Hope Haven Farm Animal Sanctuary: Meeting Rescued Animals

Today I had the most amazing experience! I was able to spend time at a local farm animal sanctuary called Hope Haven.  I met several pigs, lots of chickens, ducks, a turkey, alpacas, and a pony. This sanctuary is run by a young woman who is a veterinarian. She spends her days practicing at area animal shelters and evenings caring for her rescued bunch at Hope Haven. Looking into the eyes of these creatures, knowing that they were destined for abuse, torture and slaughter, I felt a kinship that can't be put into words. I'm looking forward to helping out as much as I can there.

If you can afford anything at all, please consider sponsoring one of these beautiful creatures. They rely exclusively on donations and can use all the help they can get. 

Vegan Songs - These Will Make You Smile!

Out of the Mouth of Children... and NOT Into Them

This is one of the most beautiful things I've ever seen!

While watching this video I am reminded of how deeply we are, as a culture indoctrinated into meat eating. As a child I was repulsed by any undisguised animal part that showed up on my plate. One of the ways my mother tried to alleviate my misgivings was to make a "game' out of preparing corpses. She used to make chicken and turkey corpses dance and talk while preparing them. Somehow I learned to giggle at these antics that were actually macabre and sick.

The mother in this video should be applauded for taking her child's objections seriously.

The Abolutionist Approach - Gary L. Francione Lecture and Q&A Luxumburg Germany

A must hear forum by Gary L. Francione on the Abolitionist Approach to animal rights. 

The video is too large to upload, so please click here to view.

Gary L. Francione is Board of Governors Professor of Law and Nicholas deB. Katzenbach Scholar of Law and Philosophy at Rutgers University School of Law-Newark.

He is the author of numerous books and articles on animal rights theory and animals and the law, including The Animal Rights Debate: Abolition or Regulation? (with Dr. Robert Garner) (2010), Animals as Persons: Essays on the Abolition of Animal Exploitation (2008), Introduction to Animal Rights: Your Child or the Dog? (2000), Rain Without Thunder: The Ideology of the Animal Rights Movement (1996), Animals, Property, and the Law (1995), and Vivisection and Dissection in the Classroom: A Guide to Conscientious Objection (with Anna E. Charlton) (1992).

Professor Francione and his partner and colleague, Adjunct Professor Anna E. Charlton, started and operated the Rutgers Animal Rights Law Clinic/Center from 1990-2000, making Rutgers the first university in the United States to have animal rights law as part of the regular academic curriculum, and to award students academic credit not only for classroom work, but also for work on actual cases involving animal issues. Francione and Charlton represented without charge individual animal advocates, grassroots animal groups, and national and international animal organizations. Francione and Charlton currently teach a course on human rights and animal rights, and a seminar on animal rights theory and the law. Professor Francione also teaches courses on criminal law, criminal procedure, jurisprudence, and legal philosophy.

Earthlings: Please Watch the Trailer to This Extremely Important Film

I just watched a trailer for what is one of the most important films made. But I warn you that it is very difficult to watch. I am physically ill from seeing it. But EVERYONE who eats meat or consumes animal products should be mandated to watch this film. The invisibility of this reality must be end. Please watch and share.

www.earthlings.com

The full length film is also available to watch at the same site. If you are an educator please consider using this film in your classes or as a forum for discussion.

I've often wondered if it's necessary to show such graphic images and if people other than those already concerned about animals will actually see it. But as a friend said to me recently, "Sometimes I think that the only thing that could fundamentally change the attitudes and actions of people who eat and wear animals is to see such shocking images/events. Clearly, detached reasoning isn't going to do shit."


From the site:

EARTHLINGS is an award-winning documentary film about the suffering of animals for food, fashion, pets, entertainment and medical research. Considered the most persuasive documentary ever made, EARTHLINGS is nicknamed “the Vegan maker” for its sensitive footage shot at animal shelters, pet stores, puppy mills, factory farms, slaughterhouses, the leather and fur trades, sporting events, circuses and research labs.

The film is narrated by Academy Award® nominee Joaquin Phoenix and features music by platinum-selling recording artist Moby. Initially ignored by distributors, today EARTHLINGS is considered the definitive animal rights film by organizations around the world. “Of all the films I have ever made, this is the one that gets people talking the most,” said Phoenix. “For every one person who sees EARTHLINGS, they will tell three.”

