Animal rights is something that most of us do not spend too much time thinking about. We may cringe at the sight of caged animals in the local zoo, or avoid cosmetic products tested on animals, but in our day-to-day life we rarely encounter the world of animal activism in the books and newspapers we read. We are distanced from the issues by a lack of public discussion. Yet with issues such as xeno-transplantation becoming an ever-closer reality, animal rights is something that is not, and should not be, easily ignored.

Charlotte Montgomery has set out to have this changed. In Blood Relations: Humans, Animals, and Politics (Between the Lines, September 2000), Montgomery explores the diversity and complexity of the movement in Canada. She argues that animal issues do not receive fair consideration. She also suggests that animal rights issues are symptomatic of a larger structural problem with the political process in Canada. Recently, I sat down with her to talk about why we should all be concerned about animal rights.

Joanna Fine: Why did you feel it was necessary to write a book on animal rights in Canada?

Charlotte Montgomery: In terms of Canadian groups, people, and issues there are only a couple books out there. People tend to think of either the UK or the United States when they think of animal rights politics. But it is not true. It’s just that in Canada we don’t pay much attention to it, we treat it as kind of nutty. In that sense I don’t think people are even aware of what hundreds of people are working on in Canada and why. Blood Relations basically says “here’s an example of what’s out there, and what you don’t know about.” It’s quite strange for something of interest to so many people to have such a gap in attention and knowledge about it.

JF: So, is the problem that animal rights is not being talked about?

CM: It's deliberately not being talked about. That's what I thought was interesting when I starting looking at it. It isn’t that everybody said I’ve never thought about it. Among those who have familiarity with animals, especially in a commercial way, they are deliberately not talking about it. The notion is that if you treat it with any dignity or respect, you give “those people” a huge opening. The real problem is that you can’t seem to have a conversation yet in Canadian terms and be treated seriously.

JF: Yet animal rights seems to be very timely considering issues such as the water crisis in Walkerton, Ontario. Why don’t we read about the animal rights side of issues such as Walkerton in the media?

CM: I think it’s a certain amount of laziness on the part of the media, as well as unfamiliarity. These issues may be interesting but they are not really day-to-day. What I found unforgiveable on the part of media is that when people covered the water disaster in Walkerton, they talked all about what kind of systems should be in place, who should monitor them, and everything else in order to protect you from this poisonous stuff. But they don’t go and say “do you really think this poisonous stuff that we’re spending huge amounts of money keeping out of the water should have to be there in the first place?” Why didn’t they ask why is it there?

JF: Why do you think this is?

CM: Because it is agriculture, which has a reputation of being good solid citizens, people don’t stop and think about it because it’s just what is there. It’s there because it’s there, and we do things that way because that’s the way we do things. But in fact, most of us don’t know how those things are done. We don’t know that there are huge amounts of animals in one place. We sort of think that’s normal life so we should protect against things we can’t get around. That is an example of a shocking lapse on the part of the media.

JF: As an experienced journalist, why do you think the Canadian media fail to treat animal issues as a serious political issue?

CM: In order to have that type of conversation over animals, you have to get over the hump of ridicule. That there is something sappy, or nutty, or frivolous about you because until you solve the many human problems why would anyone in their right mind want to waste their time on animal issues. And yet there are a lot of people who are sympathetic. I don’t think a lot of people in the general population would find this at all extreme. Unfortunately, because it’s about animals, people see it as irrelevant. In fact, its about humans, it’s not about animals. It’s about what humans are doing. There are ethics that underlie a lot of things we do and you have to deal with those questions before you can have policy.

JF: Is part of the problem the lack of an underlying ethic of human-non-human relations?

CM: I think the lack is perhaps people who are active in political issues, whether as politicians or as political activists, being willing to help raise these issues. You always need someone to champion an issue. At some point, you have to have some politicians that say we see your concern, let’s talk about how we can change the laws. There are very few politicians that will do that for animals.

