Hello everyone, my name is Ryan and you're listening to The Vegan Report.
If you're vegan for the animals and you care to do more for animal rights, but you're not sure
where to start, then this podcast is for you. Every week, let yourself fall in love with
passionate animal rights leaders who will inspire you to find your voice, your own special
contribution to the animal rights movement, however small or big it is. Today we are going
to talk about justice for animals. To discuss this topic, I have with me William who works
as legal counsel for Animal Partizan. And be careful listeners, because Animal Partizan
has been labeled as, and I quote, a major animal rights extremist group by the Animal Agriculture
Alliance. If you visit Animal Partizan's website, and the link is in the description,
this is their mission statement. Our mission is to end the suffering of animals in slaughterhouses,
farms, and labs by discovering, exposing, and challenging unlawful conduct in all its farms.
We're small but tenacious. I love that. From bringing criminal charges against slaughterhouses
to uncovering hidden cruelty in labs, to training the new generation of animal lawyers,
we're becoming a thorn in the side for the animal agriculture and research industries. Wow,
just reading that makes me feel motivated. You know, I want to stand up and make a difference.
So William, I'm so happy to have you on. Welcome to the show.
Thank you so much for having me, Ryan, and thanks for putting this podcast together. I think there's
so much information on this topic out there, and I think any channels to get information to the
public are valuable. So thank you for all your work. Of course. Amazing. So would you like to
first introduce yourself, William? How did you find yourself working for Animal Partizan?
Absolutely. So my path to where I am today was a little circuitous. I had actually started
not even in law. I worked a corporate career. I had graduated from school here in the United
States in Virginia. Wasn't quite sure what I wanted to do, and I ended up working for
a very large financial corporation as a process engineer, and I was designing how the business
worked and managing large projects. And at some point in probably 2002, I ended up getting a
couple of pit bull type dogs from the local city shelter. And I always say that for me was Pandora's
box, and it opened my eyes to sort of the plight those dogs experience, discrimination, dog fighting.
And then that led to me just volunteering for every animal welfare, animal rights volunteer group
that I could locally. I think there was a point where I was volunteering or running 11 different
local organizations while I was working full time for the financial corporation. And at some point,
I kind of just said, look, I want to do this for a career. And I had kept seeing this intersection
of law and animals and decided to go to law school late in life to pursue animal law. I packed up,
went to law school in Vermont, graduated, worked at a court in New Jersey for a little bit,
was fortunate to end up at a great organization, Animal Outlook, was their legal counsel for three
years, working on civil litigation, working with our undercover investigators. And then about a
year ago, decided to branch out on my own and start Animal Partisan. And the driver for that
was really just that there are so many legal theories and options available to try to help
animals and compare that with the magnitude of suffering that's happening. It just felt for me
like I needed to do whatever I could to maximize what I'm able to do in my time on this planet.
And for me, that was going off to start my own thing and sort of pursuing some of these legal
theories. Sounds like effective altruism. Do you follow that philosophy? I'm familiar, you know,
definitely familiar with it. You know, it's not the way that I think of it, not to say it is
either here nor there. But for me, it's just about, I have limited time left on this planet. I know
there's suffering out there. I've seen it firsthand. I've seen it through others. And it's just a simple
equation of the time that I have, the hours during the day, the days during the week, what can I do
that's going to have a meaningful impact on that? So that's whatever label anyone wants to put on it.
That's just the way I think of it. I mean, as you know this as well as I do, as we sit here now,
animals are suffering. You know, probably miles from each of us, there are animals in factory
farms, there are animals in labs. And there's just an urgency about the issue that I think we all need
to do something about. So William, we don't know each other, but you don't sound like an extremist.
I don't feel like I'm in the presence of Che Guevara. So what is the Animal Agriculture Alliance?
And why are they calling animal partisan an extremist group? A major extremist group, sorry.
Yeah, it's definitely not just animal partisan. I mean, the Animal Agriculture Alliance, to my
understanding, is an organization that supports animal agriculture producers, at least here in
the United States. And one of their big functions, at least that they advertise and they charge
thousands of dollars from agricultural producers, is this sort of quote unquote monitoring of animal
rights, quote unquote animal rights activist groups. And so, you know, they're purporting to be
sort of the watchdog for what the animal people are doing and what threats might exist to the
industry. And so, you know, they've often produced this large, very complicated, almost, I wouldn't
say almost unreadable, it is completely unreadable diagram that alleges to show connections between
the different animal groups. And, you know, animal partisan is one of probably 40 groups on there.
