoda would say, only in your mind is the bridge too far…

Violent vegans

“Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.” - Isaac Asimov

This guy has a piece of celery in one ear, a carrot in the other ear and a zucchini up his nose. He goes to the doctor and asks him what’s wrong. The doctor tells him, “Well, for one thing, you're not eating right.”

Okay, maybe not the funniest joke in the world but I just wanted to show you that I do have a sense of humour. But what I read last week wasn’t funny to me at all. In fact, I thought it was quite appalling.

The incident I’m referring to is the pie-ing of Lierre Keith, former vegan and author of The Vegetarian Myth, by three hooded vegan extremists.

According to the San Francisco Chronicle, the assault took place at an anarchist book fair, where Keith was promoting her book, and the pies thrown at her were reportedly laced with chili peppers. For the complete story, click here:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/03/17/MNGI1CGM1H.DTL

A similar occurrence happened here in Canada a few months ago, when a pie-wielding PETA member attacked the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans because she supported the annual east coast seal slaughter. PETA claimed responsibility for the pie assault and the woman, an American from New York City, was charged. Here’s the link to that story:

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/755483--anti-sealing-peta-protester-smacks-minister-with-tofu-pie

Now there are a lot of things that people say and do that I disagree with, but I don’t go around throwing pies at them. It’s not only childish; it’s an act of violence. Veganism is supposed to be about NON-violence.

And while a number of people have applauded the pie-throwing episode in San Francisco, some vegans don’t even consider it an act of violence. According to a person who witnessed the assault:

“I was there and perhaps I should have snickered in silence, and I am the first one to condemn ‘violence’, but I firmly feel that this was not a violent act, but a clever and effective direct action. The only thing the pie throwing ninjas bruised was her ego. Lierre Keith's book is very dangerous to the vegan movement.”

For the record, hitting someone in the face with a pie IS a violent act. It’s a display of force meant to embarrass or humiliate someone else, and it’s doing something to someone else against their will - a violation. It doesn't matter that Keith wasn’t physically or seriously injured.

So what are these people trying to prove? Do they think they’re going to win the public over or be taken seriously by hitting people in the face with pies? What message do they hope to impart on society, other than if you support acts of violence against animals (or even write against vegetarianism/veganism), you will become the target of violence?

Some animal activists used to do the same thing to people who wore fur, but instead of throwing pies, they threw red paint (and apparently still do on occasion). But the tactics, and the message, are still the same: the use of violence to raise awareness of violence. It’s all pretty stupid if you ask me.

And it’s counter-productive. Throwing pies at people doesn’t make them think about animal suffering or animal rights. It will however, make them think that animal activists are a bunch of crazy idiots.

Since 99% of the population doesn’t see anything wrong with using or eating animals, a lot of people will use this stunt (and others like it) to denounce veganism, and label us all as angry, militant and irrational hypocrites, even though it's not true.

If these violent outbursts continue, the progress we’ve made as agents for peaceful change will suffer. We’ll be branded extremists and terrorists. Never mind Lierre Keith’s book; it’s the pie-throwings and other senseless acts of violence that could do the vegan movement the most harm.

2012: The Year to go Vegan

I love the new year. It comes with so much promise; so many wonderful possibilities. And it’s always my hope that the new year will be even more wonderful than the last.

I’m also a huge fan of making New Year’s resolutions and I believe everyone should make at least one resolution and try to stick to it.

Of course, my dream would be that everyone reading this blog makes it his or her New Year’s resolution to go vegan - to end the unnecessary suffering and death of other animals (and by doing so improve your health, help the planet and end world hunger).

And you can start to do all this by simply changing your diet. How cool is that?

Veganism is a journey; an adventure. Whether it’s a joyous and exciting one is entirely up to you (to learn why vegetarianism doesn’t go far enough to end animal suffering, please go to: http://veganpartyofcanada.blogspot.com/2008/07/what-is-veganism.html).

All that’s required to begin the journey is a positive attitude and the proper motivation. And here's the motivation:

If you care about animals or feel that there’s too much violence in the world AND WANT TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT, this is the way to start. As Kafka said, “Now I can look at you in peace; I don’t eat you anymore.”

So make it your New Year’s resolution to go vegan. If you feel you can’t go totally vegan right away then do it in steps. Try eating vegan once a week and then twice a week and so on and so forth. If you fall off the wagon, don’t beat yourself up BUT DON’T QUIT! Just get back on and try again.

If you need help, don’t hesitate to contact me and I’ll try to steer you in the right direction regarding recipes, resources or moral support. And, if you’re so inclined, send me the occasional progress reports to let me know how you’re doing (travel advisory: don’t embark on this journey alone; let others help you along the way and share in your adventure).

Good Luck & Happy New Year!

Daniel

Being vegan is more than just a personal choice

As far as some people are concerned, us “holier-than-thou” vegans can take our self-righteous and condescending views and stick them where the sun don’t shine (and while I’m tempted to say this attitude only comes from meat-eaters, I know a number of vegetarians who feel the same way).

What we put in our mouths is a personal choice, they argue, and if we don’t want to eat animal products then fine, but we have no business telling others what to do and are often accused of “ramming” our beliefs down other people’s throats.

Aside from the fact that we still live in a part of the world where we can freely offer our opinions without fear of persecution, and that stating an opinion isn’t the same as forcing someone to do something, most people really don’t “choose” to eat animal products at all.

Instead we’ve been conditioned to eat what we do, just as we’ve been conditioned to believe in one religion or another. In most cases it was our parents who trained us to eat animal products, literally shoving their own beliefs down our throats when we were young, which in turn had been shoved down their throats by their parents, and so on, just as religion has been passed on from one generation to the next. We teach what we know; it’s human nature to nurture.