In 1999, writer/producer/director Shaun Monson began work on a series of PSAs about spaying and neutering pets. The footage he shot at animal shelters around Los Angeles affected him so profoundly that the project soon evolved into EARTHLINGS. The film would take another six years to complete because of the difficulty in obtaining footage within these profitable industries. Though the film was initially ignored by distributors, who told Monson that the film would “never see the light of day and should be swept under the rug,” today EARTHLINGS is considered the definitive animal rights film by organizations around the world.

On a Lighter Note: There's ALWAYS a GREAT Vegan Alternative!

One of the things I miss most is carrot cake with creamed cheese frosting. This had been my birthday cake of choice forever. But alas, there's always a great vegan alternative!  :-D

 

Though, beware not all beer is vegan. 

Here's a link to Barnavore which lists all the vegan friendly and unfriendly beer. 

Moral Decisions Depend Entirely on the Presence or Absence of Empathy

Amazon Link

I have spent my entire Sunday morning reading detailed descriptions of how most cows, pigs and chickens live and die. I have been crying and found that I had to stop periodically to calm my visceral responses to the horrors described. If I weren't already a vegan, I would most certainly become one now. Though I already knew the facts of slaughterhouses and dairy and egg industries, reading this text provided me with a renewed connection to this almost invisible reality. There is simply no moral, physical, economic or environmental justification for using animals for food or other products.

In thinking about my thesis, it has become clear to me that morality is inextricably connected with empathy.  

Mark Bernstein makes this point beautifully.

Consider a totally reasonable, intelligent individual who is completely devoid of emotions; a futuristic robot would fit the bill. It sees persons starving to death in sub-Saharan Africa but cannot react to them emotionally. The robot has no sympathy or empathy for these people. It cannot feel sorry for what they are going through or put itself in their shoes. The robot does not care about these people at all. Were human beings like this, we would think of them as leading lives far less rich than our own. Regardless of how intelligent they are or how well they can reason, this lack of sentiment excludes them from the realm of moral agents. Our emotional lives are what trigger our thinking about ethical issues. If we could not care about others, morality simply could not be an issue for us. -- Bernstein, Mark H. (2004-05-27). Without a Tear: Our Tragic Relationship with Animals (pp. 92-93). Ingram Distribution. Kindle Edition.

We live in a society that promotes narcissism and selfishness, viewing empathy as weakness that gets in the way of individual goals. This type of thinking is rooted in societies driven by profit and power. One of the tactics used by the powerful to promote their own agendas is to objectify various groups of people and to use propaganda techniques to lower their moral status. Nazi Germany is, of course, the most famous overt example of this, but it was also true for justifying slavery, and misogyny. In order to exploit and dominate someone else, one must first be able to separate herself from them, to lack empathy for them as it were. Eliminating empathy is also a standard training method of military personnel. Without this training, soldiers wouldn't be able to kill their "enemy".

The enormous propaganda campaigns surrounding the torture and murder of non-human animals includes keeping it invisible from us, having us believe that it is "humane" and that those on death row are living "happy", 'free-range" lives. It uses slogans like "Got Milk", "Beef. It's what's for dinner", "the Incredible Edible Egg" and aims at convincing us to consume products that are wholly bad for us and which we don't need at all. Invisibility, misinformation, and lies of necessity are also used in war propaganda. All of this is done in the name of profit. There is absolutely no concern for animal welfare, let alone the welfare of the consumer. It's important to remember that corporations have every reason to lie about their treatment of animals. Vegans have no reason to lie about it. Consuming animal products harms everyone, being vegan harms no one.

Anyone with an ounce of empathy would have extreme difficulty consuming a steak after witnessing a living, conscious, terrified cow struggling for survival hanging from a meat hook (a common occurrence), or eating a hot dog after seeing a pig collapse from heat exhaustion in a cramped transport truck and being trampled to death (also common), or a chicken being boiled alive to loosen her feathers (extremely common) If you don't feel anything by these minimal descriptions of the horror faced by billions of sentient creatures (including members of our own species), perhaps it's time for you to evaluate your own moral sensibilities and ask whether the pleasure of the taste of these creatures is worth what they endure on a daily basis. 

The Subtler Side of Speciesist Hypocrisy

I defy anyone who eats meat and claims to love their pets to come up with a morally sound reason how this is ANY different than the slaughter of cows, sheep, chickens or pigs. 