To some extent, I think it's a badge of honor for these groups to say that, you know, the animal
agriculture industry has taken notice of the work that's being done. But there are plenty of other
groups that, you know, everyone is aware of. Your PETA's and the United States and animal
equalities and all of the other groups doing wonderful, wonderful work. And so, I think the
word extremist is easy to use and throw about if trying to alleviate, reduce and end exploitation
and suffering is extreme. I just question what sort of world we live in. I think it's one of
those terms that, you know, people know if you throw about you brand somebody with the term
extremist, some people won't even read past that and they'll just think extremist means this
person's ideology is nonsense. I shouldn't listen to that. I should discount them. And I'm sure that
that's part, or I would suspect that's part of the strategy of the Animal Agriculture Alliance,
is to brand groups in many cases who are, or in most cases, doing very, very reasonable things
that the majority of the public would agree with if they knew about. So I, you know, I would take
that term with a grain of salt. And if people want to have a look at that unreadable diagram,
they can visit the Instagram account of Animal Partisan. You have published the diagram and
it's quite fascinating to look at it. Let's get to the core of the topic. Can you draw for me
a portrait of the legal situation of animals? What do I mean by that? Well, without getting
into details, what is exactly the legal status of animals? Are animals considered sentient by the
law? Are animals protected against cruelty and abuse by the law? Can animals have rights? So
this is just a bundle of questions here. Yeah, it's definitely not an easy answer to that
question, as you might expect. I mean, there's a lot tied up in that. And I can speak to the American
system of law. I can't really speak beyond that. But in the United States, animals are really
considered property. I mean, we have Supreme Court cases going back decades and decades about
dogs on train tracks and others, where it's explicit that animals are considered property
and that the state may regulate sort of the ownership control of animals in general.
So animals are not human beings. I mean, it is plainly evident from reading any statute or law
that in the law in the United States, animals are not considered on par with human beings. They are
considered property, something less than human beings. When it comes to the question of rights,
it's a complicated question. There's a lot of groups doing wonderful work in that. I would first
give a plug to the Non-Human Rights Project, which is one of the preeminent groups in the United
States working to obtain legal rights for animals. But animals do have some protections. It gets a
little squishy when you talk about what's a right, what's a protection, like is the ability to be
free from cruelty a right or is that just something else? And so I'm not sure I have the answer to
that. But here's what I will say. In the law, animals do have certain protections written in
the law. I'll add two caveats to that. One, it's not a lot. And for some animals like animals used
in agriculture research, it is in fact very little, almost nonexistent. And two, I would caution any
listeners that the fact that something is written in the law does not mean that it happens in
practice. I think we get complacent in a lot of regards and people think that, oh, there's a law
written, everything's going to stop, this will be wonderful. The enforcement of laws is a whole
separate situation. So I would caveat when I say there are things written in the law, that doesn't
mean that these always happen in practice. But regarding what is in the law, all 50 states in
the United States have anti-cruelty provisions that prevent certain things like beating, abusing,
overdriving, overloading, tormenting, torturing, these types of things. So there's a whole host of
written protections. In most of these states, those written protections exempt certain conduct. So
standard agricultural practices, common farming operations, or bona fide animal research are all
excluded from those things. And so you have this scenario to your question, some animals have
written protections that allow them or purportedly should allow them to be free from cruelty. Is that
a right or not? I don't know. It's not the kind of right that you would think of where I'm the right
to be free and I could go pursue my livelihood and I could go wherever I want and I can socialize.
Those are the more substantive rights and I think that's what people generally talk about when they
say rights. And so to summarize all of that, animals are considered in the law in the United
States less than humans. They're considered property. They do have some written protections.
Those protections generally are poorly enforced and they do not include largely certain common
situations in agriculture research funding or those types of things. But animals don't have
rights of autonomy, association, and those types of things. So the net net is it's a pretty lowly
position for animals in the law, which creates lots of opportunity for folks practicing animal law.
Hmm. And something I find truly mad about our laws is that there is discrimination between species of
animals and that reflects our cultural discrimination. So for instance, there is a
set of rules for dogs and cats and they're considered pets. They're more perceived as
being sentient, but then there's another set of laws for farm animals, cows, pigs, chickens, and
such. How do you explain that? How did that weird cognitive dissonance made its appearance?
Yeah, you're absolutely right. I mean, there definitely are distinctions drawn in the law
between types of animals and the distinctions are arbitrary. I mean, anyone who has spent time with
any type of farmed animal, for example, would know. I mean, I'm fortunate enough to have on
the property where I live, we have sheep and goats and chickens and I've spent decades with dogs. And
I can tell you that take the goats, for example, the goats are every bit as cognitively aware and
playful and affectionate and the sheep and the chickens as well. And the chickens, the complexity
of their sounds and their social interactions. I mean, these are things that people don't realize.