Still, a lot of people defend their eating habits on the grounds of personal freedom, saying it’s their “right” to eat whatever they want. And while the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees freedom of conscience, religion, thought, belief, expression, the press, peaceful assembly and association, it doesn’t guarantee the freedom to "eat whatever you feel like". Neither does the United States Constitution nor the Bill of Rights (I checked).

But in the end it doesn’t really matter. Let’s say meat-eating is a personal choice. So what? Rape and murder are personal choices too. Does that mean it's okay? So instead of defending one's choice to eat animal products, we need to ask ourselves, is it the right choice? Does it justify our claims of being a peace-loving and moralistic society? Is it a true reflection of our concepts of mercy and compassion?

We concluded long ago that the murder of other humans is morally unacceptable so laws were created to reinforce that position. Slavery, child labour and racial and sexual discrimination have also been outlawed (for the most part anyways). We don’t condone or encourage these activities even though they too are “personal choices”.

Killing animals for food (among other things) is still legal, but since there are other ways to maintain good health and nutrition, it's wrong because it causes unnecessary suffering and death and deprives other animals of their freedom and their desire to live.

Being vegan is more than just a personal choice. It’s a commitment to non-violence and a reverence for all sentient life. No one has the "right" or "freedom" to eat or do whatever they want if it causes injury, suffering and death to others.

Cheap & Easy! Creative vegan education that is...

A lot has been written about how we can reach out and educate people about veganism so I’m going to try not to repeat what I’ve already read. It’s out there and it’s easy to find online.

What I would like to do is share a few things that my friends and I have done (and do) to speak up for animal justice. Activism doesn’t have to take a lot of time or cost a lot of money. And the great thing about it is that we’re only limited by our imaginations!

Bumper stickers are great, especially the magnetic kind, but a friend of mine has gone one step further and spray-painted GO VEGAN on the hood of his car. All it took was a can of spray paint and some masking tape and viola! A mobile billboard.

T-shirts with messages on the back are also effective, if you consider how much time we spend in lines (at the bank, the grocery store, the movies, concerts, coffee shops, and the DMV) and because it’s on the back, you aren’t confronting someone directly. Instead, they’re able to read your shirt without getting all defensive.

Buttons are also useful. I have a number of buttons on my backpack that I wear when I go hiking with my outdoors club. Which brings me to another great way to raise awareness: join a club!

As a member of a club, you’ll be able to interact with people and influence the way the club operates. I joined a hiking club last year and I manage to work veganism into the conversation on almost every hike. In the spring I was able to steer a conversation about the smell of wildflowers to veganism and sure enough, people started questioning me on what I eat. The club now serves veggie burgers and veggie dogs at their barbecues and vegan pizza at their fundraisers.

You can also turn the conversation to veganism in restaurants, on the bus, at the coffeemaker at work (discussing news, entertainment or about what you did on the weekend) or even at the dentist’s office, which I was able to do by talking about my vegan toothpaste.

The health food section of the grocery store is also a good place to strike up a conversation with other shoppers, or you can ask the manager to carry more vegan products and why.

If you’re adventurous, you can also attend environmental events and hand out leaflets about veganism, explaining that a plant-based diet is not only good for the animals, it’s good for your health and the planet too. Last summer I “crashed” a Green Party meet-and-greet where they were cooking up animals on the grill, and since then they’ve invited me to table at two of their events by promoting veganism, with the last one featuring a vegetarian potluck (it’s a start).

Library displays are another good way to educate the public about veganism. Most libraries will provide you with a table and let you set up for a week or even a month, depending on the branch. This is where you can let your creative juices flow, or if you choose, you can rely on literature and posters from some of the bigger animal rights organizations.

Hosting a vegan potluck (whether on your own at your house or through your animal rights group) is another fantastic way to really impress upon people that going vegan isn’t difficult and that vegan food CAN taste great! Potlucks are also useful for networking with others, sharing recipes and providing support for people either making the transition or those who feel alienated from family and friends because of their beliefs.

Writing letters to the editor of your local newspaper is a free and easy way to reach a lot of people about veganism (and a lot of newspapers now offer an online comments section too). Whether it’s in response to a story, an ad promoting animal exploitation (a circus, rodeo, fish fry or even a sale on turkeys), or about someone else's letter to the editor, you can let people know how you feel on the issues.

Finally, keeping brochures in your backpack, in your car or in your desk at work is a great idea too. You never know when the opportunity will arise and it’s always good to be prepared.

Two great places to download and print your own vegan brochures are Gary Francione’s Abolitionist Approach website:

http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/media/pdf/ARAA_Pamphlet.pdf

and Peaceful Prairie Sanctuary:

http://www.peacefulprairie.org/prairiePress.html

The Boston Vegan Association also has a wonderful, free, full colour brochure for qualifying activists:

http://bostonvegan.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=354&Itemid=126

Good Luck and Happy Educating!

Homo sapiens or Homo psychopathiens?

By Daniel K. Wilson

psychopath, n. a person having a character disorder distinguished by amoral or antisocial behaviour without feelings of remorse

amoral, adj. 1. without moral quality; neither moral or immoral. 2. lacking or indifferent to moral standards, criteria, or principles

moral, adj. 1. of, or pertaining to, or concerned with the principles of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical

I watched Earthlings for the first time last week with a group of university students that were also seeing it for the first time. Now I’ve been fighting and speaking up for the rights of animals for almost 10 years and I’ve seen a lot of sickening, twisted and horrible animal cruelty caught on tape. I thought I was immune!

But what I saw on the screen was so vile and so overwhelming that it truly disgusted me to be associated with the rest of humanity. I wasn’t myself for days. I won’t go into the graphic details of the film, as I’m sure most of you reading this have already seen it. But if you haven’t, I recommend you do, animal activist or not (albeit armed with a good supply of tissues).