The conditions, torture and methods of slaughter are exactly the same in these dog slaughterhouses in China as any slaughterhouse in any country. This has nothing to do with being Chinese or any other ethnicity. It has everything to do with the almost ubiquitous acceptance of the moral superiority of human animals. 

Oprah Video Documentary of a Colorado Slaughterhouse

Very important film from Oprah Winfrey detailing the death row of cattle in Colorado. The film makers were not allowed to show the execution. They bleed to death. The claim is that they don't feel the death process.

What's most interesting is to watch the interviewer's (a meat eater) reactions to the "process". That is moral intuition at work. It is also interesting to listen to how cows are thought of. The "sole purpose of these cows is to die."  Does anyone else see the absurdity in this?

Animal Cruelty Is Entirely Based On Profit: Any Doubt? Check This Out

If you had any doubt that cruelty to animals is entirely based on profit check this article out. I learned about this while getting a hair cut yesterday and talking about Paul Mitchell products being cruelty free. My hair dresser told me that Paul Mitchell has decided to abstain from selling to China to maintain its cruelty free products. GO PAUL MITCHELL!! :D

L'Occitane and Yves Rocher: The big-name beauty brands among those ditching cruelty-free animal testing policies to sell their products to China 

• By law, all human cosmetics sold in China must first be tested on animals
• Lucrative Chinese beauty sales rose by 18 per cent to £10bn last year
• Cruelty Free International chief executive 'disappointed' to see brands 'letting animals pay the price' for their profit-chasing

By Suzannah Hills
PUBLISHED: 08:58 EST, 31 July 2012 | UPDATED: 04:50 EST, 1 August 2012

Several big name beauty companies have been forced to remove a logo that declares them free of animal cruelty after they decided to sell their products in China.
L'Occitane, Yves Rocher and Caudalie are among the high end brands that can no longer use the internationally-recognised official Leaping Bunny logo to show their cosmetics are free from animal testing.
It comes after the firms decided to start selling to China where animal testing on beauty products for human use is still required by law.

Going global: Big-name beauty brands have changed their animal testing policies so they can start selling their products in China (posed by model)

Cosmetic sales in China increased by 18 per cent to £10billion last year - making it an attractive financial prospect.
But many companies selling their products in the country have been asked to fund animal testing of their products in Chinese laboratories in order for them to be sold to the public.

Cruelty Free International chief executive Michelle Thew said: 'The Humane Standards, symbolised by the Leaping Bunny logo, is the most rigorous international cruelty-free certification in the world.

More...

• The 'sun screen' cosmetics swindle: How make-up products that claim to protect against sun damage can leave you dangerously exposed
• Having seen the evidence, I don't touch fizzy drinks any more. Frankly they're evil
• Secrets of an Olympic body: The workout regimen of Jessica Ennis

'Each company is regularly audited to ensure that no animal testing takes place throughout each company’s entire supply chain.

'Where companies no longer comply with the Humane Standards, the right to use the Leaping Bunny logo is retracted.

'Following discussion with L’Occitane, its certification was retracted in mid-December.

'Some companies wish to bring ethical beauty to China, however this is not currently possible until China changes its current policy which requires animal testing.

'I am disappointed that certain companies have fallen prey to the lure of the Chinese market and are letting animals pay the price. Consumer pressure can make a difference.

The Leaping Bunny logo is used by brands that don't test on animals, useful for ethically-conscious beauty fans

Emerging market: China requires that all cosmetics for human use are first tested on animals (pictured above is a make-up artist at work in Shanghai)

'We certify over 400 companies around the world that refuse to allow animal testing into their products, so there is plenty of choice for everyone who wishes to eliminate this cruel, unnecessary and outdated practice.

'The only way that you can avoid animal testing in your toiletries and beauty products is by looking for the Leaping Bunny logo, or checking www.GoCrueltyFree.org.'

Britain banned animal testing in 1998 and several large cosmetics companies including Paul Mitchell, Sainbury's, The Co-operative, Superdrug, Marks & Spencer all have Leaping Bunny certification meaning they are cruelty-free.
Hair-care giant John Paul Mitchell Systems pulled out of China after being informed that the company would have to pay for animal tests in order to continue selling its products there.
Paul Mitchell CEO and co-founder John Paul DeJoria put sales in China on hold last year and confirmed they will not sell products in that country in order to remain committed to the company's cruelty-free policy.
Mr DeJoria said: 'Since Paul Mitchell was founded in 1980, we have been cruelty-free.
'We do not conduct or condone animal testing on our products, and we will not attempt to market our products in China until alternatives to animal testing methods have been accepted by the government.
'Paul Mitchell always has been and always will be cruelty-free.'

