DOCSLIB.ORG

From Carnism to Veganism: “Once I Knew, I Didn’T Want to Have Any Part in It Whatsoever”

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
From Carnism to Veganism: “Once I Knew, I Didn’T Want to Have Any Part in It Whatsoever” Copyright is owned by the Author of the thesis. Permission is given for a copy to be downloaded by an individual for the purpose of research and private study only. The thesis may not be reproduced elsewhere without the permission of the Author. From Carnism to Veganism: “once I knew, I didn’t want to have any part in it whatsoever” A thesis presented in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Psychology at Massey University, Albany, Aotearoa New Zealand. Emilie Rita Field 2020 i ii Abstract Widespread and intensive animal agriculture practices generate extreme suffering and have devastating environmental consequences; thus, veganism is a significant and timely social justice movement. On an individual level, becoming and being vegan can have far-reaching emotional and social consequences. This research aims to explore the experiences of the transition to veganism and of being vegan in a hegemonic meat culture. Assuming a Critical Animal Studies standpoint, personal narrative analysis was used to explore the stories of 12 vegans. Apparent was that the transition to veganism consists of various pathways involving a disruption in some form, critical awareness, engagement in moral reflexivity, and ultimately a determination made on the basis of core beliefs. The characteristic of openness and the personal value of justice appear to be critical in facilitating this process. Once vegan, experiences are generally different to participants’ previous expectations of veganism. They report hoping that the sharing of their practice on an individual level can lead to broader social transformation by offering examples of new ways of living and counter-discourses to the norm of carnism. iii Acknowledgements To my supervisor, Clifford van Ommen: Thank you for your open-minded support, your patient listening ear, and for generously sharing your invaluable guidance and knowledge throughout this journey. It has been a joy to work with you and a privilege to have you as my supervisor. To my whānau: Thank you, especially to Patsy (my mother) and Sean (my late father), who instilled such strong and abiding values in their children. I once heard that love is understanding. I am so fortunate to be surrounded by so many people who seek to understand. Ngā mihi nui me te aroha nui. To my darling husband, Jamie: For your kindness, support, patience, understanding, and love. The words thank you are inadequate. I am so grateful to have a partner who encourages me to follow the paths of my passions. To our dog, Alfie: Even though you are a privileged, white, male, with no comprehension of how lucky you are , you have completely changed my perspective and my life. We are fortunate to be your humans. To my amazing participants: My sincere appreciation belongs to those who brought themselves whole- heartedly to this research, openly and generously sharing their experiences and insights as vegans. I am inspired by your stories, your thoughtfulness, and your depth of caring for innocent, powerless, and vulnerable others. To the animal victims of carnism: We see you, we care, we are trying, we are sorry. iv Table of Contents Abstract ........................................................................................................................................................ iii Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................................................... iv Chapter 1: Introduction and Context ............................................................................................................ 1 1.1. Carnism: A Brief Introduction ...................................................................................................... 2 1.2. Veganism: A Brief Introduction ................................................................................................... 6 1.2.1. A Growing Social Justice Movement ........................................................................................... 7 1.2.2. A Misunderstood Social Justice Movement ................................................................................ 8 1.3. Research Objectives .................................................................................................................... 8 1.4. Outline of Chapters ..................................................................................................................... 9 Chapter 2: Making the Case: Carnism and Veganism ................................................................................. 10 2.1. Carnism and Speciesism ............................................................................................................ 10 2.1.1. How Carnism Operates ............................................................................................................. 12 2.1.2. Measuring Speciesism and Carnism.......................................................................................... 14 2.2. Non-Human Animals.................................................................................................................. 15 2.2.1. How “Food Animals” Are Constructed ...................................................................................... 16 2.2.2. Factory Farms and “Humane Slaughter” .................................................................................. 18 2.2.3. The Human Toll of Carnism ....................................................................................................... 21 2.3. Veganism ................................................................................................................................... 22 2.3.1. Transitioning from Carnism to Veganism ................................................................................. 23 2.3.2. Self-Identity and Practising Veganism ...................................................................................... 24 2.3.3. Vegaphobia: Constructing the Deviant Other ........................................................................... 25 2.3.4. Vegan/Non-Vegan Relationships .............................................................................................. 29 2.3.5. The Personal Experience of Being Vegan in a Non-Vegan World ............................................. 32 2.4. Where This Research Fits .......................................................................................................... 33 Chapter 3: Methodology ............................................................................................................................. 