“a better life for all” recognising the full policy ... · more just in its treatment of...
TRANSCRIPT
1
Introduction
The overarching vision of the Animal Justice Party is a better life for all.
This vision is founded in the conviction that: a human society that is kinder and gentler and
more just in its treatment of animals will be a kinder, gentler, more just society in every way.
In those beloved words of Gandhi: The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be
judged by the way its animals are treated.
Or in my own words: No-one does unto an animal what they wouldn’t do unto a human if it
was socially acceptable.
In this paper, I will explore the ways in which human and animal well-being are inseparable.
Why what is good for animals is good for humans, and what is bad for animals is bad
for humans
but also
why what is good for humans is good for animals, and what is bad for humans is bad
for animals
This analysis leads me to the conclusion that: in order to fully represent justice for animals,
AJP should support, in broad terms, all policies which promote compassion, justice and
equity for humans, and the protection of democratic processes, even when they appear to
have no direct impact on animals.
Additionally, because all environmental damage impacts on animals, I will argue: that the
AJP should develop a much more comprehensive environmental policy.
“A Better Life for All”
Recognising the full policy implications
of the AJP’s overarching vision
Frankie Seymour
2
To support policies covering animal justice, social justice, democratic process and the
environment, I also suggest that we need to broaden our policies relating to the economy and
education.
Finally, I suggest that: gearing our policies to better reflect social justice and environmental
issues will substantially broaden our voting support base.
So to begin with the first issue.
Good for animals is good for humans and bad for animals is bad for humans.
AJP policies already do quite well in terms of recognising this principle.
The slide shows three examples where this recognition is explicit in our policies.
These are principles which many people, perhaps most people in the community support
without hesitation.
They know what their own companion animals, or their own local wildlife, mean to them.
They know how empty their lives would be without them.
However, there is a point where many people believe that bad for animals is actually good for
humans.
For animal users, this is the point where welfare starts costing them money rather than saving
them money.
More generally, it’s the point where the consumer stops regarding animals as family members
and starts regarding them as food or tools or games/toys or pests.
For example:
They think:
3
eating animals is delicious, or perhaps even necessary;
testing products and drugs on animals provides us with heaps of miracle medicines;
using animals for entertainment is such fun for the kids;
killing animals they regard as pests or vermin is only right and proper.
Several AJP policies explicitly challenge these assumptions. Examples are shown below:
There are other AJP policies where the benefits for humans of good for animals are implied
rather than explicit, and others again where they are entirely absent, and not particularly
relevant.
Generally speaking AJP policies already have a firm handle on this aspect of human-animal
interdependence.
However, there is also the whole converse question that falls out of this:
is what is good for humans also good for animals, and
is what is bad for humans also bad for animals?
These are questions our policies at present barely touch on.
Yet, during an election campaign, they are the questions on which candidates most often have
to make up policy on the run.
There some areas where the answers are pretty obvious.
Examples:
Where humans don’t have enough money to shelter or feed themselves they won’t be
able to shelter or feed their companion animals.
4
When humans are sick or injured or very old, they may become unable to care for
their companion animals.
Where people get evicted from rental properties, or aged people are forced to move
into care facilities, they often have to give away their companion animals, frequently
with fatal consequences – for both human and animal.
Where people are poorly educated, even in disciplines that have nothing directly to do
with animals, things like reading, writing and arithmetic, their companion animals are
disadvantaged as a result of their carers’ disadvantage, for example inability to read
forms, or signs, or to budget properly etc.
However, there are other recurring questions of human well-being that come up when you’re
sitting on an election panel, questions which have no direct relationship to animals.
For example:
forced council amalgamations
marriage equality
equity in access to mobile phone coverage and the Internet.
We can just answer that these aren’t issues that have any impact on animals so we have no
policy.
That answer won’t win us any votes.
But the real question is: is it even true?
The entire history of human civilisation shows that every natural and anthropogenic
catastrophe that has caused incalculable suffering to humans, has caused orders of magnitude
worse suffering for animals.
War, conquest, revolution, plague, famine, any disaster, natural or man-made, however
frightful and pitiful the plight of the humans embroiled in it, the plight of animals is always
far, far worse.
Food runs out and people start eating their companion animals and any wild creatures
they can catch, killing them any way they can, however cruel.
Energy for heating runs out and all the carefully preserved remnant habitat disappears
for firewood.
5
Governments, in desperation to restore order in the chaos, ration resources and clamp
down on luxuries – which invariably include companion animals.
Nations go to war over resources or ideologies, either externally or internally, killing
thousands of humans and many more animals.
A zoonotic disease appears and the animals thought to be carriers are killed in their
millions.
Human suffering, disadvantage, inequity and injustice almost invariably transfer to animals
somewhere along the line.
Even inequity of access to modern communications technology impacts on animals, for
example when you urgently need to call the vet but you live in an area where mobile phone
signals are a bit capricious.
However, there is still another level at which good for humans is good for animals, and it is
one that is absolutely fundamental to AJP’s self-awareness as a political party.
The entire history of human civilisation shows that only when a society begins slowly
moving towards democracy, towards laws that are fair and just for humans, towards an
equitable distribution of resources, only then does that society even begin to consider creating
laws to protect animals.
