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.

Reasons to go vegan

An article published by the Montreal Gazette yesterday commented on the growing popularity of veganism, stating that: "A novelty only 30 years ago, meat-free diets are rapidly becoming the fashion for people who care about their family's and their planet's health."

For the full story, click here: Vegans move into the mainstream

While I enjoy seeing stories like this in the newspapers, I wish the authors would also include the most important reason, and the number one reason most people go vegan: to stop the exploitation, suffering and slaughter of other animals.

I suppose right now it's trendy to reduce your meat consumption (or at least to say you do) but trendy or not, veganism is compassion in action. It's about recognizing how cruel and unnecessary it is to use, kill, wear, eat or experiment on other animals and then adjusting your lifestyle to reflect that awareness.

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

Want peace on earth? Go vegan.

I hate the holidays. There, I said it. And it has nothing to do with the fact that I was born two days before Christmas and that I always got ripped off by friends and family when it came to gift-giving. “Hey Dan, here is your birthday/Christmas present,” or “Sorry Dan, with Christmas so close, all I could get you was this crummy…” But I digress.

The reason I don’t like this time of year is because it really hits home just how different I am from all my friends, coworkers, and even family members. When you tell people you don’t celebrate Christmas, they often look at you as if you have three heads or something.

“Are you Jewish? Jehovah’s Witness? Seventh Day Adventist? Well then what the hell’s wrong with you? What have you got against peace on earth, goodwill to mankind and all that other crap? You’re not a Commie, are you?”

No, I’m not Jewish, a Jehovah’s Witness, a Seventh Day Adventist or a Communist. I’m agnostic (meaning I don’t know and I don’t care), but more importantly I’m vegan. To be vegan is to choose peace over oppression, compassion over cruelty and life over death (ironically, the same things that Christians claim to espouse).

That’s why I don’t celebrate Christmas. I think it’s a sham. And I don’t think most people who celebrate it really believe in it either, or at least what it’s supposed to be about. If they did, there’d be a lot less violence in the world. And if they do, then I suspect it’s only a seasonal thing, like the flu, and as soon as the Christmas tree is thrown to the curb, so too are those warm and fuzzy feelings; the ones we should have every day of the year.

To quote Abigail Adams, “We have too many high-sounding words, and too few actions that correspond with them.” Sure, we like to think of ourselves as kind, compassionate and peace-loving, but our actions don’t really reflect that, do they? We don’t really practice what we preach.

The only thing we do practice religiously is the law of instant gratification; the fine art of pleasing ourselves. And the only thing that seems to matter is what’s on sale. Instead of volunteering at soup kitchens and homeless shelters, people are trampling each other (in some cases to death) at retail outlets to save a few bucks on their favourite video game or dolly. The Big Box stores are our new gods and we spend more time inside them than we do in our churches.

We continue to wage war on our brothers and sisters to control and possess their natural resources. We support the exploitation of men, women and children for cheap labour so we can have our stuff. We pollute the land, sea and air knowing full well that we’re doing it and how harmful it is to our health. And we enslave, kill and eat other animals because God apparently told us to and because we’re at the top of the food chain, we’re special and we deserve it.

Then on December 25th we get together with loved ones to exchange presents, feast on the remains of tortured animals (with all the trimmings) and bask in our own arrogance and false sense of benevolence, never questioning our beliefs and traditions or the consequences of how we live and how our lifestyles affects others. And so I'll continue to boycott Christmas until we begin to live up to our high-sounding words.

But there is a light at the end of this dark Xmas tunnel: the year is almost at an end. That means a new year is just around the corner and with a new year comes the opportunity to start over; a chance to be the best YOU that you can be and improve the lives of others.

If you care about the suffering of others, the exploitation of the weak and the growing violence both here and around the world, then do something about it. Make it your New Year’s resolution to go vegan. It’s cheap, it’s easy and it’s guaranteed to reduce a lot of unnecessary suffering in the world.

Let there be peace on earth

And let it begin with me.

Let there be peace on earth

The peace that was meant to be.

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.

I'm not a weirdo or a health nut.

And I don't dislike people, eat salad three times a day or lack a sense of humour.

And I don't know any chickens, pigs or turkeys although I am certain they would thank me if they could.

I have a great respect for life - all life.

I speak from the heart, not from industry conditioning; and I pronounce it 'VEE-gan', not 'VAY-gan'.

I can proudly look any animal in the face and not feel guilty.

I believe in coexistence, not domination; greenhouses, not slaughterhouses; and that the cow is a truly proud and noble animal.

Bean curd is delicious, tofu tastes like anything and yes, I do get enough protein!

Look mom, I'm eating all my vegetables, I'm saving lives and I'm helping the environment.

My claim is compassion so I AM VEGETARIAN.

Our Core Beliefs

WHEREAS millions of sentient beings are needlessly slaughtered each and every day for food; and

WHEREAS a vegan diet is just as healthy, if not healthier, than a meat-centered diet; and

WHEREAS food that is currently fed to animals could instead be used to feed the world’s hungry; and

WHEREAS the raising of animals for food is a major cause of land degradation, water shortage, air pollution and global warming,

We, The Vegan Party of Canada, assert that the transformation to a vegan lifestyle is the most important decision anyone can make.

We also believe that Canadians are by nature kind and caring, and that once properly informed, they will choose compassion over selfishness, common sense over tradition, and peace over violence.

“Having heard all of this, you may choose to look the other way… but you can never say again that you did not know.” - William Wilburforce, 1759-1833