35 3.1. Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 35 3.2. My Position Informed by My Story ............................................................................................ 35 3.3. Theoretical Framework ............................................................................................................. 39 3.3.1. Critical Animal Studies Standpoint ............................................................................................ 39 3.3.2. Social Constructionism .............................................................................................................. 40 3.3.3. Narrative Approach ................................................................................................................... 44 v 3.4. Method ...................................................................................................................................... 45 3.4.1. Recruitment .............................................................................................................................. 45 3.4.2. Participants ............................................................................................................................... 46 3.4.3. Interview Locations ................................................................................................................... 48 3.4.4. Data Collection .......................................................................................................................... 48 3.5. Data Analysis ............................................................................................................................. 51 3.5.1. Quality Assurance and Evaluation Criteria ................................................................................ 52 3.6. Research Ethics .......................................................................................................................... 53 Chapter 4: Findings and Discussion ............................................................................................................ 54 4.1. Early Years ................................................................................................................................. 54 4.2. Becoming Vegan ........................................................................................................................ 57 4.2.1. Seeds Planted ............................................................................................................................ 57 4.2.2. The Transition ........................................................................................................................... 58 4.3. Changes: Before and After Going Vegan ................................................................................... 63 4.3.1. From Meat and Animal Products to Flesh and
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Are Illegal Direct Actions by Animal Rights Activists Ethically Vigilante?
    260 BETWEEN THE SPECIES Is the Radical Animal Rights Movement Ethically Vigilante? ABSTRACT Following contentious debates around the status and justifiability of illegal direct actions by animal rights activists, we introduce a here- tofore unexplored perspective that argues they are neither terrorist nor civilly disobedient but ethically vigilante. Radical animal rights movement (RARM) activists are vigilantes for vulnerable animals and their rights. Hence, draconian measures by the constitutional state against RARM vigilantes are both disproportionate and ille- gitimate. The state owes standing and toleration to such principled vigilantes, even though they are self-avowed anarchists and anti-stat- ists—unlike civil disobedients—repudiating allegiance to the con- stitutional order. This requires the state to acknowledge the ethical nature of challenges to its present regime of toleration, which assigns special standing to illegal actions in defense of human equality, but not equality and justice between humans and animals. Michael Allen East Tennessee State University Erica von Essen Environmental Communications Division Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Volume 22, Issue 1 Fall 2018 http://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/bts/ 261 Michael Allen and Erica von Essen Introduction We explore the normative status of illegal actions under- taken by the Radical Animal Rights Movement (RARM), such as animal rescue, trespass, and sabotage as well as confronta- tion and intimidation. RARM typically characterizes these ac- tions as examples of direct action rather than civil disobedience (Milligan 2015, Pellow 2014). Moreover, many RARM activ- ists position themselves as politically anarchist, anti-statist, and anti-capitalist (Best 2014, Pellow 2014). Indeed, the US and UK take these self-presentations at face value, responding to RARM by introducing increasingly draconian legislation that treats them as terrorists (Best 2014, McCausland, O’Sullivan and Brenton 2013, O’Sullivan 2011, Pellow 2014).
    [Show full text]
  • Joker (2019 Film) - Wikipedia
    Joker (2019 film) - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joker_(2019_film) Joker (2019 film) Joker is a 2019 American psychological thriller film directed by Todd Joker Phillips, who co-wrote the screenplay with Scott Silver. The film, based on DC Comics characters, stars Joaquin Phoenix as the Joker. An origin story set in 1981, the film follows Arthur Fleck, a failed stand-up comedian who turns to a life of crime and chaos in Gotham City. Robert De Niro, Zazie Beetz, Frances Conroy, Brett Cullen, Glenn Fleshler, Bill Camp, Shea Whigham, and Marc Maron appear in supporting roles. Joker was produced by Warner Bros. Pictures, DC Films, and Joint Effort in association with Bron Creative and Village Roadshow Pictures, and distributed by Warner Bros. Phillips conceived Joker in 2016 and wrote the script with Silver throughout 2017. The two were inspired by 1970s character studies and the films of Martin Scorsese, who was initially attached to the project as a producer. The graphic novel Batman: The Killing Joke (1988) was the basis for the premise, but Phillips and Silver otherwise did not look to specific comics for inspiration. Phoenix became attached in February 2018 and was cast that July, while the majority of the cast signed on by August. Theatrical release poster Principal photography took place in New York City, Jersey City, and Newark, from September to December 2018. It is the first live-action Directed by Todd Phillips theatrical Batman film to receive an R-rating from the Motion Picture Produced by Todd Phillips Association of America, due to its violent and disturbing content.
