Month: December 2016

In an unusual Canadian divorce case, a Sasketoon judge ruled in late December that a couple’s dog custody dispute was a “wasteful” and “demeaning” use of court time.

I could write for hours critiquing this judge’s insensitive 15-page decision. But let’s just take a handful of quotes from the piece to explain why his decision demonstrates violent bigotry against non-traditional families[CW: speciesism, heterosexism, classism, ableism]:

1. “In Canada, we tend not to purchase our children from breeders.”
   Actually, humans pay people for sperm, embryos, and uteruses all the time. Just because we call them fertility clinics and wrap up these costs into the services they provide doesn’t mean they do not serve the same purpose as breeders. And adoption costs a lot of money too. So a variety of circumstances occur in which we functionally purchase human children.
   
2. “We tend not to breed our children with other humans to ensure good bloodlines, nor do we charge for such services.”
   We tend to do exactly that. It’s called the aristocracy. Also, per above, fertility clinic much???
3. “When our children are seriously ill, we generally do not engage in an economic cost/benefit analysis to see whether the children are to receive medical treatment, receive nothing or even have their lives ended to prevent suffering.”
   Governments and corporations undertake a cost/benefit analysis every time they make legal changes pertaining to healthcare.
4. “When our children act improperly, even seriously and violently so, we generally do not muzzle them or even put them to death for repeated transgressions.”
   Perhaps Canadians don’t physically place a muzzle on children, but child protection statistics contain a laundry list of abuses we subject children to in the name of discipline up to and including execution. Also muzzling humans as a form of torture and abuse is not without precedent in western society.
5. “He said that should be obvious to all based on a bit of logical, dispassionate thought.”
   The notion that the United States’ neighbors to the north represent an inherently progressive population is becoming increasingly overblown. Why do ‘pale, stale males’ still imagine that their thoughts to be the product of logical, dispassionate discourse when they’re only a single limited perspective to consider?
6. “Danyliuk said given dogs are property and not family, it would be absurd for him to make a ruling about visitation rights.”
   Cis white men have attempted to define what constitutes my family for far too long. Radical concepts of family have existed for centuries outside of what ‘the law’ narrowly calls a family. And this is the crux of why his circular logic presents an act of violence.

Mothers nursing children of different species is often dismissed as a biological imperative rather than an act of parenting. Only humans get the benefit of the doubt, and even then not all of us.

How many black families have been cobbled together with non-blood relatives? The lifelong friends we claim as cousins because we were raised together? The women we exalt as Auntie because they were always there to feed and clothe us absent a biological parent or guardian (or in collaboration with one because intergenerational poverty makes us responsible for one another) ?

How many queer families have adopted one another because we were rejected by bigoted parents and guardians? How many queer couples have been denied the right to execute their partner’s affairs? How many people are routinely denied medical care because they don’t meet the strict definition of a dependent in the healthcare industrial complex? Be they best friend, grandmother, or nephew. Are these intimate relationships invalid because the state deems them unworthy of protection?

One could argue that the common denominator in all these circumstances is our humanity. But interspecies relationships are not uncommon, nor are they limited to humans. And by every meaningful metric, other species are persons. Judge Danyliuk would be wise to consider this evidence. And we would be wise to take note of how the establishment historically acted to diminish our individuality through the rule of law.

And for what it’s worth, none of the judge’s explanations for why animal companions should not be considered family are even valid reasons why we should be doing any of those things anyway, to humans or anyone else.

The bottom line is that we should be expanding our understanding of family, not restricting it.

Celebrity vegan Kat Von D became a bit of an anti-racist hero when she outed former friend Jeffree Star for his racist comments. And her actions were 100% commendable. But here’s the thing about anti-racist work. It’s not a once-and-done business. We constantly have to be aware of what it means to fight institutional bigotry. And when an Instagram follower challenged Kat on perpetuating anti-black racism herself, accountability sailed clean out the window.

To briefly summarize the exchange, Von D posted a photo on her Instagram of her makeup team that featured a variety of white faces. [click on the image to read the full messy exchange]

And one of her followers gently called her in by explaining that dark-skinned femmes were not represented.

But instead of internalizing her follower’s words, Von D performed the mother of all tap dances and called on anti-black racism’s greatest hits.

Judging by this comment, Kat doesn’t understand how her version of diversity doesn’t include black and brown faces, just different variations on white women. Much more troubling, she conflates race with nationality because American, Canadian, Dutch, Mexican, Australian, and Argentinian are NOT RACES. But then her next comment gets even worse.

The reasons why colorblind ideology only reinforces racial inequality have been written about to death. Furthermore, she claims not to hire based on race. But statistically, hiring based on race is a time-honored tradition in our society. Otherwise, we’re just left to believe that unemployment rates for black people are double the rates of white people in the United States because that’s a weird quirky thing that mysteriously happens and that’s just the way it is.

The reason why this is relevant to our veganism is because we should be proceed cautiously when choosing our vegan heroes and heroines, and we should hold them accountable when they fail to act responsibly. When popular vegans perpetuate anti-blackness, they create more opportunities for potential black and brown allies to dismiss animal justice as a movement they want no parts of. Is that fair to animals? Obviously not. But that’s the reality of the world we live in. And I’d much rather cultivate a movement that fosters inclusivity instead of ignorance.

Kat Von D has a remarkable opportunity to support black femmes and pique their interest in veganism and animal liberation. I don’t want her to go away. I just want her to use that opportunity instead of just exploiting black femmes by profiting from their dollars.