As I facilitated the post-film discussion, I asked the teary-eyed kids in attendance if they thought the people committing the incomprehensible acts of violence in the film were psychopaths or if our entire society was psychopathic to allow, promote and participate in the institutionalized cruelty we so easily and without provocation inflict upon the animals.

I believe our society, hell, our whole damn species, is psychopathic. I can’t think of any sane reason for what we do to the animals. We know they feel pain. We know they suffer and bleed and fear death. We know that when they’re beaten they cry out in agony.

We know they can sense when they’re about to be slaughtered and we know they try to avoid it with every fiber of their being. We know they experience terror and we know that their screams are screams of terror and not of indifference. We know it but that knowledge doesn’t stop most of us from doing it.

And what do we make of people like ourselves; part of this violent and sadistic culture yet dedicated to peace and compassion? What makes us different? Not everyone who sees Earthlings, or sees the inside of a slaughterhouse for that matter, will go vegan (although I’m certain many will). Why do some people change while others do not?

Is it perhaps that we are the next link in the evolution of humankind; homo sapiens pathiens (from the Greek pathos meaning to evoke pity or compassion): the wise and compassionate human? I don’t know. I don't have all the answers.

But I do know that sooner or later some of us will ask ourselves: how do we go on? How do we keep on fighting when 99% of humanity - our friends, family, co-workers and community leaders - have such utter contempt and disregard for the feelings and suffering of animals? How do we go on when it seems like we’re powerless to protect the animals from the evils of the human race?

The answer is we just do.

The very first vegan newsletter

Gary Francione published this over at http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/ and I thought that I'd publish it too. It's the very first vegan newsletter ever printed, back in 1944 by Donald Watson of the then newly-formed Vegan Society.

The points Watson makes are witty, eloquent, and as relevant today as when he wrote them over 60 years ago! It's just an awesome piece of writing. I believe it also reinforces what many of us believe to be one of the core concepts of veganism - abolition with no apologies or excuses. Enjoy!

THE VEGAN NEWS

(QUARTERLY MAGAZINE OF THE NON-DAIRY VEGETARIANS.)

Price 2d. (Post free 3d.) Yearly Subscription 1/-

NO. 1. NOVEMBER 1944.

The recent articles and letters in "The Vegetarian Messenger" on the question of the use of dairy produce have revealed very strong evidence to show that the production of these foods involves much cruel exploitation and slaughter of highly sentient life. The excuse that it is not necessary to kill in order to obtain dairy produce is untenable for those with a knowledge of livestock farming methods and of the competition which even humanitarian farmers must face if they are to remain in business.

For years many of us accepted, as lacto-vegetarians, that the flesh-food industry and the dairy produce industry were related, and that in some ways they subsidised one another. We accepted, therefore, that the case on ethical grounds for the disuse of these foods was exceptionally strong, and we hoped that sooner or later a crisis in our conscience would set us free.

That freedom has now come to us. Having followed a diet free from all animal food for periods varying from a few weeks in some cases, to many years in others, we believe our ideas and experiences are sufficiently mature to be recorded. The unquestionable cruelty associated with the production of dairy produce has made it clear that lacto-vegetarianism is but a half-way house between flesh-eating and a truly humane, civilised diet, and we think, therefore, that during our life on earth we should try to evolve sufficiently to make the 'full journey'.

We can see quite plainly that our present civilisation is built on the exploitation of animals, just as past civilisations were built on the exploitation of slaves, and we believe the spiritual destiny of man is such that in time he will view with abhorrence the idea that men once fed on the products of animals' bodies. Even though the scientific evidence may be lacking, we shrewdly suspect that the great impediment to man's moral development may be that he is a parasite of lower forms of animal life. Investigation into the non-material (vibrational) properties of foods has yet barely begun, and it is not likely that the usual materialistic methods of research will be able to help much with it. But is it not possible that as a result of eliminating all animal vibrations from our diet we may discover the way not only to really healthy cell construction but also to a degree of intuition and psychic awareness unknown at present?

A common criticism is that the time is not yet ripe for our reform. Can time ever be ripe for any reform unless it is ripened by human determination? Did Wilberforce wait for the 'ripening' of time before he commenced his fight against slavery? Did Edwin Chadwick, Lord Shaftesbury, and Charles Kingsley wait for such a non-existent moment before trying to convince the great dead weight of public opinion that clean water and bathrooms would be an improvement? If they had declared their intention to poison everybody the opposition they met could hardly have been greater. There is an obvious danger in leaving the fulfilment of our ideals to posterity, for posterity may not have our ideals. Evolution can be retrogressive as well as progressive, indeed there seems always to be a strong gravitation the wrong way unless existing standards are guarded and new visions honoured. For this reason we have formed our Group, the first of its kind, we believe, in this or any other country.

ORGANISATION OF THE GROUP

Our 25 Members are scattered far and wide, therefore a Committee is not possible. In the absence of other volunteers I have undertaken the duties of Hon. Secretary, Hon. Treasurer, and Hon. Auditor, and if this undemocratic Constitution offends, I am open to receive suggestions of any scheme that would enable me, either intentionally or accidentally,to embezzle the Group's funds from subscriptions of a shilling a year!

The work of the Group at first will be confined to the propaganda contained in the bulletin. Very great interest has recently been aroused by our arguments, and it seems certain that the bulletin will be widely read. Many orders for the first four quarterly issues have already been received, and more will come when we advertise. Mr J.W. Robertson Scott, Editor of "The Countryman", has written to us - "I should be glad to hear what success you have in collecting non-dairy produce consumers. I have always felt that from the agricultural point of view the vegetarian occupies an illogical position, for just as eggs cannot be produced without killing cockerels, dairy produce cannot be economically got without the co-operation of the butcher." The clarity by which vegetarians generally are seeing this issue is well represented by the result of a recent debate arranged by the Croydon Vegetarian Society, when the motion was carried almost unanimously 'That vegetarians should aim at eliminating all dairy produce'. If we remember rightly the voting was 30 to 2.