    [Show full text]
  • "Go Veg" Campaigns of US Animal Rights Organizations
    Society and Animals 18 (2010) 163-182 brill.nl/soan Framing Animal Rights in the “Go Veg” Campaigns of U.S. Animal Rights Organizations Carrie Packwood Freeman Georgia State University [email protected] Abstract How much do animal rights activists talk about animal rights when they attempt to persuade America’s meat-lovers to stop eating nonhuman animals? Th is study serves as the basis for a unique evaluation and categorization of problems and solutions as framed by fi ve major U.S. animal rights organizations in their vegan/food campaigns. Th e fi ndings reveal that the organiza- tions framed the problems as: cruelty and suff ering; commodifi cation; harm to humans and the environment; and needless killing. To solve problems largely blamed on factory farming, activists asked consumers to become “vegetarian” (meaning vegan) or to reduce animal product con- sumption, some requesting “humane” reforms. While certain messages supported animal rights, promoting veganism and respect for animals’ subject status, many frames used animal welfare ideology to achieve rights solutions, conservatively avoiding a direct challenge to the dominant human/animal dualism. In support of ideological authenticity, this paper recommends that vegan campaigns emphasize justice, respect, life, freedom, environmental responsibility, and a shared animality. Keywords animal rights, campaigns, farm animal, framing, ideology, vegan, vegetarian How much do or should animal rights activists talk about animal rights when they attempt to persuade America’s meat-lovers to stop eating animals? As participants in a counterhegemonic social movement, animal rights organiza- tions are faced with the discursive challenge of redefi ning accepted practices, such as farming and eating nonhuman animals, as socially unacceptable practices.
    [Show full text]
  • It's a (Two-)Culture Thing: the Laterial Shift to Liberation
    Animal Issues, Vol 4, No. 1, 2000 It's a (Two-)Culture Thing: The Lateral Shift to Liberation Barry Kew rom an acute and, some will argue, a harsh, a harsh, fantastic or even tactically naive F naive perspective, this article examines examines animal liberation, vegetarianism vegetarianism and veganism in relation to a bloodless culture ideal. It suggests that the movement's repeated anomalies, denial of heritage, privileging of vegetarianism, and other concessions to bloody culture, restrict rather than liberate the full subversionary and revelatory potential of liberationist discourse, and with representation and strategy implications. ‘Only the profoundest cultural needs … initially caused adult man [sic] to continue to drink cow milk through life’.1 In The Social Construction of Nature, Klaus Eder develops a useful concept of two cultures - the bloody and the bloodless. He understands the ambivalence of modernity and the relationship to nature as resulting from the perpetuation of a precarious equilibrium between the ‘bloodless’ tradition from within Judaism and the ‘bloody’ tradition of ancient Greece. In Genesis, killing entered the world after the fall from grace and initiated a complex and hierarchically-patterned system of food taboos regulating distance between nature and culture. But, for Eder, it is in Israel that the reverse process also begins, in the taboo on killing. This ‘civilizing’ process replaces the prevalent ancient world practice of 1 Calvin. W. Schwabe, ‘Animals in the Ancient World’ in Aubrey Manning and James Serpell, (eds), Animals and Human Society: Changing Perspectives (Routledge, London, 1994), p.54. 1 Animal Issues, Vol 4, No. 1, 2000 human sacrifice by animal sacrifice, this by sacrifices of the field, and these by money paid to the sacrificial priests.2 Modern society retains only a very broken connection to the Jewish tradition of the bloodless sacrifice.
