There are a number of factors here, but the most important is that the idea that we shouldn't discriminate according to species is entirely contrary to the idea that we could discriminate by race, religion, gender, sexuality or any other arbitrary difference. If we are serious about stopping people from discriminating against non-human animals then we are equally obliged to oppose all forms of discrimination between humans in order to remain consistent and coherent. This is at the core of AR philosophy and therefore it is vital that we openly and publicly reject racist, sexist, homophobic and discriminatory behaviour at every opportunity. However, as an inclusive and emancipatory movement we must also seek to educate and enlighten, so where possible we must try to engage with, rather than reject, those who believe that skinning a dog alive for its fur in China is any worse than skinning a mink alive in Ireland, (or the UK before mink farming was banned here).

Admittedly, I am that interested in animal rights, although I am against unnecessary harm to animals.

It is right that people in the movement is challenging the obvious, racist opportunism of the English Defence League (and its Jewish wing).

As a black person, what I find highly offensive, is animal rights advocates arguing for their position by associating black people with animals. They argue that black people should not be treated badly therefore animals should not. If you don't think this is offensive, ask black people.

I've never heard an animal rights activist suggest that because black people aren't treated badly then neither should animals, although I have to confess that I've heard statements with similar level of ignorance, but in all honesty that sounds just like the kind of repulsive racism which we're trying to vocally reject! Therefore, if you have experienced such things then I will apologise on behalf of the silent majority of animal rights activists who go unnoticed, (in the public arena), and assure you that we actively and openly challenge such people and reject their vile opinions.

On the subject of religious slaughter, I oppose it, but I don't oppose it any more vigorously than I oppose "normal" slaughter. The EDL are a bunch of reactionary clowns, (although unfortunately they're not funny), who don't understand that halal and kosher slaughter is exactly the same, (the only difference is the prayers that are said), so whilst they actively condemn Muslims for their "barbarism" but ignore Jews who participate in exactly the same conduct, (quite aside from their participation in the barbaric slaughter of animals that haven't been killed according to a religious code).

As I've already stated, the true philosophy of animal rights is one of compassion and utterly rejects all forms of discrimination, be they according to race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, physical and/or mental ability or the species of the animal, (be they human or non-human, fluffy, cute, ugly or scary). We also welcome all comers, as long as they adhere to the guidelines of respect for all living beings, without discrimination.

How is it ignorance to point out that speciesism and racism (sexism too) are in many ways similar ideas?

They are both surely rooted in ignorance about those who are different?

However we will always have plenty of speciesist corpse-munchers in anti-racist groups (and no-one tries to ban them as far as I know, nor should they ban then if they agree on the issue at hand which is RACISM!).

Likewise we may also always see a few racists who care about animal rights, because not all people are consistent in their thinking.

We might as well accept that not everyone in AR is going to be ultra-PC on other issues, and we should stop this nonsensical thought policing getting in the way of fighting for those who cannot stand up for their own rights - the non-humans.

I find it quite sinister actually.

Animal rights should not be about egos or about forcing a whole set of politically correct opinions onto the whole movement, that is how it remains a small cliquey movement.

Live with the reality, not all of us in the UK AR movement are happy about witchhunts. It does not make us racists just because some of us take this position.

"we will always have plenty of speciesist corpse-munchers in anti-racist groups."

Speciesist corpse munchers?! What, like crows, or foxes? Hello anonymous, this is Mothe Earth calling, anyone home?

TBF, The accusations being discussed here come as no surprise. Of all the branches of progressive political action that are subject to entryism by fash, AR is second only to anti-Zionism. Mainly because they're an acceptable shared platform. What was Ernie Lehmann saying, back in the 30s?

"We recognize that separating humanity from nature, from the whole of life, leads to humankind’s own destruction and to the death of nations. Only through a re-integration of humanity into the whole of nature can our people be made stronger. That is the fundamental point of the biological tasks of our age. Humankind alone is no longer the focus of thought, but rather life as a whole . . . This striving toward connectedness with the totality of life, with nature itself, a nature into which we are born, this is the deepest meaning and the true essence of National Socialist thought."

All very cosy til the final sentence and the jackbooted chickens come home to roost.

If what anonymous suggests is a representative positio of even only some AR activists then Gaia help 'em! You're saying what? Racists are okay as long as they keep their traps shut at the right time? Fuck that.

The BIG difference between anti-racist groups accepting people who eat meat and animal rights groups accepting racists is that the consumption of meat is socially acceptable, whereas racism is not!