Human compassion for other animals has been around as long as humans have, but it was
only after the Renaissance and the Reformation in Europe, when humanitarian and
liberationist thought began to flourish, on the eve of the English Revolution and the birth of
constitutional monarchy, that the first animal protection legislation was passed anywhere in
the world:
in Ireland (by an English governor, Thomas Wentworth) in 1635.
Thomas Wentworth
1st Earl of Strafford
then in the pre-revolution British Massachusetts colony in North America in 1641,
then in Cromwell’s England in 1654.
It is certainly only after the beginnings of Parliamentary democracy in any country, that
comprehensive ‘prevention of cruelty to animals’ legislation has ever been contemplated.
It is only in the environment of a relatively stable Parliamentary democracy like Australia
6
that it has become possible for an Animal Justice Party, and all we represent, to even think
about existing.
Protecting the last three and a half centuries of wins for human justice, equity and democracy,
even when they appear to have nothing to do with animals, may, in fact, be the most
important thing the AJP has to do to protect animals.
Above all things, we must protect the right of humans to fight for the rights of other animals.
A very recent assault on this right, and a dangerous precedent for both human and animal
rights, is the abomination of ag-gag laws.
Protecting our right to protect animals requires us to protect the rights of humans per se.
We must never take our democracy for granted.
Even stable democracies are not invulnerable to the greed of a few and the indolence and
ignorance of the many.
I would urge the AJP to recognise and articulate the principles of democracy, and human
justice and equity, as principles it supports, irrespective of whether there is any obvious
connection with animals, simply because they are pre-requisites for the Party’s own
existence.
Another area where I believe the AJP needs to become much more involved, is
environmental policy.
The AJP already has several policies on environmental issues including climate change and
wildlife habitat.
But again, in my view, we need much more than this.
There is simply no environmental problem that does not directly or indirectly harm animals.
All animals (including, incidentally, humans) are wholly dependent on the environment for
air, food, water and a habitable climate.
Climate change, along with many other environmental problems that both contribute to and
result from climate change, is causing an increase in the severity, frequency and duration of
natural disasters: droughts, fires, famines, floods, blizzards, dust storm, sea surges.
These disasters, along with the post-industrial scale of habitat loss, both terrestrial and
marine, is driving whole species of plant and animal to extinction, and those extinctions are
causing further extinctions and further climate destabilisation.
7
We need to be aware, however, that it is not just the environmental changes themselves that
will hurt and kill animals.
The response of human society, as the environmental catastrophe begins to bite, will multiply
the animal impacts of the environmental disaster.
As the environmental changes push more and more humans into desperation, as always,
animals will suffer orders of magnitude more than humans, just as they have in any every
famine and plague and war in history.
The AJP therefore has a perfect right to take an interest in every aspect of environment
policy.
In fact, I believe we have an absolute obligation to take leadership of Australia’s
environmental policy agenda, on behalf of animals.
As a starting point, I have compiled what I would consider to be an ideal AJP environment
policy in nine points. I have tried to keep each point as a broad catch-all, intending that these
points should cover just about every possible environmental issue. If I have left anything out,
I will certainly amend it.
There should be no further intentional clearing or burning of any remaining area of
native vegetation in Australia for any reason. Bushfire control should be maintained
by natural, stable and self-sustaining populations native or naturalised wild
herbivores.
All human production of animals for food or other products must be replaced by plant
crop production.
o Agricultural animals should be bred down to small populations which are
preserved in sanctuaries (to maintain species and gene pools that would
become extinct if bred out of existence), and their status as individuals raised
(along with that of companion animals) to that of human children.
o All land formerly used for animal agriculture should be used for crop
production (including plantation forestry and hemp; plantation forestry would
preclude colonisation by animals so that their homes are not destroyed by
ongoing forestry operations), restoration of wildlife habitat, or for solar and
wind farms (which must be designed not to impede wildlife traffic either on
the ground or in the air, or otherwise impact on the environment).
o Cell culture meat, cheese and leathers, which are already entering commercial
production, will help humans with the changeover to vegan meats, cheeses and
fabrics, and provide an ongoing food supply for carnivorous companion
animals.
No more native plants or animals should be hunted, harvested or otherwise removed
from their natural habitat (terrestrial, aquatic or marine) other than for the
compassionate purpose of saving their individual lives or quality of life, or the
ecological purpose of re-establishing healthy wild populations in other locations
where they are ecologically needed.
Naturalised animals in wildlife habitat should be removed from wildlife habitat only if
there is compelling evidence that the negative impacts of their presence outweigh the
positive, and only by rehoming and/or fertility control.
8
No further expansion of urban/suburban development into wildlife habitat or crop
land should be permitted. Zero population growth of the human and companion
animal populations should be maintained by fertility control (voluntary in the case of
humans, and by selecting to maximise health and well-being in the case of companion
animals); and any further infrastructure needed for human settlements, including
ample green space, should be built upwards and/or downwards rather than outwards.
All roads that pose a danger to wildlife should be fully fenced with plenty of
underpasses and overpasses for wildlife.