Our Members are pronounced individualists, not easily scared by criticism, and filled with the spirit of pioneers, and one feels they will never allow their magazine to degenerate into a purely secretarial production. All are invited to subscribe something periodically to make the magazine interesting, useful, and thought provoking. Could we have a series of articles (of about 600 words) on "My Spiritual Philosophy"? Articles, letters, recipes, diet charts, health records, press cuttings, gardening hints, advice on baby culture, advertisements (free toMembers), all will be welcome. Letters of criticism from those who disagree with us will also be published. This is real pioneer work, and if we cooperate fully we shall certainly see an advancement in humanitarian practice, and perhaps we shall reveal some otherwise inaccessible dietetic truths. Let us remember how very much of modern dietetic research is fostered by vested interests and performed in vivisection laboratories, and that incidentally we are still without much data concerning the merits of diets free from animal food. We know that domesticated animals today are almost universally diseased, therefore so long as 99.9999% of the population consume the products of these diseased bodies, how are we to measure the mischief such foods maybe doing? A hundred people living strictly on a 'live' non-animal diet for a few years would furnish data of inestimable value. Government grants have been made for much less useful social work!

WANTED - A NAME

We should all consider carefully what our Group, and our magazine, and ourselves, shall be called. 'Non-dairy' has become established as a generally understood colloquialism, but like 'non-lacto' it is too negative. Moreover it does not imply that we are opposed to the use of eggs as food. We need a name that suggests what we do eat, and if possible one that conveys the idea that even with all animal foods taboo, Nature still offers us a bewildering assortment from which to choose. 'Vegetarian' and 'Fruitarian' are already associated with societies that allow the 'fruits'(!) of cows and fowls, therefore it seems we must make a new and appropriate word. As this first issue of our periodical had to be named, I have used the title "The Vegan News". Should we adopt this, our diet will soon become known as a VEGAN diet, and we should aspire to the rank of VEGANS. Members' suggestions will be welcomed. The virtue of having a short title is best known to those of us who, as secretaries of vegetarian societies have to type or write the word vegetarian thousands of times a year!

OUR RELATIONS WITH THE LACTO-VEGETARIANS

The object of our Group is to state a case for a reform that we think is moral, safe and logical. In doing so we shall, of course, say strongly why we condemn the use of dairy produce and eggs. In return we shall expect to be criticised. It will be no concern of ours if we fail to convert others, but we do think it should concern them if, deep in their hearts, they know we are right. In any case, there need be no animosity between ourselves and the 'lactos'. We all accept that lactovegetarianism has a well appointed place in dietary evolution, and for this reason several of us spend a great deal of our time working for the lacto-vegetarian Cause. During recent years the two national vegetarian societies have devoted much space in their magazines to this question of the use of dairy product, and we have every reason to believe they will attach importance to our work and occasionally report on it. (Before forming the Group, the suggestion was made to The Vegetarian Society that such a Section be formed as part of the Society. The suggestion was considered sympathetically by the Committee, who decided that the full energies of the Society must continue to be applied to the task of abolishing flesh-eating, and that any such Group would, therefore, be freer to act as an independent body.) The need to prove that it is possible to thrive without dairy produce is, of course, far too important for any lacto-vegetarian to ignore. To resign oneself to lactovegetarianism as a satisfactory solution to the diet problem is to accept a sequence of horrible farmyard and slaughter-house incidents as part of an inevitable Divine Plan. Need it be added that it would imply too accepting the spectacle of a grown man attached to the udder of a cow as a dignified and rational intention on the part of Nature!

Without making any claims to self-righteousness, we feel in a strong position to criticise lacto-vegetarianism, because the worst we can say will be but a repetition of criticism we have already levelled against ourselves. Therefore we shall express the Truth as we see it and feel it,and though our friends the lacto-vegetarians may reject our ideas if they wish, we hope they will not reject us for stating them.

CONCERNING OURSELVES

So far as we are aware, every Member of our Group has discarded the use of dairy produce for humanitarian reasons. We are not by any means ignorant of orthodox dietetic theories, and in exercising our moral conviction we find we must refute some of these theories. We do so without fear because we feel that a moral philosophy combined with a dash of common sense is a more rational guide than theories hatched in vivisection laboratories. We will not accept that adequate nutrition need violate conscience. We question very strongly whether those dieticians who laud the praises of animal proteins have ever tried living on a sensible diet free from such proteins, and if they have not, we fail to see how they can pass useful judgment. We know that man's anatomy is unquestionably frugivorous. We know that milk drinking by adults is an absurdity never intended by Nature. We know that we are at least as well without dairy produce as we were with it. We know that 40% at least of cows are now tubercular. We know that pasteurisation enables the milk retailers to sell milk several days old. We know what happens to those who feed on the 'nourishing first-class proteins' recommended by orthodox dieticians - they nearly all die of malignant and filthy diseases. Heaven help us if our diet fails us to anything like the same degree!

Apart from saying that we are 'Quite well, thanks', we consider the time perhaps premature to make any great claims for the physiological superiority of our diet. Humbly, your Secretary is able to state that he can now cycle 230 miles in a day, whereas years ago when he stoked himself with milk and eggs he was ready for Bed and Breakfast after doing half that distance. He can also dig his allotments for ten hours a day without feeling any different next morning, but we must be careful in making claims lest the world hears of us and expects to meet eight foot rosy cheeked muscular monsters who are immune to all ills of the flesh. We may be sure that should anything so much as a pimple ever appear to marr the beauty of our physical form, it will be entirely due in the eyes of the world to our own silly fault for not eating 'proper food'. Against such a pimple the great plagues of diseases now ravaging nearly all members of civilised society (who live on 'proper food') will pass unnoticed. It is as well that we gird ourselves to meet our critics! In our more reflective moments we cannot help thinking that there are greater risks in life than living on clean salads, fruits, nuts, and whole cereals. We can hardly wish to be classed as moral giants because we choose to live on a diet so obviously favouring self preservation.