40 years ago it might have been socially acceptable to use offensive language towards minorities, (or even just those who were different), but these days it simply is not! By the same analogy, in 40 years time it may no longer be seen as socially acceptable to consume flesh from animals, (especially as by then it will be being "grown" in laboratories), so for animal rights activists to accept racism is regressive and VERY, VERY, VERY wrong!!!!

The amount of racists who are likely to join our cause is low, whereas the potential support for animal rights from minorities, and thus the amount of extra support we could gain from a strict anti-racist policy, is MUCH, MUCH more significant than the odd racist crank!

For example, Hindus are generally very supportive of AR issues, but one racist loser would alienate their support. I also suggest you look at the movements in other countries, where racist and religious zealots are firmly ostracised for their potential to cause harm to the movement. To suggest that we should accept bigots because they stand for what we stand for is short-sighted, and will harm our progressive movement in the longer term!

We shouldn't ask that everyone in our movement be "ultra-PC", but we should at least expect that they are able to adhere to the basic social norms, (such as not being overtly racist). Equally, in years to come I'm sure that future generations who oppose discrimination will steadily come to oppose speciesism in the same way, but we have an obligation to set an example, and that example is to oust the racists and engage the minorities who are likely to be favourable to our cause, (such as the Hindus and the Buddhists).

Specism is in no way similar to racism or sexism, and any attempts by animal rights people to equate them is naive, ill thought out and dangerous.

Do you seriously think someone killing a mosquito is the same as killing a person? Cos that's the logical end point of your arguement with specism, and it's is (quite honestly) mental.

The logical end point to your argument is suicide, and seeing as we haven't all killed ourselves yet, you'd have to assume you have got this one wrong.

Animal liberation is about respecting other species. Sticking them in factory farms, torturing them and slaughtering them is not, so we are opposed to this, and many other ways in which humans have invented to extract 'value' from animals.

Seeing as animal slavery is a massive foundation to capitalism perhaps you ought to look at this issue again?

I can recommend 'Bob Torres: Making a Killing' as a useful read.

Thanks, have read that book, and thought it OK, but a bit limited and still full of animal rights ideology. Have you read The Vegetarian Myth by Lierre Keith? It's excellent.

Yes, I agree capitalism uses animals like commodities and that's fucked up. But it doesn't follow that ALL use of animals for food is wrong. Infact I think it's OK if done in a way that's ecologically sound (small scale as part of permaculture perhaps) and it's necessary (if you look at all research that isn't done by vegans!) inorder to be able able to feed ourselves. Not to mention the rest of the world. Are indigneous people and peasant farmers wrong for hunting/raising some animals for food?

Which leads me to the conclusion that it's not really about animal rights or specism, but capitalism, and making things about meat eating=murder, racism=specism etc. and other such rubbish slogans is not radical or helpful.

Thanks for your comments though, more useful than I was expecting.

...how on earth is the end point of my arguement suicide???!!!!

I recommend Impeachment of Man by Savitri Devi.

Not just those who don't want alleged racists invading their space, but also those suffering from trauma, burnout and stress, and those with autism. A diverse group of people coming together in a crowded place creates a very chaotic and hectic environment, and not everybody copes with chaos easily.

Those who were there know what I'm talking about.

The end point of your argument is suicide, because if we care about mosquitos, woodlice, worms, ants etc and offered them the same consideration as we do ourselves, then the amount of destruction we cause logically suggests that we ought to kill ourselves in order to prevent the greater loss of life.

But, that isn't the nature of animal liberation. Animal liberation isn't about halting killing altogether. This would be absurd, we are not about to go around and take out primary predators in order to 'save' those that are killed and eaten.

You can argue for humans the answer is small local farms, but in the present situation few people can afford the land to finance a smallholding with animals, unless you are pretty wealthy. The same goes for purchasing organic meat. It just doesn't stack up.

I shouldn't think you are in favour of something like this:

 http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2011/jan/19/vegetarian-animal-cruelty-meat

At the end of the day, for me, animal liberation is most concerned with preventing unnecessary suffering, and there is a lot we can do to halt this clear and obvious suffering before we debate whether in fact we actually can survive without killing animals at all. There are, afetr all, plenty of other animals that survive well enough without killing animals for food.

The animal rights movement is a broad church and to try to dictate what peoples views are on other subjects is not on. The movement is not left-wing progressive etc, all sorts of people hold strong views on the subject, I couldn't care less what a persons political views are!