And so you start with this premise of it is an artificial dichotomy between these types of animals.
But to your question, yes, it absolutely exists. I mean, we say on one hand, the law will say
companion animal or domestic animal, and it will define animals such as dogs and cats and maybe
horses and gerbils and those types of animals. And on the other hand, we have these exemptions
that will say, if you are an animal being used in a medical research experiment, or if you are being
used in agriculture, you're different. You're not that type of animal. You're this type of animal.
And I think your question gets to a couple things. One is just, it's really, quote unquote,
social utility. It's how people view these animals. I mean, people have lived with domesticated dogs
for many, many years and they form bonds and they generally socially think of dogs in one category.
This is almost part of the family. These are animals that live near the household. And then,
you know, commercially, we have used and exploited other animals for other purposes.
And so it gets to what is the benefit to society in the eyes of society, right? It's like, well,
these animals can help us, quote unquote, make sure these products are safe or these animals can
be food for the dinner plate. Therefore, they have less value. We should care less about them.
And that's how the laws are written. And so in large part, it reflects how society views these
animals. And I think it's largely directed to the perceived utility of these animals. It has nothing
to do with the fact that these animals are one in the same. Like, they think, they feel pain,
they suffer. Just like we do, they're no different. It, unfortunately, as with many things,
you know, boils down to what society deems is useful for humanity. And that's the sad
state of reality we kind of live in. It's even sadder for the animals that are stuck in the system.
Thank you for this explanation. You know, it clarifies things for me, because I was thinking
in terms of species. But yeah, it's better to think about it in terms of function, because
you could have a dog in a lab, and then a dog as a pet, they have different functions. And so they
have different legal standards applied to them. Yeah, thank you for that. So in preparation
for this interview, I was thinking about a conversation I had with Dr. Jens Vult, who is
the director of Fona Sanctuary, which is the biggest primate sanctuary in Canada. And that was
actually episode one of the podcast. And she was explaining to me that the reason why we don't
recognize chimps, and there are many good reasons to recognize them as people, in terms of in
legal terms, because, you know, they are our closest evolutionary relative, they have faces,
I mean, the resemblance with chimps, you know, between humans and chimps is truly astounding,
is because the fact that we don't recognize them as people, in terms of the law, is because that
would open the door to laws protecting monkeys. And there would be this snowball effect. And then
at the end, we might be threatening the farm industry. So do you agree with that hypothesis
from Dr. Jens Vult? Do you think that this is the obstacle that stops us from giving
legal protection, legal rights to animals? Or do you think there are other reasons explaining why
we are in 2023, and we haven't gotten to that place of, that good place of, you know, recognizing
the sentence of animals, recognizing them as more than property?
Yeah, yeah, I was excited to see Dr. Jens fold on your show, just as a side note, when I was in
law school, we had her come and speak in one of our webinars, or not a webinar, a symposium,
and she was great. It was very informative for the students there. To your question, is that,
do I agree with that hypothesis? Yeah, yes, I do. There might be a lot more woven up into that. But
at the highest level, I think there are a lot of people fearful of, you know, if we start granting
rights for animals, where does that slippery slope, as people will call it, lead us? You know,
does that lead us to a place where, and this can spawn 100 ridiculous arguments of, are we going
to give the dog the right to vote? And can the cow drive the car? And all sorts of other absurd
things like that. And so, you know, I think it's twofold, and they're kind of one and the same.
And, you know, the argument will often be, it's a slippery slope, you know, we suddenly will have
rights. And how do we accommodate rights for animals when we have all the people in the world?
And how does that system work together? But I think the other part of that, that stems from that
concern, or alleged concern, is that it goes back to the commercial utility that I talked about. So,
if we start granting animals rights, then presumably, we wouldn't slaughter them and
shackle them up and keep them in cages and separate them from their calves and those types of
things. And so, then the question becomes, well, what do we do? What do people eat? I think the
obvious answer is, eat other stuff that doesn't involve animals. But I do agree with that premise.
I think that's a lot of what the resistance is, is just, this is the way society is. It's the way
society has been created for decades and generations. And, you know, the population
is continuing to grow. I don't know if we're over 9 billion now, but it is not slowing down. And so,
such a massive population, you know, has a need for commerce and products. And people are so
interwoven with, like, the way things are and how animals fit in that system and are afraid that if
we dramatically change that, what happens to the system? Like, where do people get their commerce?