    [Show full text]
  • Derogatory Discourses of Veganism and the Reproduction of Speciesism in UK 1 National Newspapers Bjos 1348 134..152
    The British Journal of Sociology 2011 Volume 62 Issue 1 Vegaphobia: derogatory discourses of veganism and the reproduction of speciesism in UK 1 national newspapers bjos_1348 134..152 Matthew Cole and Karen Morgan Abstract This paper critically examines discourses of veganism in UK national newspapers in 2007. In setting parameters for what can and cannot easily be discussed, domi- nant discourses also help frame understanding. Discourses relating to veganism are therefore presented as contravening commonsense, because they fall outside readily understood meat-eating discourses. Newspapers tend to discredit veganism through ridicule, or as being difficult or impossible to maintain in practice. Vegans are variously stereotyped as ascetics, faddists, sentimentalists, or in some cases, hostile extremists. The overall effect is of a derogatory portrayal of vegans and veganism that we interpret as ‘vegaphobia’. We interpret derogatory discourses of veganism in UK national newspapers as evidence of the cultural reproduction of speciesism, through which veganism is dissociated from its connection with debates concerning nonhuman animals’ rights or liberation. This is problematic in three, interrelated, respects. First, it empirically misrepresents the experience of veganism, and thereby marginalizes vegans. Second, it perpetuates a moral injury to omnivorous readers who are not presented with the opportunity to understand veganism and the challenge to speciesism that it contains. Third, and most seri- ously, it obscures and thereby reproduces
    [Show full text]
  • Anth Rozoo Logy
    Anth rozoo logy TIlE NE\V SCIENCE OF HU\IAN-ANIi\IAL I N I ER ACTIONS Our failure to study our relationships with other animals has occurred for many reasons.. .. Much of it can be boiled down to two rather unattractive human qualities: arrogance and ignorance. —CLIFTON FLYNN The thirty-minute drive from the Kansas City airport to the conference hotel was much more interesting than the three-hour flight from North Carolina. I had flow n in for the annual meeting of the International Soci— ety of Anthro7oologv. I found myself sharing a ride with a woman named Layla Esposito, a social psychologist who tells me she recentk completed her Phi) dissertation on bullying among middle school children. Puziled. I ask her wh she was attending a meeting on the relationships between people and animals. She tells me that she is a program director at the i\a tional Institute of Child Health and Human Development. She is at the conference to let researchers know about a new federal grant program that will fund research on the effects that animals ha’e on human health and well-being. The money is coming from the National Institutes of Health SOME WE LOVE, SOME WE HATE, SOME WE EAT ANTHROZOOLOGY (NIH) and Mars, the corporate giant that makes Snickers for me and human-animal interactions is that for many’ of Tempting Tuna Treats for my cat, Tilly. NIFI is particularly interested them the topic seems triv ial. This attitude is wrong-headed, Understanding the psychology in the impact of pets on children: Is pet therapy an effective treatment lying our under attitudes and behaviors toward for autism? other species is ‘What role does oxytocin (the so-called love hormone) play in several reasons.
    [Show full text]
  • Our Full Report
    As we look back over the four years since we announced the Perdue Commitments to Animal Care, it has been a journey of listening, learning and evolving. The Perdue Commitments to Animal Care was shaped with input from diverse stakeholders – including some of our harshest critics – and we continue to seek their input. We learn from a wide range of perspectives, whether they be farmers, our associates, advocates, customers or consumers, in formal and informal ways. Cumulatively this has resulted in 65 initiatives designed to address one of the Five Freedoms or one of the other three pillars of our program. And perhaps more importantly, these initiatives have moved from studies or intentions to programs and best practices that are now embedded in how we do business every day. We’re proud of our progress and eager to continue our journey. The following pages report on the most recent and core ongoing initiatives as well as our future goals. Highlights of our recent progress include: • Expanding the number of farms with free-range, outdoor access • Testing the feasibility and benefits of on-farm hatching to improve early chick care • Collaborating on animal welfare research with Mercy for Animals • Conducting our second farmer contest to tap into their experience and expertise in raising chickens • Opening our third Poultry Learning Center, viewing farms which offer a transparent, interactive experience to learn about poultry farming and proper animal care • Holding our fourth Animal Care Summit, bringing together animal care experts and advocates, customers, farmers, and our leadership, in July 2019. Our next summit will be held in October 2020.
