“Abolition” is insulting: Part Deux

This is getting fun. Michael Couchman’s reply to my email. I haven’t read all of it yet, let me know what you think.

“Dear Peter,

Thank you for your prompt reply to my concise and coherent email. In turn, I would like to address several issues, point by point, from your asinine and insipid argument before answering the primary question you posed to me on the subject of equivalent “moral status” between humans and animals. I then have a brief list of questions about the contradictory and questionable ethics of your dietary preference that you can ponder, if you are so inclined.

Firstly, while the polite thing to have done before posting my message on your blog would have been to notify me, you are welcome to use and distribute it for whatever purposes you have in mind, including the communal discussion and learning elements you mentioned. However, I am not altogether certain what benefit you may gain from it in these respects, considering you seemed to utterly dismiss my argument as being “vacuous”, and me for being “ignorant” and using “wretched behaviour” to justify my views. Your opening comment appeared more like a toothless threat to silence dissent than a genuine desire to expose yourself and your colleagues to a variety of opinions on your beliefs.

I never once called you or your group racist anti-Semites and I don’t appreciate you putting those words in my mouth. As for your closing comment concerning Alan Dershowitz, I have no wish to engage a radical left-winger such as yourself in heated debate on the Israeli/Palestinian political issue, but will simply point out that the use of terms like “Zionist agenda” displays in you a clear bias and a hint of deep paranoia.

You seem to believe that you are noble in linking yourselves to Lincoln and other true abolitionists, yet in fact what you are doing is comparing the forcibly immigrated Africans of the slave-owning southern U.S. to mere animals. If you took your own advice and actually researched the definition of the word “abolition” you would find that yes, technically it refers to a state of abolishment, similar to annulment or abrogation, but more commonly it is a term especially applied when referring to the historical fight against slavery in America. This is a reason why, for instance, I didn’t use the term to describe my own efforts to dissuade you from polluting the mental environment any more than you already have. As involved as I am in the issue, I decided out of an innate sense of taste and decency not to compare my objections to your organization with the righteous struggle for emancipation. Were you to use the other terms that you outlined such as “eliminationists, terminationists, destructionists” or any other synonyms for abolition with an “”ist” on to the end” I would still disagree with your group, but would have no problem with the way you express your deeply flawed beliefs.

Using the word “abolition” is insulting?

The following message was sent to the VARI email account. It was written by Michael Couchman, who is, from what I could gather from him being on the 1st year Film DSC, a second year film major (but maybe not). Anyway, that isn’t important, what is important is the email. I am writing a reply right now and if anyone is interested in helping out, I can send it to you when it is done and we can go through some edits.

“I am sending you this message to relay to you my objections with the content of your recent animal rights posters on campus. I find your use of the word “abolitionist” to be an insult to all those who have suffered the injustices of oppression. Historically this term was attached to opposition against such things as slavery and apartheid. As I’m sure you’re aware, PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) has used holocaust imagery on their website, comparing the treatment of Jews in concentration camps to the plight of factory farm chickens. Why more animal rights activists haven’t been greviously offended by the common citation of ethnic cleansing and human suffering to demonstrate the wrongs of the meat industry escapes me. Moreover, I fail to see how you can so self-righteously call yourselves “abolitionists”, thereby likening your movement to the deeds of such significant figures as Abraham Lincoln and Nelson Mandela. Veganism should be seen as a dietary choice, not a revolutionary statement.

Being a former vegetarian, I can understand to a degree your perspective on animal cruelty and rights abuses. However, I do not comprehend the need for such melodramatic theatrics in order to get your message conveyed. Personally, I believe that people should first and foremost be dedicated to humanism. I become suspicious of anyone’s true agenda when radical ideology begins to overtake this simple principle.

In conclusion, I respect your right to protest the issues closest to your heart, but politely ask of you to change the terminology on your next edition of promotional posters. I have no reservations against taking this problem to The Journal, the African Caribbean Association, the Hillel Foundation, Amnesty International at Queen’s University, and the Committee Against Racism and Ethnic Discrimination.

Regards,
Michael Couchman”