Believing that some Members may wish to correspond with each other,we propose to publish in our next issue their names and addresses. Any Member preferring not to be included in the list should let me know.

We hear that a pamphlet opposing the use of milk was written 40 years ago by a Harley Street specialist. Does any Member happen to know anything of this publication?

CONCERNING THOSE NOT YET WITH US

We agree that to eliminate all dairy produce creates personal difficulties which vary in magnitude from one individual to another. We agree also that the present is not the easiest time to make such a change, but we think that in laying the foundations of our Movement now, many will soon join us as one of their 'Peace Aims'. We know that there is particular unrest in the minds of vegetarians generally concerning the use of rennet in cheese making, and as this appears to be the most glaring inconsistency of lacto-vegetarianism, we suggest that others do as we did and eliminate cheese first. Our friend and fellow member Dugald Semple tells us he has never tasted cheese, therefore it cannot be considered as an essential 'binding agent' for body and soul! The following passages from the editorial of the current issue of "The Vegetarian News" does not, we think, allow of much argument: "Most vegetarians are doubtless aware that the use of calve's rennet in the production of cheese has always presented a problem to anyone of humane principles, necessitating as it does the killing of calves to obtain the rennet. In the supposed absence of any purely vegetarian substitute for rennet some vegetarians abstain altogether from the use of cheese, except for the simple cottage varieties, while probably the majority of vegetarians take their ration of ordinary cheese and try to forget the incidence of the calve's rennet in its making." Should moralists dissipate their energies trying to forget such things?

During the war eggs have all but vanished, and they can readily be dispensed with for good without any sense of loss if one dwells on the fact that they are for the most part nothing more than reconstituted grubs and beetles! The elimination of milk undoubtedly presents the greatest difficulty. Nut milk is a good substitute, but it does not go well in tea (therefore cut out the tea and add yet another ten years to your life!)

Those of us who have lived for long periods without dairy produce are able to give the assurance that we remain well and strong; that we enjoy our food as much as ever, and that once the new diet has been arranged the sight and smell of dairy produce is soon forgotten.

"The incidence of disease of one kind and another continues to be a great limiting factor in milk production, besides involving loss to the farmer. Tuberculosis is one of the most intractable sources of trouble, so much so that a speaker at the Farmers' Club recently said we had made no progress in the last 40 years." - The Agricultural Correspondent,"The Yorkshire Post",18.11.44.

"Give me a drink of whisky, I'm thirsty."
"You should drink milk - milk makes blood."
"But I'm not blood-thirsty."

67 Evesham Road, Leicester. Donald Watson.

Vegans against veganism

Rant by Daniel K. Wilson

I recently attended a vegan potluck hosted by a local animal rights group who had a person from a national animal welfare organization speak about factory farming.

According to the speaker (a vegan), this national charity (consisting of a mostly vegan board of directors) is working to improve the conditions of farm animals by trying to eliminate battery cages, reduce transport times for animals on their way to slaughter, provide sick and injured animals with proper veterinary care, and generally make the lives of “food” animals better during their exploitation and as they’re killed.

Did I mention they also promote “certified organic, humane certified, free range or free-run” animal products? I thought I was dreaming, and pinched myself to make sure. Then I asked how a group of vegans can, in good conscience, promote the killing and consuming of animals in any way, shape or form, and suggested that it might be a better use of their time, energy and money to actually promote veganism instead.

That didn’t go over too well with a number of vegans in the room, who accused me of being too extreme. They also told me that vegan education and legislative reforms are not mutually exclusive and since everybody reacts differently to different approaches based on their life experiences, all forms of awareness need to be utilized, including happy meat campaigns, instead of just vegan outreach.

Someone said that people can’t just go vegan overnight because it’s too hard, so baby steps are necessary (baby steps in this case meaning animal welfare reforms and humane meat campaigns) to help the animals. Another said it would be counterproductive if all animal rights groups were only promoting veganism, because most people aren’t ready to embrace it yet.

I had to think about that one for a minute - all the animal rights organizations in the world only promoting veganism. Yeah, that would be horrible. And for the record, I’m so tired of animal rights people and vegans saying veganism is hard. It’s not, especially with all the meat and dairy alternatives available today.

One of the many problems, as I see it, with animal rights groups promoting animal welfare is that it’s dishonest. These groups don’t really want people to eat certified organic or humanely-raised animals at all but they’re afraid to say so out of fear of alienating people. So they lobby governments for more humane methods of confining, transporting and killing animals, hoping the public will jump on that bandwagon and pressure the government for reforms.

And if the government listens to them and passes legislation five or ten years down the road, then they can claim victory: the animals are now a little bit more comfortable and killed a little bit more humanely (whatever that means) and that’s great because it’s what these animal rights groups wanted all along, right? Wrong. What they really wanted was for people to stop killing and eating animals.

Still unsatisfied (even though it’s what they said they wanted), they’ll start a new campaign for even more humane treatment of animals being exploited and killed for their flesh, fluids and eggs, and if they get that, they’ll ask for even more reforms! This song and dance will go on and on until one day, perhaps a million years from now, they might actually get around to encouraging people to give up animal products altogether.

What a monumental waste of time, energy and animal lives! It’s also deceitful. If you want people to stop eating animal products, say so. If veganism is your end goal, then have the conviction to state it up front. If you don’t, the public will feel that they’ve been lied to and you’ll lose all credibility, with those you’re trying to educate, and with those fighting for animal liberation. Have a little bit of faith in the people you’re trying to educate. Not everyone is going to become vegan but a lot will. And we’re only going to find out how many are willing to embrace veganism when we start promoting it.