As everyone's recommending some interesting reading, I suggest you read the UN Report "Livestock's Long Shadow", which exposes the catastrophic environmental damage caused by the animal industries. No matter how you dress it up, consuming animal products isn't in anyone's interests, (be that the consumer, the consumed or the planet we live on).

To put it in simple terms that even a "meat eating anarchist", (aka corporate troll), can understand; whether you respect their right of all sentient beings to live, whether you care about your own health or whether you want to arrest catastrophic climate change, the only option is to stop consuming animal products!

"I recommend Impeachment of Man by Savitri Devi.

JEZ"

Ha, thought the fire needed a little oil? Yeah, very anti-speciesist and pro AR. By a woman who believed Hitler to be a deity of some kind (like, literally, a god).

"I couldn't care less what a persons political views are!

eddy"

So what's the basis of AR if it's not political? Radical sentimentalism? Aggresive dietary moralism?

"No matter how you dress it up, consuming animal products isn't in anyone's interests, (be that the consumer, the consumed or the planet we live on).

[...]

hether you respect their right of all sentient beings to live, whether you care about your own health or whether you want to arrest catastrophic climate change, the only option is to stop consuming animal products!"

No, the answer is to stop capitalism. It's only from within capitalist ideology that the idea that changing your patterns of consumption (from one diet complete with recipe books, special shops and a full range of associated commodities to another diet complete with recipe books, special shops and a full range of commodities) will ever change anything could ever emerge. (And let's not get into the whole environmental impact of *having to* import pulses, and the enivironmental impact of soy-based foodstuffs.)

And, I quite like seeing the countryside with animals in it. Without the animal-product economy many simply wouldn't be there. The flatlands would be given over to industrial arable farming and more and more megafarms would proliferate whilst the removal of sheepfarming from hillcountry would totally change the ecosystem, and not necessarily in a way that would increase biodiversity - how would farmers then make a living? OPen up the countrtyside to 'nature lovers' and outdoor sports people who would then trash the place?

It's the way that capitalism manages the food economy (or any economic system that emphasises intensive forms of farming - animals or plants) that screws the environment and causes animal suffering prior to slaughter.

1) 90% of all soya produced is fed to animals, despite this being a shockingly wasteful practice.

2) The vast majority of animals in the countryside are living wild and not being exploited by humans.

3) Animal exploitation and environmental destruction are also rife in communist states, suggesting it's less to do with the social system and more about defining the social values.

4) Nature is far better equipped to balance itself than any human being, and certainly not humans who have appropriated the land for their own use and whose only consideration is whether the land remains fit for their purpose, to suggest otherwise, (even for the purposes of trolling), is absurd!

5) The way you argue with yourself, by posting opposing points of view, is a marvel to watch and the way you present something then attack and ridicule is funny. Proposing a right wing book and then exposing it is very clever, and I'm sure it'll make people think all animal rights activists are pro-fascist but people are wise to your methods and it's why nobody believes anything they read in Indymedia comments.

Gateway 303? What because thinking that a bit of soul searching might not go amiss? TBH, having spent years squatting and involved in Green/Anarcho activities, it was the increasing number of fascists in the movement (remember the whole Green Anarchist debacle?) that led me to get the fuck out of dodge. You can't stick your head in the sand and go around pretending that because you're so sure that you're right then anyone who agrees with you is also fundamentally right. It's sad to see it happening again, people making allowances for racist/nationalist shites because, 'it's a different kind of politics'. That's just the naive bollocks that leads to groups/movements getting coopted and taken over. Like i said above, it's all about entryism.

anyway, the points made are just silly:

1) so what? I'm saying, well, what is the alternative? If we all pretended that we were herbivores, what would we eat? Where would our protein come from? Non-animal sources tend to be imported from overseas and the increased production necessitated would obviously hugely increase production - what about the environmental impact of this? Or wouldn't matter cos it was somewhere out of sight, out of mind?

2) I live in the country and have done for most of my life. I can honestly say I don't see many animals that isn't (a) being farmed, (b) in a niche created by human activity (hedgerows etc) or (c) seen as potential food. And, if you're growing your own food to the extent that you depend on it, you ain't going to be hugging anything that endangers that food supply. Of course, if you rely on your local supermarket/shop then I guess you don't really see things like this. It's very easy to get high and mighty about food when it comes easy to you in tins or plaggy bags.

3)Communism's not the only alternative to capitalism, you know? It's funny you accuse me of being a troll and then display a kind of binary thought process where there's only capitalism or communism!

