Written by Elena Brodskaya and Keith Berger, co-founders, South Florida Vegan Education Group

[We encourage all readers to click the colored links embedded in this essay and explore the information on those sites.  Also, please read our Disclaimer regarding external sites, organizations, individuals, etc.]

It is what it is, and it’s not what it’s not

If animal advocates wish to be taken seriously, then we need to strive to be as honest, factual and accurate as possible in our rhetoric, approach and messaging.  When we make the statement “Animals are not property” as I’m witnessing more and more often, we’re failing to do so… and we’re failing the animals we’re trying to help.

Here’s why.

While vegans and animal rights advocates (the two groups are often mutually exclusive, unfortunately) may understand and work tirelessly to convince non-vegans that non-human animals are individuals rather than disposable, replaceable objects or “things” to be used merely for the satisfaction of human pleasure and convenience and then killed or discarded when no longer “useful”, saying that animals are not property is simply untrue because current laws state that animals are indeed property.  This is the problem we are trying to solve, and denial of reality never changes reality, no matter how fervently one may wish for that to happen.

The idea that animals are considered property under the law is not a matter of debate – it is a fact.  A simple Google search for “laws that state animals are property” yields results such as:

“Under most state and federal laws, animals primarily are regarded as property and have little or no legal rights of their own.  Because of this status, generally there is a presumption—provided no law is violated—in favor of the owner’s control and use over the best interests of the animal.” – Petfinder.com

“What legal rights do animals have?  Technically, none.  The law regards animals as property, with no more redress to mistreatment than, say, your refrigerator.  It follows, then, that so-called property owners can, under current law, use their property largely as they see fit…  The fact is that the law, as it stands today, has such low regard for animals that even companion animals possess no more value than the aforementioned refrigerator.  If, for example, your dog or cat is injured or killed by someone, the law says she may not be worth more than you originally paid for her, deep emotional attachments notwithstanding.” – Animal Law Resource Center

This is true on an international level and, although a few European countries have made changes to their civil codes in recent years reflecting that “animals are not objects; they are protected by special laws”, a closer look reveals that “…these provisions appear to have changed the legal status of animals in these countries.  Such declarations that animals are not objects and not subject to the laws of objects can easily lead one to construe that the legal status of animals has changed.  However, this is incorrect.  While these provisions have modified the degree to which animals are subject to the law of objects, they have not gone so far as to place animals in the category of ‘persons’.”  So even though “…the law states that they are no longer objects… in most cases they are still treated as such.” – Alternative Law Journal

No sleeves and half-truths

Here’s a wildly popular vegan advocate who ought to know better and yet he wears and sells these shirts:

This conflicting messaging is 50% fact and 50% fantasy:

• Fact – animals are not objects or machines 
• Fantasy – animals are not property or slaves – right now, they’re legally the former and because of this, often allowed to be treated as the latter.

As the saying goes in Alcoholics Anonymous, half measures availed us nothing.

Here’s another vegan “rockstar” who’s unfortunately carrying a careless message:

[Realizing I’ve opened myself up to debate as to the overall effectiveness of these two well-liked individuals’ advocacy by posting these photos in what might be construed as an unfavorable light, I submit this essay that discusses the organization with which they often work and encourage readers to draw their own conclusions.]

If animals weren’t legally considered property, we wouldn’t be working all day, every day to convince people to live vegan.  There would be no need to do so, as animals would currently be enjoying the right not to be used by humans against their will.  The fact that they are property is why we still need to do that.

Consider the following scenario: if one were to steal a dog from someone’s home and the dog’s owner (yes, owner – vegans and animal advocates may think of people with companion animals as “guardians” but the law recognizes them as owners) called the police, had the thief arrested and pressed charges, neither the owner, police or judge are going to be swayed toward leniency and allow the thief to keep the dog on the basis of the thief’s argument (or t-shirt, or sign) that “animals are not property” when, in fact, the law stipulates they are.  It is also important to bear in mind that laws protect property owners and not the property itself, so even if the nonconsensual relocation of the dog were to arguably result in her/him having a more pleasant life, the thief’s actions would still be considered criminal as they violated the property rights of the owner.  I firmly believe that animals ought not to be seen or used as property but, until the laws change, the fact remains that they are property whether we want to accept it or not.  It is what it is.

All first impressions matter

Living as we do in a speciesist society in which laws maintain that non-human animals are the property of humans, making untrue statements to the contrary (which includes wearing shirts and carrying signs bearing such erroneous information) renders one’s argument effectively invalid and is likely to close the door to further productive communication on the subject.  The notion that these false statements “get the conversation started” is problematic since starting a debate with a fallacy immediately calls one’s credibility into question and weakens an already challenging position.  Considering that vegans comprise roughly 2% of the population and therefore represent a minority opinion regarding the rights of non-human animals to be treated with fairness and justice, it is crucial that our position be as strong as possible and that we take care not to put obstacles in our own way to make our goal that much more daunting to reach.  Since we only have a few moments to make a first impression, careless and confusing messaging is best avoided if we want to create fruitful conversations.

Here’s an example of clear, direct and factual messaging that is easily supported:

To illustrate that animals are not objects, I’ve often asked non-vegans if they live or have ever lived with a companion animal.  Nearly 100% of those with whom I’ve spoken state that they have, so I then ask them to tell me one of the animals’ names and they gladly comply.  I then ask whether they live or have ever lived with a lamp (or table, or sofa…) and 100% of them state that they have.  When I ask them to tell me the name of their lamp, they are unable to do so and, when I ask them why they didn’t name their lamp, they usually reply (after blinking at me a bit) that “people don’t name lamps”.  I then ask them to consider that the reason we usually name the animals with whom we share our homes and lives and don’t usually name our lamps, tables and sofas is that we inherently recognize that animals are individuals – animate, lively, and responsive individuals possessing unique personalities and qualities that clearly indicate they are more than mere objects – and that lamps, tables and sofas are simply things.  In my experience, this seems to be readily understood and often segues neatly into further conversation about the problems inherent in objectifying individuals regardless of what species they might belong to, and the oppression and exploitation that invariably follows.

So what’s the solution?

By educating the public with honest, factual and accurate messaging that treating non-human animals as objects and “things” rather than the individuals they are is morally reprehensible and that the only morally acceptable choice given that conclusion is to live vegan, we are working to dismantle speciesism and build social change.  This is a necessary precursor to creating meaningful legal change that will shift the paradigm that currently defines animals as property, makes their myriad uses for human benefit acceptable and even appealing, and demands their unnecessary and violent deaths.  This paradigm shift begins with clear, consistent, unequivocal vegan education because, when individuals begin to live vegan, they quickly cease supporting, promoting and engaging in all forms of animal use and exploitation.

There is a difference between what is and what we wish would be.  Let’s accept reality and work toward making our wish for animals to have the right not to be used as property and to be treated with justice, fairness and respect come true!