Where do they get their money from? You know, I think that's the concern. I think you need to
start with the more base fundamental of, does that matter? Is that enough to trump the rights
of any animal? I mean, so, if you start with the animals are in such a place that, like, their
rights can be suppressed if we have commercial concerns, I don't think that's a good premise to
start your argument. I think you start the argument with, if you have an animal that is sentient,
that feels suffering, that has relationships and has every bit of capacity that humans do,
why start with any sort of prioritization? Why not start with the question of, like,
what can we do to not do these things to this animal, just like we would not do these things
to a human being? And then you start solving problems from there. So, I think it's premised
on a faulty foundation. I think you need to start with the foundation of, like, let's not even
entertain all this other stuff that we can deprioritize them. Let's start with the premise
that we just shouldn't be doing it and now figure out how to get away from it versus, like, the
alternative. The idea of a dog voting is ridiculous, but it's also so funny and cute.
But that begs the question, where do we want to go with this? What is the ideal world in which
animal welfare has fulfilled all its goals? What does it look like legally? Because I'm thinking,
would that mean a future in which eating animal products is prohibited, is illegal?
So, I don't know if you ever thought about this.
Yeah, I mean, I think you, like I said, have to start with the premise of that future society
looks like a place where we are not exploiting and using animals, just like we wouldn't do that to a
human being. And so, then you have to kind of build around it. And so, if that's the case,
then certainly we would not be eating animals, we would not be consuming them or raising them
in massive warehouses and those types of things. And so, that's the idea.
And so, that would all need to go away. It would need to be replaced by something else. Unfortunately,
there are wonderful groups that are working on plant-based alternatives and those types of things
to fill that void. And so, I think you can safely assume that the utopian world would not look like
animals being exploited. And so, the law sort of operates to some extent, or the society to some
extent operates on the law. So, you would need laws to implement that. You would need laws that say,
these are the products that can and can't be created. You cannot slaughter an animal for food.
That is, I don't want anybody to be illusioned that we are anywhere remotely close to that,
honestly, because I think that sort of tempers some of the urgency that's needed. This, to me,
is like 100 years, 200 years in the future, but we need to act now to get to that place. And so,
you know, I don't know what that looks like. You know, for me, it's a matter of just like moving
the needle forward day by day, but it's a system where the laws reflect that we should not be using
and exploiting animals. So, there are not loopholes that say, you can slaughter a cow if X, Y, and Z
happens, or for these types of products, you can test on this animal. Those are great steps along
the way, but at some point, we just have to say, enough is enough. We're not going to do it. And
then our society and our system of laws needs to reflect that. Yeah. Like you said, the current
situation is far from that utopia image that we have. And actually, your organization was born
with the premise that urgent action needs to be taken for the benefit of animals. And that sense
of emergency translates into your actions. Animal partisan is six months old, yet you have accomplished
so much and you are very bold. You are even suing the FBI of health institutions. And we will get
to this later. So, why are we in a state of emergency? What is the emergency about?
Yeah, I think the answer to that question is easy if you look at the suffering. I think a lot of
people, this is a bit of a peeve of mine, a lot of people turn away from the suffering. And that's
okay. And I understand that people need to protect themselves. But if you look at the suffering
and you recognize that it is happening here and now and there and there and there and there and
times a million times a billion, it is happening everywhere every day. I mean, somewhere as we sit
here, there is a sheep having her throat slit and there are chickens being pried half alive out of
battery cages. It's happening everywhere. And those are not random isolated incidents. And so
the urgency comes from that situation. Society exists, society goes on. It is early morning
here for us, but everywhere around the world, the world is operating. People are waking up,
they are having their breakfast, people are going about business and producing products that involve
animals and slaughtering animals. And so the machine continues to turn. Society gets bigger
and bigger. As I mentioned, the population continues to grow. And I think we need to stare
it in the face and we need to say, this is a dire situation. These animals are suffering.
This isn't just a job. This isn't just like a pastime or something fun that we do or to make
ourselves feel good. We need to get into the system and stop the system and stop the suffering and
stop the slaughter. And so for me, that's where the urgency comes from. It just comes from recognizing
the volume of the world today, the number of people, the number of business processes that
exploit animals and just stop and grasp that and think about it for a minute. It's far beyond our
own individual worlds. And then look at the suffering in its face, look at the animals,
watch the videos, expose yourself to the suffering, and then pull all that together in your head and
say, this little scene that I saw here is playing itself out millions and millions of times a day.
I think that's where the urgency comes from. And I think it behooves each and every one of us who
know about these issues and care about them to act and to act swiftly and to do whatever is in
our capacity, whether that's signing a petition, donating, grassroots activism, protests, doing
legal actions, policy changes, legislation, whatever it might be, everyone has a role.
And I think it's critical that everyone jumps in. Well said. And let's examine those actions that
you have taken, the cases, the legal cases you have pursued and you are pursuing right now.