4) yoiu miss the point entirely. Again, i was saying what if... animal food production is ceased. What happens to the countryside when it's not being used for animal farming? Do you think it's just going to go back to a natural state and the peple that live there will just conviently disappear? And what about the urban populations? Where's their food coming from? Or is the population simply going to decrease tyo a more managable level in some kind of swivel-eyed Malthusian sweep of the hand? This is why fash are able to hitch an ideological ride cos there's this strong anti-human strand in green thinking which needs addressing. But, you know, if you think people will just conviently disappear 'when the time comes' then i guess that doesn't matter to you.

5)sorry mate but if i'd wanted to introduce a load of books by fascists who were strong on deep, deep ecology then I would do - couldn't be arsed pretending to be someone else - there's plenty of them so it's no surprise that someone else did it. It's not as if there's not history there. if you're no aware of it then check it out. And don't put words i my mouth, i didn't say that "all animal rights activists are pro-fascist" i said that is an area where there's been and continues to be entryism. The fact that some people involved in AR will tolerate fascists is, to me, really stupid.

To be honest, and i know this seldom wins me friends, i see AR as a huge fuckin diversion from confronting capitalism and the way it treats humans, including fascist and racist variants; you'll never free people and make a fairer world if you won't confront human exploitation. And its at that point that someone usually pops up and tells me that that's the point, its about animals, not people and we go back round the same old circle.

my question above remains, if it's not political then what is it?

Your writing style has a remarkable similarity to a well known anti-animal rights blog, which subtly spins together a mix of half-truths and disinformation with the odd blatant lie to achieve it's objective of denigrating animal rights campaigners. It is well known that the Gateway 303 trolling has predominately also focused on animal rights and it's widely accepted that the two entities are linked. Anybody doing the slightest bit of research will see that some of the moderated comments on this thread come directly from said blog, so therefore it's safe to assume there's some trolling going on.

Having studied the modus operandi, it's not difficult to spot the kind of insincere nonsense spouted by someone pretending to have an opinion when their only objective is to marginalise a group of people or a philosophy. All the answers to the questions you ask are available to you, for example vegans who seem to survive quite happily without animal produce and the question about emissions is easily answered by some basic fact based searching.

Animal rights is a social value generally seen in more compassionate societies and religions, such as Buddhism, where as capitalism is a social system and not a social value. For example not enslaving human beings is considered to be a widely held social value, and thus is not something that is generally exploited by the capitalist social system, whereas not destroying the environment and not unnecessarily killing non-human animals are not widely accepted social values and thus are exploited by a capitalist social system, (as well as in all other social systems, such as communism or anarchy).

Something which strives to change a universal social value is never going to run contrary to something which seeks to change a social system, and therefore to say that animal rights is a "huge fuckin diversion from confronting capitalism and the way it treats humans" shows your actual agenda because our exploitation of animals is causing direct and lasting danger to both human and non-human beings alike.

From the adverse effects of animal consumption on human health and the environment, to the mindless insanity of testing human medicines on animals who are biologically nothing like us and then assuming that you can predict the results, which is causing such chronic delays and failures in drug development! Want a cure for cancer? Well we've got loads for mice, but none of them work for humans! What do you now? Genetically modify the mouse so it's "more" like a human! And you're seriously suggesting the absurdity of this doesn't harm human beings?

The reason certain "interests" target the animal rights community so vigorously is because they know that widespread acceptance of animal rights philosophy would quickly expose shocking truths which would be the tipping point for many of these practises. So, instead, the only option is to attempt to redefine the subject and divert attention from the truth, and that's where the trolling comes in. I haven't written this explanation to debate with or feed the troll, I'll just leave the facts for those with enough sense to read between the lines and never believe the accuracy of what they see on these comments.

Everything I've written can be verified through external searching, now it's time for you to....

Sorry but you can go around belating troll all you like but the fact of the matter is that I'm jsut another person who wants social change and thinks that all the energy wasted on AR is just that - a waste. Don't you think it's funny that so much energy is expended by the system in infiltrating AR/ER? Could it be that it's a dead end that revolutionary energy can be channelled into with no risk of any change ever occurring? Well who knows....

"Gateway 303 trolling has predominately also focused on animal rights and it's widely accepted that the two entities are linked. Anybody doing the slightest bit of research will see that some of the moderated comments on this thread come directly from said blog, so therefore it's safe to assume there's some trolling going on. "

Looks like you need to back off from making safe assumptions as well as brush up your skills of literary analysis cos I've no idea what you're talking about and would be quite happy to for you to link to a like mind for me. Tbh, i can't be arsed finding it for myself cos it's sunny and after i've had this cup of tea i'm going to get back to tending to my flock...