The other problem with these kinds of campaigns is that it confuses people. Upon hearing about the horrors of factory farms, a person at the potluck asked, “So you’re saying free-range is good, right?” And that’s when the “ums”, “wells” and “actuallys” started. The speaker said that um, well, she wasn’t actually personally endorsing free-range (but the group’s literature and website does) and um, well, they would actually prefer that people eat less, or no meat. These are mixed messages. People concerned about animal suffering are looking for leadership and direction. And young people are the next wave of vegan activists so we have to be clear about what we’re trying to do and teach them the right way from the start.

If you think that negotiating with the exploiters or petitioning the government to do the right thing is the way to go, you’re sadly mistaken. And tricking the public into believing you’re for one thing when you’re really for another is false advertising. The answer is vegan education, at the grass-roots level, one person at a time, one day at a time. As the number of vegans increase, the demand for animal products will decrease. It’s as simple as that.

But if vegans aren’t going to promote veganism, who will?

Leo Tolstoy, why I went vegan and why we can NEVER stop spreading the word

“If it were not so blindly accepted as part of our customs and traditions, how could any sensitive person accept the thought that in order to feed ourselves we should kill such a large number of animals, in spite of the fact that our earth gives us so many different treasures from plants?” - Leo Tolstoy

When I was 25, my sister announced to the family that she had “gone vegetarian.” Curious, I asked her why, and she said it was because she wouldn’t eat anything that had a face, whatever THAT meant. My response, as I recall, went something like this: “Well we’re omnivores, just like bears, so when you convince a bear to stopping eating meat, then I’ll stop eating meat.”

That was almost 20 years ago and I’ve been vegan for nearly 10. It just goes to show you that anyone can change, even a numbskull like me. My “epiphany” came about 12 years ago, after reading a book called A Calendar of Wisdom, by Leo Tolstoy; a collection of quotes from such thinkers as Lao Tzu, Socrates, Mohammed and Henry David Thoreau, as well as bits of wisdom by Leo himself.

Reading this particular quote (above) was the turning point for me. It just made good sense. Why would I cause the unnecessary suffering of other animals if I didn’t have to? If I could survive by eating vegetables, fruits, grains and other plant foods (foods my mother always said were good for me), then to have animals killed merely for my eating enjoyment would just be cruel.

This was at a time when I didn’t know any other vegetarians (my sister eventually went back to eating animal products) and as far as I knew, PeTA was a type of bread from the Middle East, but within a few weeks, I had given up all animal flesh, and I didn’t die! Not only that, but it was easy to make the switch to a vegetarian diet because I just replaced the hotdogs, hamburgers and burritos - all I was really eating at the time - with veggie dogs, veggie burgers and veggie burritos.

I felt pretty good about myself, knowing that I wasn’t causing the suffering and death of all these animals, and then in 2000, a friend of mine invited me to go listen to a guy who was giving a talk at the local university. It was during Professor Francione’s lecture that I learned what happened to dairy cows and egg-laying chickens, and so I vowed that night to go vegan, and have been ever since.

So when people say that promoting veganism is hopeless, I remind them that I used to be just like the people we’re trying to educate today, and look at me now! There is always hope.

I know it might seem like we’re not getting anywhere but we are. We have to remember that this is a new movement and it’s going to take some time to undo thousands of years of anthropocentrism and animal oppression. But more and more people ARE going vegan, and while it might not be popular right now, at least people know about it, which wasn’t the case 20 years ago when hardly anyone even knew what it meant.

And I know it’s frustrating and heart-wrenching to know that millions of animals are being killed each and every day which is why we need to get out there and spread the word and NEVER LOSE HOPE. The animals are depending on us.

"... a little tired of ribs, but..."

The Rotarians were at it again last weekend, serving up body parts of tortured little animals as part of Ribfest in St. Catharines (see complete story below).

http://www.stcatharinesstandard.ca/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1684442

What kills me, aside from people killing animals for fun, are comments from individuals like the lady quoted at Ribfest, who say they are bored or tired of eating this or that animal. How many times have you heard someone say after Thanksgiving or Christmas, "Awh, turkey again!" They just want a little variety when it comes to eating somebody else's flesh.

What they haven't considered - or don't care about - is that the boring food they are getting sick of used to be a living, breathing animal, forced to live in misery and filth before he or she was hauled off to the abbatoir to be butchered and dismembered so other people could get tired of eating him or her.

I'm also reminded of all the animals that are discarded by grocery stores: animals that are slaughtered, carved and cut up and then put on display at the deli counter, just to be "DISCOUNTED FOR QUICK SALE" and, if not sold by the end of the day, thrown out with all the other garbage. What a waste of life!

Anyways, I think I'm going to send the Rotarians a letter, along with a Compassionate Choices booklet, with the hope that they will at least think about the suffering they are causing, and let them know that there are many other ways to raise money that do not involve the taking of another's life, no matter how tasty those others may be.

Vegan 101: tips for spreading the message

examiner.com - Tuesday, July 28, 2009

By Ed Coffin, Philadelphia Vegan Examiner

Veganism is finally receiving the attention it deserves. Whether or not people agree with it, veganism is quickly becoming one of the most pressing social justice issues of our time. Veganism is appearing everywhere from local restaurant menus to mainstream media coverage.

For those of us who already subscribe to the idea that animals should exist for their own reasons and not be subject to exploitation or interference by humans, we need to begin questioning the productiveness and effectiveness of our efforts.

Ask yourself the following questions:

Am I taking action to influence others?

Do I stay calm when people don't agree?

Is my message clear and consistent?