And let's start by the animal agriculture. Can you walk us through some of the cases you have
fought against the animal agriculture industry? Sure. So this is animal partisan focuses on two
areas, animal agriculture and research. We are mostly focused on animal agriculture. The vast
majority of our work has been in this area. And that is largely because that's where the highest
amount of suffering is. The number of animals impacted in the system far exceeds other areas.
And that's not at all to say that other areas like wildlife law or animals in captivity are
not important. It's just you have to pick and choose where you're going to allocate your time.
And so we have, like you said, only been around for a bit. Animal partisan started late last year.
As far as actions, you mentioned our most recent action, which is a lawsuit against the FBI,
which in the United States is the Federal Bureau of Investigation, one of the top law enforcement
agencies. This is in partnership with the Vermont Law and Graduate School Farmed Animal Advocacy
Clinic, which is a new clinic at Vermont Law School. So excited to partner with them. My
alma mater, they have great things going on there. Plus the Sorensen Law Firm, which specializes in
these types of cases. This case is specifically about the Freedom of Information Act, which is a
United States law that allows people access to certain records to get a look at the happenings
of the government. So animal partisan had requested records from the FBI related to the FBI's
participation in various animal agriculture industry conferences. These are conferences
put on by the agriculture industry to talk about the business, talk about enhancements,
ways to make more money, ways to exchange knowledge. And we wanted to know what was the FBI doing at
these conferences? What is the relationship between this federal law enforcement agency
and the animal agriculture industry? Are they talking about how to criminalize animal rights
activism, how to better target animal rights activists? And we wanted to know that information.
And so the FBI denied those requests and we believe those denials were improper. And so we've
since sued over them. We believe that they are obligated under federal law to give us those
records and shed some light on what their role is with the agriculture industry. So we have filed a
lawsuit on that. We have a number of cases that I would say kind of classify as private criminal
complaints. In the United States, most criminal complaints are brought by prosecutors or law
enforcement officials. I will say that it is very, very, very hard to get a prosecutor or law
enforcement official to bring a criminal complaint as it relates to cruelty to animals and agriculture.
It would be easier if it were a dog or a cat, kind of back to our earlier conversation, Ryan.
But when you go to them and say, this pig was abused or this chicken was abused, it is incredibly
hard to get those prosecutions. And so Animal Partisan has taken to some of these private
complaints that allow a private citizen to use different procedures to circumvent some of that
unwillingness. And we have criminal complaints filed against a poor company for abusing a pig
at slaughter, a Wisconsin meat slaughterhouse for breaking the tail of a steer at slaughter,
against the Pennsylvania Turkey Company for abusing turkeys, being rounded up for
slaughter. That one is in partnership with the Animal Equality, based on a great PETA investigation.
So we are using a lot of those to sort of apply these state cruelty laws to animals and agriculture
and try to circumvent some of this resistance that is really unfounded. So happy to go on more,
but I would say those are some of the kind of primary cases and the stuff going on right now.
Yes. Before that, I want to go back to the FBI case. Is it even legal for the FBI to accept an
invitation from the agriculture industry to one of their conference? I feel like this should be
a nonpartisan institution. So, yeah.
Yeah. So I don't think there's anything illegal about it. I think what you're highlighting though
demonstrates sort of the state of society. The private animal agriculture industry gets so much
support from the government, both state and federal. And so the government is geared towards
supporting these industries. I mean, the act of the government is not just a government,
but it's a state of animal product consumption is so deeply woven into our society that it is
taken apart of the government. So if you look at places like the USDA, the Department of Agriculture,
there are huge partnerships going on between the USDA, state agriculture agencies, and private
industry actors. We are funneling millions and billions of dollars in subsidies to the agriculture
industry. And so it's not, we don't live in a situation, unfortunately, where the government
should be a nonpartisan entity that should not be collaborating. Everywhere you look, the government
is collaborating with the animal agriculture industry. And in some cases, suppressing the
descent of others who are not favorable of animal agriculture. So it's really not a surprise that
the FBI is engaged with that industry. You can go back through, there's plenty of cases and actions
over the last two, three decades where the FBI has targeted animal rights activists. They've gone to
people's homes, they pulled pigs out of sanctuaries that were allegedly stolen from factory farms by
direct action everywhere and other groups like that. And so this is not a new thing. You would
think it should be nonpartisan, but unfortunately, it's not. We live in a world where government is
in bed with the agriculture industry, and that's part of the uphill climb that we have to fight.
I feel like there are more urgent matters than going after pigs in sanctuaries for the FBI.
Do we know if politicians are being lobbied and supported financially by the agriculture industry?
