tisdag 10 juni 2014

Single-issue human rights campaigns?

"'ve always believed that animal rights are entwined with human rights I don't think that single-issue campaigns are useful for non-human animals, because they have property status and therefore no rights of their own. However, when it comes to human rights, most humans are protected by some basic level of rights (although that notion in itself is problematic, because we see so many violations and exclusions). So, where do my other abolitionist friends stand on single-issue human rights Campaigns?"

Smara replied: In order for the term SICs in human rights to make real sense, one has to define what a non-SIC would be. What would it be? It would not be something equivalent to vegan advocacy, because human slavery and the property status of humans is already abolished according to the law, although it is not always applied or there are ways to go around it. The difference between SICs for humans (i.e. mean as campaigns for several human rights causes here) and SICs for nonhumans lies in that it’s the default position of most humans and the law that humans should have the right not to be property, and be protected by harm that is the result of discriminations. Exceptions of this exist, but when human rights of this nature are violated UN and other organisations can in theory intervene and he heard. The solutions to human rights violations can only be applied as a case by case matter as there is no central one that would solve them all and legislation is different in different countries. A campaign for the ending of all human slavery and discriminations won’t be even recognised as such unless specific issues are pointed out. On the other hand, it’s the default position that nonhumans have a property status with no rights that protect *them* at all, and that humans should do as they please with them without them having any interests to be protected. As a result, when one campaigns for a single issue for nonhumans, one automatically implies that this issue is more important than others or that others don’t really matter. This is being amplified by the animal organisations, that use that people that think it’s OK for nonhumans to be exploited in some ways, which do explicitly or implicitly say that this x form of exploitation is ‘more cruel’ than others, therefore it has priority, or they just don’t mention other forms of nonhuman animals use that cause human ‘discomfort’. That way, the idea that some forms of nonhuman animal use is acceptable is being reinforced + the issue is not animal rights and their any use but the x use and treatment. That way, humans feel better about using nonhumans in a, b, c, d, e, f, … ways. These problems don’t *necessarily* exist in human campaigns. Of course, a human campaign can give e.g. a racist message to people, but I can’t see any other way out of it except of trying to give e.g. a non-racist message at the same time. 

Also, by advocating for veganism and not SICs we try to end the property status of nonhuman animals and speciesism, and liberate them from human oppression once and for all. This will be achieved by the human population not using nonhuman animals themselves. There is no point in campaigning for the end of slavery for humans because it’s illegal and it’s ending where it explicitly or implicitly takes place is a matter of applying or amending the existing laws, or forming new ones , not usually or always something all humans could engage in so that it ends. And it’s not “end of all human exploitation”, as non-consensual exploitation is already illegal. The situation is also different in different countries and one has to target the particular form of human slavery. Other human campaigns have to do with particular human rights issues which each country’s government has to change by legislation, even though the same issue campaigned all over the world, when possible, is also common and may indeed have a better effect. 

Moreover, with human rights, the injustice is not a matter of good or bad treatment but the injustice is always wrong regardless the treatment or ‘enrichment’, but something that nonhuman animal SICs suffer from as well. The only issue in nonhuman animals injustice as a start is the abolition of their property status, it’s not any other rights of theirs, as any other would presuppose the abolition of their property status first. Human rights are many. And for each one, we don’t campaign for e.g. the rights of non-heterosexuals with Korean parents to be married, but for every human adult in the y country. 

In general, I can’t see how else it could be done at the moment, but campaign against particular forms of human injustice , although I also do believe that the message should be generalised as much as possible, e.g. for humans of all races, religions, sexes, etc., and target the injustice from all similar institutions, governments, corporations etc. , which is something humans wake up to as well. I also believe that when vegans advocate for SIC human justice issues – e.g. forms of slavery, discriminations, rape – they *should* also include nonhuman rights, if at all possible, (as no less important than the human rights) and give a vegan message at the same time. If it *is* possible to include them and we don’t, then I think the campaign suffers the problems of the SICs for nonhuman animals, as nonhumans are already discriminated against and the campaign approves of their exclusion from our moral community. So, maybe these should be the “least SICs” ones which involve human justice causes.

Quote: Smara AnAnimal

Inga kommentarer:

Skicka en kommentar