    [Show full text]
  • How Scary Are the Mental Health Risks of Vegetarianism? Harold Herzog, Animal Studies Repository
    The Animal Studies Repository From the SelectedWorks of Harold Herzog, Ph.D. December 15, 2015 How Scary Are the Mental Health Risks of Vegetarianism? Harold Herzog, Animal Studies Repository Available at: https://works.bepress.com/harold-herzog/84/ Hal Herzog, Ph.D., Animals and Us How Scary Are the Mental Health Risks of Vegetarianism? How strong is the link between vegetarianism and mental illness? Posted Dec 15, 2015 A headline in Women’s Health Magazine recently caught my attention: “The Scary Mental Health Risks of Going Meatless.” The headline made it sound like replacing the bacon and prime rib in your diet with tofu and seitan will make you mentally ill. I have previously written about the link between vegetarianism and eating disorders. But I’ve never argued that giving up animal flesh causes emotional problems, so I decided to check out the major study the headline was based on. What I found illustrates why you should not get your science news from flashy headlines and the problem of link-think in anthrozoology (the study of human-animal relationships). The claim that going veg can make you crazy was based on a 2012 study which appeared in the International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity. The research team, led by German psychologist Johannes Michalak, reanalyzed data from a 2002 epidemiological study that examined the physical and mental health of a large randomly selected sample of German adults. A few studies have linked vegetarianism to poor mental health and one study found vegetarians were psychologically better off than meat eaters.
    [Show full text]
  • Mar/Apr 2016
    The Graybeards is the official publication of the Korean War Veterans Association (KWVA). It is published six times a year for members and private distribution. Subscriptions available for $30.00/year (see address below). MAILING ADDRESS FOR CHANGE OF ADDRESS: Administrative Assistant, P.O. Box 407, Charleston, IL 61920- 0407. MAILING ADDRESS TO SUBMIT MATERIAL / CONTACT EDITOR: Graybeards Editor, 2473 New Haven Circle, Sun City Center, FL 33573-7141. MAILING ADDRESS OF THE KWVA: P.O. Box 407, Charleston, IL 61920-0407. WEBSITE: http://www.kwva.org In loving memory of General Raymond Davis, our Life Honorary President, Deceased. We Honor Founder William T. Norris Editor Secretary L. T. Whitmore KWVA Liaison to Korean War Nat’l Museum Arthur G. Sharp Lewis M. 'Lew' Ewing 5625 Canterbury Ln Robert Mitchell 2473 New Haven Circle 310 Clay Hill Dr Suffolk, VA 23435-1605 3021 Rosefield Dr. Sun City Center, FL 33573-7141 Winchester, VA 22602 Ph: 757-483-9784 Houston, TX 77080-2609 Ph: 860-202-3088 Ph: 540-678-1787 [email protected] Ph: 713-939-8880 [email protected] [email protected] KWVA Liaison to Korean-American Assn. Advertising Manager Asst. Secretary Term 2015-2018 Jongwoo Han Gerald W. Wadley Jacob L. Feaster, Jr. Richard E. Brown Sr 310 Summerhaven Dr N Finisterre Publishing Inc. 22731 N Hwy 329, Micanopy, FL 32667 2307 Gring Dr. East Syracuse, NY 13057-3127 3 Black Skimmer Ct Cell: 352-262-1845 West Lawn, PA 19609 Ph: 315-637-9836, [email protected] Beaufort, SC 29907 FAX: 352-466-3493 [email protected] Ph 610-670-2886 Chaplain Emeritus 843-521-1896 Treasurer [email protected] Robert Personette [email protected] Tom Gregg Robert F.