Absolutely. Yeah, I mean, there are the ties between the political world and the agriculture
industry are tremendous. I mean, you can look at some of the pieces of legislation that get proposed
and the roots of those, where they come from, and even people getting on the floor of the house and
talking about, I was approached by XYZ farmer in my community, and that's where this came from. I
mean, we've had, I would say the current one is, there's a federal, what's called the EATS Act,
which is a response to Proposition 12 and other laws that were prohibiting confinement of animals
in cruel conditions. That is coming from agriculture interests. There are what's called ag-gag laws in
the United States, which are intended to prevent activists from going into a farm and video
recording or audio recording. Those are coming from agriculture interests. And so absolutely,
there are tight connections between the animal agriculture industry and politicians,
and that is often manifested in laws and bills and attempts to do things or attempts to influence
the USDA. So yes, that is definitely the case. So when I hear vegans talk about the agricultural
lobby, the animal industry lobby being this powerful, big, bad institution, organization,
they write about that. This is not just, what's the word, conspiracy theory.
No, not at all. I mean, I would be surprised that anyone would say that. I mean, the agriculture
industry is huge. I mean, think of the amount of meat and animal products that are sold in this
country. I mean, you can go to any grocery store and walk down the meat aisles and walk down any
aisle, the dairy aisle, and it's right there in your face. And there are new products every day,
and they fly off the shelves. And every one of those products is X number of dollars that is
going somewhere. And the amount of dollars that are woven into that industry are massive. And
these industries have trade organizations that they sit on top and say, we're the national pork
board. We want to represent all of America's pork producers or the egg board or whatever the case
might be. And they pool resources to some extent. They say, look, we have farmers all across the
country. We want to have an organization that represents all their interests. They are, in many
cases, funded by the member farmers. They're funded by the government. The government has things
called checkoff programs where they're channeling money to these associations to promote pork and
do certain things. And so, no, it is absolutely the case that these associations and these industries,
they wield tremendous power. They wield political power. They wield financial power. That's just a
reality of the world we live in. I think denying that puts you at a disadvantage. I think you have
to accept it and say, these are the cards that are dealt. This is the mountain that we're up against.
And then look at it and figure out how you can pick it apart. What are the laws that create this
checkoff program? What can this association do? How are they allowed to spend their money? What
can they say and not say? And that's where you start to get your power and you start to see,
okay, this is the way it is, but I'm going to look at every one of those laws and I'm going to look
at their requirements. I'm going to figure out what can they do? What can they not do? And where
can I find something that they're doing that they should not do and bring that to attention? File a
lawsuit, file litigation, expose it. That's where your power comes from by facing sort of the issues
that are out there. It's the same as what I mentioned with the suffering. You just have to
look at it in the face and you have to empower yourself and say, this is what I'm dealing with.
Now, where can I go and what can I do to stop it? I can forgive the consumers for
supporting this industry, consuming animal products. You can blame it on culture. You can blame it on
cognitive dissonance and such, but the executives, the people running those industries,
that I don't understand. Do you know if they are aware of the suffering they are causing?
Yeah, I mean, I don't think you can not be aware. I mean, if you are an executive for a company that
slaughters animals for a business, even if you are so far removed that you're not a part of the
business every day, there is some point where you've seen the suffering. You've seen or you've
heard the screams of the pigs as they come in on the trucks or you've watched a cow that's been
stunned improperly stagger and fall down. There's no excuse for not knowing. I mean, that's the
business and I think we have to acknowledge that the people that run these companies know that
they're suffering. I think you probably get a lot of cognitive dissonance where these people think
that animals are lesser and they don't have the capacity to suffer. Whatever I've just heard,
the screams from the pigs, that's not as bad as the screams of a child or some human being.
I think a lot of people have convinced themselves that these animals are more like widgets or
commodities and that they don't have the capacity to feel and suffer like we do. That's probably
what helps people get by. I think other people probably know and they acknowledge the suffering,
but they just don't care because that's the business that they're in. They want to produce
money. They might label it as they want to feed America and be patriotic or whatever the case
might be. I don't think there's any of them that don't recognize that there's suffering happening.
Some of them may obscure it behind, oh, it's not as bad as I think it is, but there's money involved
and this is a livelihood for people. It gets back to the equation of money and the eyes of many
weighs more than the suffering of a living conscious being. That's again, the unfortunate
reality of the world we live in. Let's get back to David. David, you're a
great speaker. Let's get back to those legal cases. What are some of the victories you've had against
this industry on the court? Sure. Like you said, we've only been around for a short while.
I will say even though in that short time, we already have multiple cases scheduled for trial.
I can't say too much on one of them, but on our poor case, we have trial scheduled later this fall
where an actual corporation has been charged with animal cruelty. That doesn't happen. In many cases,
the cases where cruelty is charged, it might be an individual person is charged, but a corporate
entity can be charged with cruelty for conduct that happens beneath the purview of that corporation.
