The Mocker: vegan activity shows you can’t reason with fundamentalists

Vegans believe it’s their right to block traffic and use thuggery to impose their miserable views.

Animal rights activists in Melbourne on Monday. Picture: AAP

Not that anyone needed reminding that Monday mornings are pretty ordinary, but a few militant vegans did that this week. Whether it was holding-up tens of thousands of commuters outside Melbourne’s Flinders Street Station, or invading farms and abattoirs across the country, these protesters certainly accomplished their aim, assuming their intention was not to advance their cause but to piss off every law-abiding citizen who, unlike the protesters, had to be at work.

Incidentally, pardon me for referring to the vegans as “militant”. As David Woiwod of Sunrise reported, some of the protesters who blocked one of the busiest intersections in Melbourne’s CBD asked he not use that adjective. They do have a point: you should avoid redundancies if you wish to be a good writer or speaker. On a serious note, though, I have a close friend who is a vegan, but not of the obnoxious variety. He has a sense of humour and respects my right to be a carnivore. He does not proselytise, nor does he gratuitously disclose his food lifestyle to strangers within two minutes of meeting them. And yes, after I finish today’s column I will get on the blower to Ripley’s Believe It or Not!, although I suspect I will have a hard time convincing them he exists.

If only all vegans were the same. “These animals’ lives are being taken, they’re still being sent to slaughter,” said Vegan Rising campaign director Kristin Leigh on Monday. “It’s part of the system for them to be killed,” she added. You don’t say? And to think we were wondering all this time why the floors of abattoirs are so bloodstained.

“We are killing the planet and we are killing animals at rates that are unacceptable,” said another activist. “It’s a climate emergency, it’s an animal emergency and drastic times call for drastic measures.” What disingenuous nonsense. According to professor of animal science Frank M. Mitloehner of the University of California, animal agriculture accounted for only 3.9 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States in 2016. You could be forgiven for thinking the greatest danger in the food/climate debate is not the bovine emissions but the flatulence of the activists.

Much of this hysteria is driven by the release this year of the Lancet Commission’s The Global Syndemic of Obesity, Undernutrition and Climate Change report, which claimed all three phenomena were linked. Its language and recommendations are Orwellian. It notes “the scale of change to the food system is unlikely to be successful if left to the individual or the whim of consumer choice”. It demands an end to government subsidising of beef and dairy industries, and calls upon bodies such as the United Nations and the European Union to pressure member states “to collectively create food systems that promote health, equity, [and] environmental sustainability …” Forced collectivisation, but on a global scale? What a great idea. This time it will be a success for sure.

Protesters at the intersection of Flinders and Swanston Streets. Picture: AAP

The mantra that eliminating meat will reduce carbon gas emissions is grossly simplistic, as Linus Blomqvist, visiting researcher at the University of Tasmania and director of Food and Conservation & Agriculture, notes. Those who join the meat-free fad tend to increase their intake of dairy, which has 25 per cent higher carbon dioxide emissions than chicken, and 160 per cent higher emissions than pork. How ironic that vegan protesters this week bore placards saying “You have been lied to”. And more food for thought: a mass transition to a meat-free diet would drastically increase food wastage. For example, in the United States the wastage rate for animal products is 20 per cent whereas that for fruit and vegetables is a whopping 50 per cent.

There is little point in explaining this to the activists. As Herald-Sun columnist and Sky News host Andrew Bolt observed this week, their cause to them is secondary. It merely serves as a veneer for that atavistic instinct to compel others to submit to their demands. If you really think taking up vegetarianism will placate the meat Maoists, think again. Next it will be banning of salt, sugar or whatever else brings you enjoyment. They would not be satisfied even if your diet consisted solely of magic mushrooms and mineral water. It would just be a matter of time before the “Fungi have feelings too” placards were thrust in your face. You cannot reason with fundamentalists, irrespective of their ideology.

The apologists for these protesters have tried to rationalise their aggressive behaviour under the banner of the “right to protest”. Do not be surprised that many who hold this view are the same people who insist that free speech does not include “hate speech”. But in their minds their right to protest includes the right to block traffic, the right to trespass on private property, the right to destroy people’s livelihood, the right to destroy and steal the property of others, as well as the right to resort to thuggery, intimidation and harassment in imposing their views. If these misanthropes really are concerned about the detrimental effects of humans on the planet, then let us encourage them not to reproduce — a win for all.

These activists are both creepy and methodical, as is evident in their interactive map which provides full details of Australian farms, abattoirs, and other so-called “animal exploitation facilities”, including GPS coordinates and the names of owners. As is typical of cowards, these activists descend on these places only when there is safety in numbers. Watch this space though. Nothing unites rural communities more than a common threat to their livelihood, particularly feral intruders.

And for those in the city who are targeted by these food fascists, take your inspiration from the case of Toronto chef and co-owner of Antler Kitchen and Bar, Michael Hunter. Last year, after constant harassment from vegan protesters who had taken offence at his sandwich board with the slogan “Venison is the new kale”, this Canadian grew weary of trying to placate picketers with offers to put vegan dishes on the menu. Instead he cheerfully went about carving a full deer leg in front of the main window directly opposite the protesters, before later returning to eat the cooked product.

Do watch the video. Some of the protesters claimed they were traumatised.

“He’s doing it deliberately to mock and taunt us because we’re vegans,” whines one. Yes, it is called getting a dose of your own medicine. If any action is to be taken in respect to Hunter, it should be in the form of bestowing him with the Man of the Year award.

As for the Australian protesters, I’ll be sacrificing a cow in your honour this weekend, for you have inspired me to dine at my favourite five-star steakhouse. I encourage readers to do something similar. That moment when the waiter places my medium-rare carpetbag steak on the table is an ineffable joy. Savour it and observe the ritual. Add salt, pepper and hot English mustard to taste. Now slice the fillet ever so gently and let the serrated knife glide across the meat, much like an opera conductor would subtly signal a downbeat. Place morsel in mouth and close your eyes as the juices from the meat saturate your tastebuds. Can you too hear Friedrich Schiller’s Ode to Joy as you picture yourself doing this? Mung beans, schmung beans.

For those who have taken a vow of culinary poverty and demand we do the same, let me explain. I respect the philosophy that one man’s meat is another’s poison. Gorge on the rabbit food to your heart’s content. But most of us do eat meat and we do so primarily for three good reasons. One, it is delicious; two, it is good for us; and three — not to put too fine a point on it, but anecdotal evidence suggests that embracing veganism turns people into officious, humourless, insipid, pasty-faced eunuchs with a case of halitosis so bad it could clear a London bus.

On a final note, I should mention Sydney Morning Herald columnist, ethicist and vegan David Killoren, who wrote this week that vegan activists had made a “straightforward argument” and were “fundamentally correct”.

In support of this he stated: “Recent survey evidence suggests that a majority of professional ethicists believe that consuming meat is immoral”. In the same column, he also cited with approval ethicist and professor Peter Singer.

Would that be the same Peter Singer who is a vegan but also holds it is illogical to abhor bestiality if there is no physical harm done to the animal? Thanks, we’re done here.