JF: How does Canada differ from other countries in this respect?

CM: I don’t think animal rights in Canada and elsewhere is synonymous. In the United States they have different rules, different ways to get information, and easier access to the media. It’s not quite as hard in the US to get some coverage but here it is treated as though it is silly: you have to explain what the point is. You can’t get attention because there is no premise there to work on, no notion that the government might pay any attention or that anybody will care. It’s like operating in a vacuum. Does anyone care among the readers? The answer is yes but where does it go? Nowhere.

JF: In Blood Relations you make it clear that the animal rights movement is not a homogenous group of people. What are the views of “those people” who are not getting their voices heard?

CM: There is a wide range of views with extremes on either side of the movement. That is not to say they are extreme in the normal sense of the word. I found the extreme animal rights side far more logical and unextreme than I would have expected. What I found extreme and what really shocked me is the other edge. The people who run what I thought were perhaps not as aggressive or far-ranging animal welfare organizations. I was startled at what they don’t do.

JF: You discuss the direct action side of the animal rights movement, such as mink farm raids. What does direct action accomplish?

CM: That depends on who you ask in the movement. Some would say its very damaging and it sets them back -- it destroys the inch-by-inch progress they make at being heard because politicians are weary about being seen to have them in their office because they’re associated with nuts. Then there are people who say I don’t do it but I can see why they do and I don’t criticize them. If you make it impossible to have a conversation about something, and you make it impossible to see how you get from A to B in terms of affecting policy, and you don’t treat other people who have opposing views that way (so it is not as though the whole subject is treated that way), then what do you expect people to do? They can go away. They can just shut up. Or they can try to do something. Whether or not it’s the right thing, it’s just as predictable here as it is anywhere. In fact, Canada has been remarkably quiet in this sense.

JF: Where do you think the impetus for change needs to come from?

CM: I think that if there was a process in which some of these issues could be raised at a political caucus level you could get an opportunity to create a sense of a conversation. Animal groups try to do this and present briefs to politicians. But if you ever watch that process, they aren’t treated the same way by politicians as other groups are. These people have to battle every inch of the way and its not because they’re asking for something crazy or because they are a real pain and you wish they’d go away, but because they are not taken seriously.

JF: What about research into animal alternatives in Canada?

CM: In the UK, the British government puts money into looking for alternatives. In the US, there are some large corporate donations for that. In Canada there are not because there doesn’t have to -- its not an issue because they’re not under any pressure. Unfortunately, people who deal with animal issues are dealing with industries who have incredible public images and are fairly lucrative. It’s a double whammy -- you have to find people to listen to you and you have to overcome an aggressively hostile reception so it is very difficult.

JF: It seems that education is a key to start talking about animal issues. How is Blood Relations useful for university programs?

CM: Animal issues are far more real and day-to-day than you might think and therefore fit into a lot of different university faculties. I think medical schools, agriculture groups, law schools, and any environmental programs should sit down and talk about this. The issue needs to be discussed in more than just in a philosophy or ethics course. In the states and other countries, law schools are places where they have this discussion because increasingly people are trying to use the courts to do things to promote the protection of animals. I think in medical schools they ought to sit down and have a really good talk about some of this stuff because the minute they get out if they do any kind of research they’re going to run into animal rights. If you are interested in politics, you would have to be interested in looking at this growing gap and dysfunction in our political system: there are people who shouldn’t be protesting, by definition of who they are and how they have a comfortable spot in the social structure, yet they are protesting. You have to say to yourself “what’s going on here?” It is an interesting time to be studying things like political structures, history, or systems because there is something wrong and people who deal with animal issues are making that same point about some very specific examples of things.

JF: What is at stake if we do not pay attention to the issues raised in Blood Relations?

CM: It’s the right thing to do as part of the political process and ethical questions. On one level, I think it would be politically and morally wrong and on another level it would probably say that the political system is only open to those who belong to the club (which may validate some of the illegal action).

June 2000