Leading the way: Marks & Spencer is one of several big UK firms that has cruelty-free Leaping Bunny approval for its own products

Dr Dan Lyons, Campaigns Director of internal animal protection organisation Uncaged, said it is down to individual companies to make a stand.
He continued: 'It's a fundamental decision companies need to make.
'It's much better if they stick to their principles and avoid China, which will put pressure on the government to change their own policies.
'It's unnecessary for China to require repeat and totally unnecessary testing on these products.'
Urban Decay has also recently decided to cancel its plans to enter the Chinese market after being informed of the animal testing requirements.
Spokesman for the charity People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) Foundation, Alistair Currie, said: 'We are seeing welcome signs of progress in China but their current animal testing requirements are a major factor pushing up cosmetics tests on animals globally. 
'Companies who have turned their backs on their non-animal testing policies because of the lure of China have regressed a generation: their products are once again being dripped into rabbits' eyes and smeared onto animals' abraded skin.
'While many progressive and principled companies are sticking to their non-animal testing policies, others need more motivation.'
But the revelation that some large name brands are giving up their cruelty-free status to sell to China will come as a surprise to many shoppers.
Even more surprisingly, there are many huge international brands including Chanel, Yves Saint Laurent and Revlon, which have never been able to use the Leaping Bunny logo because of their animal testing policies.
And while an EU-wide ban on the marketing of animal-tested cosmetics is due to come into force next year, campaigners warn that the European Commission is now contemplating compromises or even delays to the legislation.
Mr Currie continued: 'It's vital that the EU protect its own ban on the sale of animal-tested cosmetics due in 2013.
'We've led the world on this issue – we mustn't take any steps backward right here in our own back yard.'
A spokesman for L'Occitane said: 'L'Occitane does not and never has tested its products on animals.
'Similarly, we insist that our suppliers certify that none of the ingredients we use are tested on animals.
'We do sell our products in China however and the Chinese government reserves the right to conduct tests, but we are hopeful that this situation will change soon.
'We are actively working with the BUAV, with whom we have a long term and constructive relationship, to influence the Chinese authorities to allow the alternative tests that apply elsewhere in the world.'
Jean-Christophe Samyn, Director of Caudalie UK, said: 'We are against animal testing. We do not test our ingredients and formulas on animals and never will.'

ARE YOUR FAVOURITE COSMETICS CRUELTY-FREE?

LEAPING BUNNY APPROVED

Paul Mitchell           

Urban Decay

Sainbury's               

Marks & Spencer

Liz Earle                 

Faith In Nature

The Co-operative   

Burt's Bees                    

Dermalogica          

Bull Dog   

NON-APPROVED COMPANIES
L'Occitane                      Yves Rocher
Caudalie                         Mary Kay
Avon                               Estee Lauder
Revlon                            Garnier
L'Oreal                           Chanel
Johnson & Johnson       FCUK
Clinique                          Christian Dior
Givenchy                        Yves Saint Laurent
Lancome                        Virgin Vie
Yardley                           Proctor & Gamble

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2181468/Big-beauty-brands-dropping-cruelty-free-animal-testing-policies-sell-products-China.html#ixzz2e6zB5q2b
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Other Reactions to Veganism Born of Moral Hypocrisy

Recently another friend of mine (a self-proclaimed animal lover) posted an image on Facebook in response to my veganism.

While this may seem innocuous and comical it exposes the unease that most people who eat meat feel when confronted by the moral hypocrisy of claiming to love animals while continuing to participate in their slaughter. It also inadvertently supports speciesism by likening animals with inanimate objects.

If our moral intuition about animals were unfounded, we would indeed take the same level of issue with watching someone pick a flower and another torturing a cat. But we don't and that is because animals are sentient and plants are not. Here's another image for consideration on this issue.

Tomato plants, nonhuman animals, and humans all live and eventually die; only those in the latter two groups have the capacity to feel pain and suffer. -- Bernstein, Mark H.