Do I know what I'm talking about?

Does my message reflect my ethics?

Is my message easy to understand?

Do people generally agree with me?

Do people return to me with additional questions?

Do I know the common rebuttals to my ideas?

Am I friendly and approachable?

If you answered "no" to any of the above questions, you may want to consider how changing your behavior could have a direct impact on the amount of people that adopt your ideas.

People are more willing to follow the ideas of those that they like and trust. Think back to a time when you were in an academic setting. Were you more receptive to professors that you liked or those that you hated? When people don't like you, they're generally not going to like your ideas whether they agree with them or not.

Don't be discouraged if you haven't had successful conversations with others in the past. Everyone has made irrational decisions in the heat of a debate that they regret. Take it as a learning experience. Think about how you can change your tactics in the future to get people to agree with you.

Tips for improving effectiveness of communications with others:

Agree and relate often with the other person.

Become informed in the subject you're discussing.

Use a tone of voice that is not aggressive or condescending.

Try to steer away from abstract, hypothetical questions.

Make sure your appearance does not discredit your opinion.

Recognize when the other person is no longer receptive.

Attempt to incorporate as many personal experiences as possible.

Let the other person express their opinion and listen sincerely.

Try not to use an abundance of unfamiliar terms that they don't understand.

Don't lie or exaggerate if you don't know the answer.

Remember, you can't force someone to understand and agree with you on the first try. Most of the time planting the seed is more important than winning the debate.

If people think about what you have to say and have questions in the future, it's likely that they'll ask you more about it if they feel comfortable approaching you about it.

Unfortunately, despite the media attention and exposure, a vegan world is only going to occur through a grassroots effort. We need to change the way society thinks about animals. The more effective we are at convincing people to reconsider their habits, the sooner we will have a compassionate world.

New Vegan Party Display!

The new Vegan Party of Canada display is finally done! We have our banner and a number of free-standing posters too, which we will be displaying at the Toronto Vegetarian Food Fair in September.

We are also in the process of getting our CHOOSE COMPASSION - GO VEGAN t-shirts printed for the food fair. Woo hoo!

If you know of any upcoming event or venue - eco-fair, library, etc. - that we could set up our new display, please let us know.

We are also displaying brochures - Vegan Outreach's Compassionate Choices and Guide to Cruelty-Free Eating, along with our Vegan Party of Canada brochures, at a number of businesses in St. Catharines and Niagara Falls.

If you know a place that would be willing to let us put our brochures in their window or on their countertop, send us a note.

Thanks a million!

Dan

VPC on Facebook!

That's right. The Vegan Party of Canada is now on Facebook. So what are you waiting for? Join the Party!

think VEGETARIAN for dad's day

The St. Catharines Standard - Tuesday, June 9, 2009

Posted by LAURIE SADOWSKI

A plant-based diet might not be deemed as the most manly for Father's Day, with thoughts of simple salads, dainty tofu quiches and chilled tomato gazpacho. Instead, a thick-cut slab of Man-Certified rib eye with a slow baked potato on the side, slathered with sour cream and pad of butter, seems to be the menu that comes to mind.

Add to that a barbecue, patio set, sausages and cream-laden salads, and it sounds like you have the typical Father's Day (June 21) feast. Although everything in moderation is fine, this special day spread might also just be a precursor of what is to come in these summer months: heavy, meat-laden meals.

Veganism, on the other hand, is often assumed as the antithesis of masculinity; the dietary choice touted for those with less testosterone. But these gender generalizations are as ancient as assuming that vegans nosh on carrots all day. Just ask Kansas City Chiefs' tight-end Tony Gonzalez; professional Ironman triathlete and two-time Ultra Marathon winner Brendan Brazier; Atlanta Hawks' Salim Stoudamire; or Mac Danzig, winner of The Ultimate Fighter. Yep, all vegans.

When thinking of plantbased cuisine that would appeal to the y-chromosome, hearty stews and chilies are the first things that come to mind. But these heavy meals - ones that heat up our kitchens during the summer months - aren't perhaps our dinner of choice once June rolls around. The answer isn't tossing vegan meals aside for half the year; instead, it lay in finding a way to please those pickier palates.

Given that, opting for a plant-based diet - at least a few times a week - has its benefits. In addition to animal rights and environmental concerns, health is a No. 1 issue. A recent study published in the Archives of Internal Medicine, for example, followed half a million individuals for 10 years, finding those who consumed red meat had an approximate 33 per cent increase in early death, along with up to 50 per cent increased risk in heart disease and cancer. Conversely, those who didn't consume red meat had a decreased risk.

Not only that, many plantbased foods also contain vital nutrients designed with the man in mind. In North America, 220,000 men are diagnosed each year with prostate cancer; 34,000 of those men die from the disease. Foods rich in animal fats have been shown to increase the risk, whereas studies have indicated foods such as soy products, garlic and almonds decrease the risk.

Alas, convincing your meat and potatoes partner that you're going to celebrate his holiday animal-free might not result in the most enthusiastic of replies. But a little magic acronym known as the BBQ is sure to ignite his digestive juices.

Yes, firing up the grill will not only spark any man's appetite, but also your creativity. We're accustomed to grilling our favourite meats and kabobs, but it's time to think outside that basic barbecuing box: salads, meat-free mains and side dishes seared to perfection. And while you're busy manning the barbecue (no pun intended), the kids can whip up a two-minute dessert for daddy dearest.

And if it doesn't fly (although I am sure it will), then hand him a Guinness and call me over for dinner.

Laurie Sadowski, one of our rotating team of food writers, is a St. Catharines resident with a passion for food, fitness and helping others. Her cookbook is called Mission in the Kitchen, and she is editorial director of Ecoki.com,an eco-lifestyle community. She can be reached at or http://whiskingandwriting.wordpress.com/

- - -

STUFFED GRILLED PEPPERS

Using colourful peppers results in a taste reminiscent of homemade roasted red peppers. The stuffing is delicious on its own, perfect as a side dish or mixed with greens for an impromptu salad.