"Want a cure for cancer? Well we've got loads for mice, but none of them work for humans! What do you now? Genetically modify the mouse so it's "more" like a human! And you're seriously suggesting the absurdity of this doesn't harm human beings? "

Err, yep, if it finds a cure for cancer then fair enough. You see, as i said, i grow a lot of my own stuff and mice are a pain in the arse, my cat doesn't catch all of them, tho she does her best - you want to see animal cruelty? Watch a cat. Anyway, I don't give a fucka bout mice. If they can be used to cure cancer then great. It's not harming humans.

"our exploitation of animals is causing direct and lasting danger to both human and non-human beings alike. "

Capitalism is the source of that exploitation, not animal husbandry or other legacies of millennia of humans' place in 'nature'.

" the only option is to attempt to redefine the subject and divert attention from the truth, and that's where the trolling comes in. I haven't written this explanation to debate with or feed the troll, I'll just leave the facts for those with enough sense to read between the lines and never believe the accuracy of what they see on these comments. "

Hang on, the issue is that AR/eco activism is rife with fascists and needs to clear its house UNLESS the general feeling is that fascism's okay if its AR-friendly fascism. If that's the case that bollocks to ya :-x


"Everything I've written can be verified through external searching, now it's time for you to....
Get back under your bridge!"

yeah, yeah, dismiss any criticism with empty smears and vague reference to "external searching". Lol. Yeah, it *is* all out there amd the situation is looking pretty fucked. Keep your head in the sand if you like.

Real animal rights activists have given the AR view on racism and discrimination, and it has already been agreed that AR and racism are incompatible, (aside from the subtle trolling). Very few ARAs would condone racism and those that do only do it through some misguided expectation that it would weaken the movement if they turned away racists.

"Tbh, i can't be arsed finding it for myself cos it's sunny and after i've had this cup of tea i'm going to get back to tending to my flock..."

So, are you're really saying is that you have no interest in examining the facts and instead only intend to provide you uninformed and critical opinion, over a sustained period of time, without any ulterior motive? No need to answer that one, it's a rhetorical question which has already been answered by your previous comments.

You have repeatedly told blatant lies about the levels of emissions released from animal based farming or arable based farming, despite the fact that the information was provided in the thread. You've admitted that you can't be bothered to investigate the facts, although you're happy to declare false and erroneous statement as if they're true, and you claim to have no interest in the subject yet you're interested enough to keep returning with childish comments and disinformation.

And you're really saying you're not a troll?

It seems that the "divide and conquer" rightwing trolls are having a field day with Indymedia thinking they can bring down a whole entire movement by over-emphasising the hypocrisy of a handful of mavdericks.

There are racists who are also against animal abuse, Bridit Bardot for instance, who supports the neo-nazi French National Front, but to extrapolate this to paint it as a trend is takling liberties with the truth.

It is also important to remember that the EDL fascist thugs who trash KFCs will after their hate-inspired actions, pop next door for a Big Mac or Flame-Grilled Woppa, and thus are not animal rights activists at all, but racist charlatans.

Most if not all vegans are anti-racist, anti-capitalist and alternatively-minded apart from the odd arsehole who speaks only for themselves and not the whole movement.

This will speed up the "modernisation" of Indymedia, turning the site into comments-free regions like Northern Indymedia and London Indymedia, where comments are often disabled, keeping trolls at bay but preventing constructive comments.

Apart from Bridgit Bardot whol is a racist and who is extremely potty, and hypocritical EDLers who talk about animal suffering after trashing a KFC, while poppimng next door afterwards for a Big Mac or Flame-Grilled Woppa, few people in the movement are racist.

Yes, the trolls will be quick to mention that Adolf Hitler banned fox hunting, but 99.999% of UK vegans oppose Hitler's legacy of organised racism with the BNP/EDL/BPP etc.

Rightwing trolls are trying to make a mockery of Indymedia through no nosensical arguments which rather than exposing hypcorisy on a grand-scale, expose the boredom of the British rightwing as they wait restlessly for bombing updates from Libya with fixated pleasure.

You can keep on calling me a troll all you like. Old Bill? Lol. I think we all know that AR/'eco-activism' is where old bill is at it's most active so, tbf, it's more likely that supporters of AR are 'trolld bill' than opponents of it. Or having you not been keeping up with events?