We have a trial scheduled. I think the fact that we have a trial scheduled, we had a judge review
our complaint and realized that there's probably enough here to go forward and argue whether or
not cruelty happened. That's significant. We actually have two of those. One of those I can't
really get into, but there are two trials scheduled for corporations charged with animal cruelty for
cruelty to animals and agriculture. That is huge. That just doesn't happen. In decades and decades,
there have probably only been a handful of corporations charged, much less convicted.
I would say that's been a victory. We've had a lot of wonderful partnerships in our short time.
I mentioned Vermont Law School. We're partnering with Animal Equality on things. We've got a lot of
other great partnerships building. We've got a lot of litigation ideas in development,
cases that will be filed in the next two, three, four, five, six months that will be going out.
Then one of the other things I would say has been a significant achievement is that we spend a lot
of time trying to develop the field of animal law to help law students interested in this field
grow to help attorneys who may be practicing in other fields get experience. I think since we've
been founded, we've helped about 17 law students and eight attorneys get experience in this field.
They've worked on projects for us. They provided invaluable support to animal partisan. At the same
time, many of them have gotten coaching, mentorship, support, exposure to how to practice in this field.
That is just going to grow the movement. The more people out there that know and care about these
issues and can deal with them legally, the better. I would say the trials we have scheduled, we did
get a conviction for animal cruelty for an individual that kicked a lamb in the face during
slaughter. That was early on, so that conviction has happened. We've gotten some media coverage of
our cases in local media where these slaughterhouses exist. That is helpful even beyond the criminal
justice system for people who read these papers and these news sources to just see how they're
doing in their community. That in many cases is more profound than anything else. Those would be
some of the important things I would highlight. You said how you decided to focus on agriculture
but also the research industry. What about the research industry? What is happening right now
and what are you pursuing in terms of legal cases? Absolutely. Some of the research that we do is
overlocked. There was a recent study that came out that speculated on the number of animals in
research of being over 100 million. It is not an insubstantial amount of animals. Granted, when you
look at animals in agriculture, we're talking eight or nine billion chickens every year. The
numbers are smaller but it is not an insubstantial amount of animals. They are suffering in many
cases in different ways. They are certainly kept in confinement, small spaces. I was just watching a
video before this podcast of some sheep at a lactation experiment in upstate New York that were
confined to probably four foot by six foot little metal kennels in a concrete room. I can compare
that of the sheep that we live with who are roaming the pastures all day, forging in the grass,
and so they are suffering in similar ways like that where they are being prohibited from
expressing normal behaviors. They are being subjected to experiments. They are being
drugged, strapped into machines, bred and kept in captivity, and then killed to have their brains
dissected, their blood drawn. They are suffering in similar ways. They are suffering in different
ways in many cases and not a small number of animals. Animal partisanship is a very common
thing in our community and in our communities. We have been very active in this area. We have
been working with the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of
Agriculture to get information about what is happening in the animals. Animal partisan, this
is a smaller focus area for us but a lot of our early work here has been public records work to
try to gain transparency into what is happening, to try to find information about what are these
studies, what animals are being used. We have been on the search for videos of these experiments to
a number of those videos to try to show people what is happening to animals behind the scenes.
Public records work has been some of that. We did file a lawsuit early against a university.
That case has since ended for various reasons but we are still focused on public records work,
getting those records, potentially litigating some issues where records have been denied just
like the FBI did. I would say the other area that is of interest for us is back to the state cruelty
laws. We talked about how hard it is to apply cruelty laws to animals in agriculture. The same
applies to animals in research but we are developing some case ideas to try to argue in various states
that conduct committed to animals in research was cruelty and should be punished criminally.
I cannot get into too much but I would say we probably have two scenarios where we are
not far off from filing private criminal complaints related to animal research to try to
set some precedent because you are in a laboratory and you have a lab coat. It does not mean that
certain things that you might do to an animal are not cruelty and we want to use the legal system
to demonstrate that. We have some cases lined up to try to explore that a little bit further.
What do you say to people who claim that the farm industry is one thing but research is something
else entirely. We are developing drugs against cancer. We need to do those tests on animals.
Do you think they are right? Is it justified suffering?
I do not think there is much difference to be honest with you. I think you have to start with
the base question I asked earlier which is should we be doing this or should we just accept at face
value that we should not do this to another being that is conscious and can suffer. I do not think
you get into the justification like this is food and this is a drug. I think many people would say
food is more important. You have a lot of poverty and starvation in this world and some would say
food is more important than drug testing or pain medication or things like that. I think you can
argue the relative importance of either one but I think you come back to the same conclusion and
say regardless of which one you choose are either of them worth exposing an unwilling conscious
sentient suffering being to these certain things. Then you have to stack that up with the alternatives.