4 large red, yellow or orange bell peppers
2 Tbsp. (30 ml) extra-virgin olive oil
1/2 cup (50 g) almonds, walnuts or pecans, coarsely chopped
3/4 cup (60 g) dry brown basmati rice (or other rice)
1 garlic clove, minced
1 1/2 cups (425 ml) water
3 green onions, chopped
2/3 cup (90 g) sliced cherry tomatoes
handful of fresh basil
handful of fresh parsley
4 x 1 m (100 cm each) kitchen string, for securing peppers (if you don't have kitchen string, hemp string soaked in water works perfectly)

Heat the oil in a medium pan and add the nuts, until lightly toasted and fragrant. Add the rice, and continue to stir, until grains are glossy. Stir in the garlic, cooking for about 30 seconds more. Add the water and bring to a boil, then cover, reduce to a simmer and cook for about 35 to 45 minutes, until water is absorbed.

Meanwhile, prepare the peppers. Cut around the stalk of the pepper, setting aside for later. Make one slit down the length of the pepper and open gently. Remove any seeds and membrane. Repeat with other peppers.

When rice is finished cooking, remove from heat, cool slightly, and stir in green onions, cherry tomatoes, basil and parsley. Season with salt and pepper to taste.

Spoon some stuffing into each pepper, careful not to overfill. Take string and wrap around the centre about three times, tying the pepper securely. There should be string left over on each end. Top with the stalk, then tie in the other direction, securing the filling. You want to ensure the filling doesn't fall out - no matter how you end up tying it. Repeat with other peppers.
Preheat the barbecue to medium heat. Place peppers on grill for about 20 minutes, turning frequently so they are evenly browned. If they char - no problem, just slip off the skin; the pepper will still taste fabulous. You can also grill them on foil if you prefer.
Serves four

- - -

STUFFED HASSELBACKSWEET POTATOES

This Swedish dish takes its name from Hasselbacken, the Stockholm restaurant where the original -- with baking potatoes -- was served. If you don't wrap them and bake them at 400°F (200°C) in the oven, they get a nice crispy texture, instead.

4 medium-sized sweet potatoes
3 Tbsp. (45 ml) extra-virgin olive oil
3 cloves garlic, crushed
1 large onion, sliced
6 sprigs of fresh thyme
sea salt to taste
fresh ground pepper to taste
grill-worthy aluminum foil

Preheat one side of the barbecue to medium heat. Leave the other side off. Make several slits in the potatoes (about 15 to 20). Mix together olive oil and crushed garlic, drizzle in the potatoes. Top with onions and thyme, making sure to get into the slits. Season with salt and fresh ground pepper.

Wrap each potato in aluminum foil. Place potatoes on cool side of the barbecue and close the lid. Let roast approximately 35 minutes. They will be soft and bottoms will be slightly caramelized. Top with Pseudo-Sour Cream.

Serves four

- - -

PSEUDO-SOUR CREAM

After pureeing the tofu, add salt and lemon juice to taste. After a few hours in the fridge, the flavours will mellow with the onions. Chives are a great addition, too.

1 (10.5-ounce) package of lite firm silken tofu (I recommend Mori-Nu)
2 -4 tsp. (10-20 ml)lemon juice (fresh is best)
2 green onions, finely chopped
sea salt to taste

In a blender or food processor, whizz the tofu until smooth. Add half the lemon juice and a few pinches of salt. Add the green onions. Add additional lemon and salt to taste.

- - -

GRILLED CAESAR SALAD

With romaine currently growing locally, this is the perfect time to enjoy this grilled variation of a longtime favourite - vegan style.

For the dressing:

2 Tbsp. (30 g) ground almonds
2-4 cloves of garlic
2 1/2 Tbsp. (37g) nutritional yeast 1 Tbsp. (15 ml) tamari
juice of 1 small lemon
1 Tbsp. (15 ml) grainy mustard
1 Tbsp. (15 ml) olive oil
2 Tbsp. (30 ml) non-dairy milk or water
fresh ground black pepper to taste

For the salad:

1 head romaine lettuce, cut in half length wise
Extra-virgin olive oil for brushing
salt and fresh ground pepper to taste

For the dressing, combine all dressing ingredients, and puree until smooth. If possible, chill for at least two to three hours before serving. Thin with additional non-dairy milk as needed. medium-high heat. Brush cut side of romaine with oil, and sprinkle with salt and pepper. Place romaine on grill, season the other side with salt and pepper, and grill until its outer leaves are wilted and lettuce is tender.

You can either roughly chop the lettuce and toss with the dressing, or serve family-style, placing both romaine halves face up in a shallow bowl, and drizzle with dressing.

- - -

TWO-MINUTE BANANA-CINNAMON CARAMEL CRUNCH ICE CREAM

You'd never think that popping a few bananas in the freezer would result in an ice-cream-like indulgence. And to correspond with the patience that dad will have while he awaits his Dad's Day Dessert, it'll be done in a snap. The dates give a sweet taste akin to smooth caramel, while the pecans add an extra crunch.

4 overripe bananas, peeled, cut in three pieces each, and frozen*
3/4 tsp. (4 g) ground cinnamon
1/2 cup (125 ml) honey dates, chopped
1/3 cup (30 g) pecans, chopped

Toss bananas in food processor with cinnamon. Let sit about five minutes, until lightly thawed, and whiz until smooth. Stir in dates and pecans. Serve immediately. (If it gets too soft, you can put it in the freezer for about 10 minutes.)

*Using overripe bananas adds extra sweetness to the end result.

Serves four