Many MPs are supportive of animal issues but have little incentive to raise it as a political issue. One MP and one staffer said that politicians are often exposed to radical animal activists and need to be shown that animal advocates can be moderate and offer reasonable policy solutions.
I think there is a difference between radical actions and radical asks. If a radical action is asking for a country to immediately stop eating meat, the ask and action are generally considered easy to write off and dismiss as being unrealistic. I think this is often a default view of animal activists. Radical actions (and the threat of them) with a reasonable ask, ie cage-free campaigns, are more difficult to be dismissed.
The issues you chose to focus on from my perspective, seem quite reasonable. Are you considering incorporating more radical actions into your future plans?
That’s an interesting distinction between radical actions and radical asks; I think subconsciously I have been thinking about the two interchangeably.
In terms of asks, I think we’ll most likely be sticking to non-radical asks.
In terms of actions, I think we’ll most likely be sticking to non-radical actions. While I see the importance of a pluralistic approach to animal advocacy, we’re thinking about this from the perspective of filling a gap; there already seems to be many activist groups engaging in radical actions.
This is how we’re currently thinking about it, but very happy to be convinced otherwise.
I think you are in a better position to see what is needed. How I would think about this is what leverage do your opponents to these asks have and if you think your actions would be powerful enough to overcome them.
This is a great write up! Thanks for sharing it!
I’m curious how you see this aspect playing out?
I think there is a difference between radical actions and radical asks. If a radical action is asking for a country to immediately stop eating meat, the ask and action are generally considered easy to write off and dismiss as being unrealistic. I think this is often a default view of animal activists. Radical actions (and the threat of them) with a reasonable ask, ie cage-free campaigns, are more difficult to be dismissed.
The issues you chose to focus on from my perspective, seem quite reasonable. Are you considering incorporating more radical actions into your future plans?
That’s an interesting distinction between radical actions and radical asks; I think subconsciously I have been thinking about the two interchangeably.
In terms of asks, I think we’ll most likely be sticking to non-radical asks.
In terms of actions, I think we’ll most likely be sticking to non-radical actions. While I see the importance of a pluralistic approach to animal advocacy, we’re thinking about this from the perspective of filling a gap; there already seems to be many activist groups engaging in radical actions.
This is how we’re currently thinking about it, but very happy to be convinced otherwise.
Thanks for the additional insight.
I think you are in a better position to see what is needed. How I would think about this is what leverage do your opponents to these asks have and if you think your actions would be powerful enough to overcome them.
Good luck on the next phase!