All human use of fossil fuels should be replaced by clean energy sources (solar, wind,
tidal, hydroelectric and geothermal) that do not release greenhouse gases. Nuclear
energy will never be a safe option, until someone invents cold fusion.
All pollution and waste produced by human settlements and industries should be
reclaimed and reused within those settlements and industries.
Existing measures to prevent the use of the chlorofluorocarbons which caused the
hole in the Earth’s ozone layer must be maintained and enhanced.
Animal justice, social justice and environmental protection all require at the very least a
sound shake-up of current economic policy.
The same sorts of economic changes that the AJP is advocating in its current economic policy
on behalf of animal justice, especially those relating to changing taxation regimes, could be
crafted to also improve both social justice and environmental protection, thus providing even
greater protection to animals.
One area of economic reform that is critical not just for protecting animals directly, but also
for protecting the necessary human environment - physical, social and political - for properly
protecting animals at the higher level is specific taxation measures aimed at breaking the
backs of the multinational corporations.
These monsters are not only the primary killers of the world’s animals and the primary
gougers of the physical environment on which all animals including humans depend, they
are also more powerful than elected governments and therefore the greatest threat to
democracy anywhere in the world.
And finally there is education policy. The other greatest threat to democracy, animals and the
environment is the ignorance and indolence of that voting public.
To address this, I would like to see the AJP education policy, for both children and adults,
extended to ensure that every member of the Australian community understands what it cost
to win the benefits we take for granted.
We need to ensure people understand our political system:
how it works;
its uniqueness in human history; and
how extremely easy it would be to lose it all.
9
Of course, to ever have enough influence to persuade any government to begin to implement
even a shadow of these policies, we would need to get a lot more people to vote for us.
However, I think that broadening our policy base to include the entirety of social justice,
democratic process, environment protection, the economy and education will significantly
extend our support base among the voters.
There is a contrary argument to this: that we can draw more support from mainstream voting
animal lovers by focusing on the narrower PoCTA type issues, especially companion animal
issues; and that we will scare voters off if we bombard them with the broader truth of what
we really want for animals.
It’s true that a narrower strategy might win us quite a lot of votes from marginal voters who
see little to choose between the major parties, and who are frightened or disappointed by the
Greens.
But there are two good reasons why we should not withhold the broader truth of our policies
when speaking to a mainstream audience during an election.
One is simply as a matter of integrity, not creating a public perception of a disjunct between
our candidates’ election speeches and our published policies.
One of the reasons why so many voters mistrust all governments and politicians, one of the
reasons for the ever-increasing informal vote, is the perception that all politicians invariably
lie.
10
We might win a lot of votes simply by not falling into this stereotype.
During the lead-up to the July election, I sat on a candidate’s panel in the beef country
heartland of Nimmitabel and told them the AJP policy on phasing out animal agriculture.
What I sensed from the audience was not so much horror as almost a feeling of relief, not
that I was advocating they replace their beef cattle with solar and wind farms (which is
what I was doing), but that I had been honest about our intentions.
It must have been a refreshing novelty to them. A few people in Nimmitabel even voted
for me!
The other reason for having the very broad and fully public range of policies I’ve suggested is
that there are many other voters out there who do genuinely care about animals.
They do support our policies entirely.
But they will not vote for us because they don’t know where we stand on the other issues that
matter to them just as much as animals: social justice, the environment, democracy.
My guess is that those voters probably out-number those who would vote for us just because
they love animals.
I believe these people, whose compassion is not limited to either humans or animals, will
vote for us if we can convince them to trust us on the human and environment issues.
So in summary, I am advocating that the AJP:
1. Develop a much broader general policy covering all issues of human well-being, social
justice and matters of democracy:
noting specific issues, such as loss of income, that directly affect animals,
but also noting that human well-being and democratic processes provide the pre-
requisite social and political climate to enable reforms for the well-being of animals.
2. Develop a much broader and comprehensive environment policy on the basis that all
environmental damage harms animals.
3. Further develop our economic and education policies to support our policies on animal
justice, social justice, democratic process and the environment.
4. Promote these policies widely and openly in order to increase our support base among
voters who care about animals but who also care about human well-being and the
environment.
And of course, I’m also advocating that we never stop looking forward to the day when we
have enough public support to form an AJP government.
11
12
Concluding Song
ANTHEM FOR THE ANIMALS
(Tune: The Battle Hymn of the Republic/John Brown’s Body/Solidarity Forever)
Who are these whom we would liberate from suffering and fear
Twenty thousand years in shackles but deliverance is near
Our kin, our fellow animals, so innocent and dear
All creatures shall be free
Chorus:
Forward we will go together
Forward we will go together
Forward we will go together
All creatures shall be free
They are those who share our planet, share our blood, and share our pain
Our brothers and our sisters, bought and sold for sport or gain
We at last will bring them justice, we will break the final chain
All creatures shall be free
Chorus
We who threw off our own slavery, of gender, class and race
We will end this final villainy, this error, this disgrace
This last of all injustice will dissolve without a trace
All creatures shall be free
Chorus
© Frankie Seymour 2016
13