    [Show full text]
  • Indianapolis Guide
    Nutrition Information Vegan Blogs Nutritionfacts.org: http://nutritionfacts.org/ AngiePalmer: http://angiepalmer.wordpress.com/ Get Connected The Position Paper of the American Dietetic Association: Colin Donoghue: http://colindonoghue.wordpress.com/ http://www.vrg.org/nutrition/2009_ADA_position_paper.pdf James McWilliams: http://james-mcwilliams.com/ The Vegan RD: www.theveganrd.com General Vegans: Five Major Poisons Inherent in Animal Proteins: Human Non-human Relations: http://human-nonhuman.blogspot.com When they ask; http://drmcdougall.com/misc/2010nl/jan/poison.htm Paleo Veganology: http://paleovegan.blogspot.com/ The Starch Solution by John McDougal MD: Say What Michael Pollan: http://saywhatmichaelpollan.wordpress.com/ “How did you hear about us” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XVf36nwraw&feature=related Skeptical Vegan: http://skepticalvegan.wordpress.com/ tell them; Prevent and Reverse Heart Disease by Caldwell Esselstyn MD The Busy Vegan: http://thevegancommunicator.wordpress.com/ www.heartattackproof.com/ The China Study and Whole by T. Collin Campbell The Rational Vegan: http://therationalvegan.blogspot.com/ “300 Vegans!” www.plantbasednutrition.org The Vegan Truth: http://thevegantruth.blogspot.com/ The Food Revolution John Robbins www.foodrevolution.org/ Vegansaurus: Dr. Barnard’s Program for Reversing Diabetes Neal Barnard MD http://vegansaurus.com/ www.pcrm.org/health/diabetes/ Vegan Skeptic: http://veganskeptic.blogspot.com/ 300 Vegans & The Multiple Sclerosis Diet Book by Roy Laver Swank MD, PhD Vegan Scientist: http://www.veganscientist.com/
    [Show full text]
  • Wild Animal Suffering and Vegan Outreach
    Paez, Eze (2016) Wild animal suffering and vegan outreach. Animal Sentience 7(11) DOI: 10.51291/2377-7478.1101 This article has appeared in the journal Animal Sentience, a peer-reviewed journal on animal cognition and feeling. It has been made open access, free for all, by WellBeing International and deposited in the WBI Studies Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Animal Sentience 2016.087: Paez Commentary on Ng on Animal Suffering Wild animal suffering and vegan outreach Commentary on Ng on Animal Suffering Eze Paez Department of Legal, Moral and Political Philosophy Pompeu Fabra University, Barcelona Abstract: Ng’s strategic proposal seems to downplay the potential benefits of advocacy for wild animals and omit what may be the most effective strategy to reduce the harms farmed animals suffer: vegan outreach. Eze Paez, lecturer in moral and political philosophy at Pompeu Fabra University, Barcelona, studies normative and applied ethics, especially ontological and normative aspects of abortion and the moral consideration of nonhuman animals. He is a member of Animal Ethics. upf.academia.edu/ezepaez Underestimating the importance of wild animal suffering. Ng’s (2016) view is not that animal advocates should focus only on farmed animals, to the exclusion of those that live in the wild. He concedes that our efforts must also be directed toward raising awareness of the harms suffered by animals in nature. Nonetheless, he seems to suggest that these efforts should be minimal relative to those devoted to reducing the harms farmed animals suffer. Ng underestimates the potential benefits of advocacy for wild animals in terms of net reduction in suffering perhaps because he is overestimating people’s resistance to caring about wild animals and to intervening in nature on their behalf.
    [Show full text]
  • Disaggregating the Scare from the Greens
    DISAGGREGATING THE SCARE FROM THE GREENS Lee Hall*† INTRODUCTION When the Vermont Law Review graciously asked me to contribute to this Symposium focusing on the tension between national security and fundamental values, specifically for a segment on ecological and animal- related activism as “the threat of unpopular ideas,” it seemed apt to ask a basic question about the title: Why should we come to think of reverence for life or serious concern for the Earth that sustains us as “unpopular ideas”? What we really appear to be saying is that the methods used, condoned, or promoted by certain people are unpopular. So before we proceed further, intimidation should be disaggregated from respect for the environment and its living inhabitants. Two recent and high-profile law-enforcement initiatives have viewed environmental and animal-advocacy groups as threats in the United States. These initiatives are the Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC) prosecution and Operation Backfire. The former prosecution targeted SHAC—a campaign to close one animal-testing firm—and referred also to the underground Animal Liberation Front (ALF).1 The latter prosecution *. Legal director of Friends of Animals, an international animal-rights organization founded in 1957. †. Lee Hall, who can be reached at [email protected], thanks Lydia Fiedler, the Vermont Law School, and Friends of Animals for making it possible to participate in the 2008 Symposium and prepare this Article for publication. 1. See Indictment at 14–16, United States v. Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty USA, Inc., No. 3:04-cr-00373-AET-2 (D.N.J. May 27, 2004), available at http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/nj/press/files/ pdffiles/shacind.pdf (last visited Apr.
    [Show full text]