Beyond Prop 2: Continuing the Conversation

by Stephanie Ernst

Published November 04, 2008 @ 06:37AM PST

I've been doing my best to keep my trap shut about Proposition 2--to withhold any further criticisms related to it and its promotion, that is--until after the election. This would be made much easier if all articles and interview questions or answers about it would cease stating, implying, or letting stand the assumption that it will stop cruelty or create humane treatment. The author of this Time article at least led into the Q&A by stating that Prop 2 would mandate "more humane" treatment, and I have to tell you--that "more," though it still doesn't adequately clarify what will and won't be done under Prop 2, nevertheless goes a long way in keeping my temper under control; the problem is that it doesn't get used nearly often enough.

At an event this past Saturday night, a fellow animal rights advocate suggested that I couldn't really be angry at Wayne Pacelle or other individuals at HSUS for the way Prop 2 has been promoted. I completely disagree. For most of the voting and eating public, Pacelle, who has been all over the news and talk shows and ads, is the face and voice of "Yes on Prop 2," and that face and voice and the ads he promotes keep stating or implying that this "modest" measure, as they call it, is going to stop or prevent cruelty to animals.

And when the first question in this Q&A was "What does humane treatment of farm animals mean?" he had yet another chance to dispel the notion that Prop 2 is going to require humane treatment. He passed on the chance. Again. Indeed, he didn't even answer the question. He simply repeated the talking points about what Prop 2 is supposed to do. He's not a bad guy. He's not a double agent seeking to undermine the animal rights movement. And yes, he and HSUS have done some admirable work in certain areas. But he's also not above reproach, and neither is HSUS.

And I, like some others, think the campaign to pass Prop 2 has been deceptive and has likely had the effect of making many people simply feel better about consuming certain animal products whose production still absolutely involves cruelty and immense suffering. Prop 2 is supposed to eliminate some cruelties, and the campaign supporting it is supposed to expose cruelties. Instead the campaign has been exposing one set of injustices while completely ignoring and arguably even lying about cruelties and horrors that are just as bad.

Another moment in the Q&A:

There are people in the animal rights movement worried that if Prop 2 passes, it will condone the practice of factory farming. How do you react?

Social change occurs on an incremental pathway. For those who want to see more people adopt a vegetarian diet and not have animals slaughtered for food at all — I do believe that this discussion about Prop 2 builds important awareness about our responsibilities to animals.

Putting aside for one moment that the question does not nearly or accurately convey all the concerns that some animal rights advocates have about Prop 2, the answer is not an answer. The answer, as usual, does not respond to our varied concerns or even to the question.

I fully intended for Elisa Camahort's supportive but moderate guest post on Prop 2 last week to be the last on the topic prior to the actual vote. There are indeed animal rights advocates who have been urging other advocates to vote no or abstain from voting on Prop 2, and I understand their reasons. I don't go that far, and I don't think Prop 2 failing is going to do the animals any good either. At this point in the game, though I'm not going to feel much satisfaction when it passes, I do hope it passes. I don't like what its failure would say about humans and their compassion for animals (because most people who are voting no are not doing so out of concern for animals). And if I thought this post would affect people's vote or affect the outcome today, I wouldn't be writing it. But luckily, I don't wield that kind of power, and I can say what I want.

What it comes down to is this: cruelty and suffering will not end with either the passage or the failure of Prop 2, and neither must the conversation. And I'm not talking about the conversation among animal rights advocates, which needs no encouragement to continue--I'm talking about the conversation in the mainstream. I'm talking about Oprah and Ellen and the New York Times.

The question is, how do we do it? And is the public going to feel lied to when we now go back and tell them that the tagline "Stop Animal Cruelty" attached to Prop 2 was just get-it-passed propaganda, and there still is, and still will be upon implementation in 2015, plenty of horrifying cruelty, in California as well as everywhere else? I wonder how deceived the Oprah viewers are going to feel when we go back to them and say, "Umm, we kind of left out some stuff in that show. Now let's really, honestly talk about what 'free-range' and 'cage-free' mean. Let's talk about all the practices, from the animals' birth to death, that we ignored when our goal was just to pass Prop 2. Let's show you the footage of what most facilities look like. And while we're at it, let's also look at how those free-range hens we saw were debeaked as mere babies and at how dark and terrifying their final days and moments are in the transport truck and slaughterhouse."

Regardless of my and others' irritation at the Prop 2 campaign, HSUS is better positioned than any of the rest of us to continue the mainstream conversation it has started and to reveal all the truths about animal agriculture and animal suffering. But will it do it?

Photo of hen by Joanna Lucas and courtesy of Peaceful Prairie Sanctuary. See the Peaceful Prairie blog post "Restoration."