It makes me laugh that you accuse me of being someone intent on dividing 'the cause' when that happened decades ago, largely because of the focus on 'single cause' stuff like AR.

I'd like to see an end to capitalism, not tinker around the edges.

"You have repeatedly told blatant lies about the levels of emissions released from animal based farming or arable based farming, despite the fact that the information was provided in the thread."

The best I remember was, "I'm not going to tell you but it's out there, you need to go and search for it." Which isn't really all that far removed from, "Cos I said so." Or going, "Liar, liar pants are on fire."

If you firmly believe that there's a not a problem with racism or fascistic narratives within AR/eco-activism then fine, you keep the faith that everything's fine and everyone's fine and it's all fine, and it's all good, it's like that, it's just the way it

And, yeah, keep calling me a troll if it makes things easier. The interesting thing is I'm still sat here wondering if AR is a politics, a moral choice or what. Cos the difference is pretty big and so far I'm hearing a lot of faith but not much analysis.

Apparently if Hitler had won the war he was going to go to great lengths to promote Vegetarianism in Germany and ban the eating of meat.

I don't think a country has ever come close to this before. Just because the Nazis wanted this does not make it bad, if Hitler liked cream cakes does this mean we all should stop eating them??

Lets keep the politics out of the Animal Rights movement and keep the interests of the Animals as our No1 priority.

“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” - Martin Luther King

The animal rights movement has a proud tradition of opposing racism and other forms of discrimination. Animal rights groups and campaigns have strict anti-racist and anti-fascist policies and I think that this is something to be very proud of.

While the following will be quite obvious to many people, I think it never hurts to reiterate the arguments for our stance. So what will follow is the case for anti-racist policies within the movement. It's going to be quite a long post but I hope you will read it through and let me know what you think in the comments.

The Pragmatic Case

In terms of the advancement of non-human animal rights alone (without bringing any 'human rights' aspect in to it) there is a very strong case for an anti-racist stance within the movement. Most obviously, racism means that potential new activists and vegans can be turned off to the message if they feel there are people that hate their race hanging around. No one wants to join a group with members that hate you for an aspect of you that you can never change! The animals will suffer because certain communities will feel excluded.

Perhaps slightly less obviously, having racists in the movement will effect the movements expansion in general. Activists from other movements are perfect new animal activists. They have already shown they are motivated enough to turn up for demos and clearly are concern about the world around them. We should encourage cross-movement solidarity. People from human rights causes will be put off animal rights if the movement is seen to harbour racists. Additionally, most good people (who are the sort of people that would care about non-human animals) will be put off by any racists lurking around. By putting them off we would be only harming the animals.

If animal rights does not transcend colour, religion and national origin the animals, to put it bluntly, are stuffed! On the other hand if a few racists feel put out about being made unwelcome in animal rights there is not going to be a big problem for the animals. So the pragmatic animal rights stance against racism alone make sense for the animals.

The Ideological Argument

Animal rights is based on the principle that irrelevant characteristic should not be used to preclude individual rights. Quite simply a being deserves rights because he or she can suffer and otherwise experience life. The fact such a being has four legs or two has no bearing on whether their interests should be taken into account.

This basic logic rests upon an acceptance that picking characteristics at random (such as species) is not an acceptable way of drawing a moral line. It also rejects the idea that one can choose only to protect his or her own group and exclude others.

Racism is a morally irrelevant characteristic just like species. Races are groups of people and are not significantly genetically distinct. Therefore they do not have a specific way of behaving, each individual is different. They all can suffer and experience life, which is the basis for animal rights. Therefore the very logical pillar on which animal rights stands precludes racism.

It Is An Animal Rights Issue

But we can go further. Animal rights at it's most basic level is an understanding that all sentient animals have rights. To discriminate against a species is speciesism. Humans are just another species of animal. To discriminate against humans (or a group thereof) is a direct form of speciesism. We would not allow discrimination against one type of cat because they came from a certain country so to allow an analogous form of discrimination against human animals is clearly speciesist.

This is not a flippant point or a question of semantics it is something at the very core of animal rights that discrimination based on species membership is unacceptable. Therefore racism is specifically a breach of animal rights. It is an animal rights issue. Clearly the animal rights movement shouldn't support actions that breach the rights of animals, that would make no sense!

Consistency is the most important part of a belief system. Speciesism is exactly the same as racism and sexism. I have no time whatsoever for meat eaters who claim to be anarchists. If there is a plant based alternative to flesh a true anarchist will always choose this option. Our spiritual evolution has led us to value compassion over blood lust.