It is the same in the food space where you have plant-based alternatives and those types of
things. There are alternatives to animal research and I am not going to claim to be the expert and
there are plenty of groups doing good work in this space but it is not like a situation where we have
no alternatives and it is just like all or nothing. I would argue that even if it were all or nothing,
we still should not be doing it but it is kind of the same situation. You should not be doing it to
begin with and there are alternatives and people need to be looking for ways to move out of that
space. I think there are some that are doing that but there is just far too much research happening.
There is money woven into that as well. If you explore the grants and if you explore
the funding, there are people who are making their careers doing research that is funded by the
government that has given them money to do a research experiment that has been done before
and has been done before. People are making their livelihood over this. I do not think in short it
is that much of a different question. I think you start with the should we be doing this to begin
with and then you look at the alternatives and I think you have to acknowledge that
probably not something we should do. We should be moving away from it.
Yes, let me just mention that it is not always the noble image that is sold to us. Like you said,
there is economic interest behind it. Let us start with cosmetics. I think you do not need to test
your cosmetics on animals. Let us at least for a minimum agree on that. You walked us through
some of your current and future cases. I want to know what can we do to support your mission,
to support what you are doing and to have more victories against this industry to make it more
accountable for its horrendous behavior and exploitation toward animals.
Yes, I think one, support animal partisan but just support the cause in general. There are so many
good groups that are doing this and I think the first thing I would say is just commit to doing
something, whatever that is. I love support for animal partisan. I can talk about that in a minute,
but just commit to doing something. Recognize that this is a problem and we each have 24 hours in the
day and many of those hours are consumed by scrolling through social media, watching memes
or videos or things like that that are not meaningful or not impactful. We each have the
capacity to do something. That could be anything. Literally, get on your computer, search for a
petition, go walk dogs at the shelter, whatever the case might be. Call your congressperson.
Do whatever you want to do. The first thing I would say is do something. We are not in a situation
where we can just say, other people have it, other people have got it covered. The individual
people that step up and take action is what is needed. We need masses of people that are going
to do that. I should give a plug. We often forget about the grassroots activists, the people out
doing protests or disruptions or things like that. If that is your thing, look for groups in your
area. Those groups are strengthened by more people out in the streets doing things. I would
start with the premise of do something, whatever that is, and give your time and give your passion.
Then second is, as far as Animal Partisan, we are a brand new organization. We would love any
support that we can get. We are very small. The intent is to be lean and tenacious like you
mentioned earlier. You can find Animal Partisan on Instagram. You can like the Instagram page.
We are on Facebook. We are on LinkedIn. Any kind of support just through liking the page.
Donations are obviously welcome as well. You can go on animalpartisan.org and there is a support
tab. You can sign up for an email list. You can donate. You can spread the word. I work with so
many other wonderful groups and I cannot help but plug them as well. There are plenty of other
groups doing just as good work. Support them as well. I think my message would be do something,
take your time, use it for something good. If it is just, I do not have much time, then support
the groups that do have the time and do have the passion. Go on social media, like them, follow
them, comment, subscribe. Fund, support, whatever you can do to support these groups would be very
invaluable and we would appreciate it. It feels amazing to be an early supporter of an initiative,
of an organization, of anything. It feels exciting. You are the first wave and you are looking at this
organization and all its potential. I think there is something really exciting about it.
But people will find links to your organization website but also to the donation page in the
description below. Fantastic. I think you are right. I hesitate to use the word exciting because
I would rather not be doing this work but we have to do it because the animals are suffering.
I think it speaks to the opportunities to do something. It is not like you just look at this
one legal theory and that is all you can do. No, it is every day. You can look at information,
search for records, find out what the businesses are doing and explore all of these new legal
theories and strategies. There is a sea of opportunity out there and that part is exciting.
Where are the levers that we can pull to reduce suffering and animal exploitation, challenge these
industries for what we are doing? There most certainly is excitement in that. It is what keeps
me going every day. I think whatever we do is meaningful. Whatever we can do to impede the
tide of what is being done to animals is meaningful. I appreciate the support.
You know about it, this misanthropic sentiment in the vegan community and looking at other people
making a difference and working hard for the cause of animal welfare just makes me have
a new appreciation for humanity. I think we are not all bad. There are some very good people among
us and you are part of them. Did you have anything more to add before we end this conversation?
We do not. You have covered a lot of ground and I sincerely appreciate it. Like I said at the start,
I would give a plug to you Ryan. I think what you are doing is a great example of what I just
talked about. You are doing something. You said at some point this is an issue. I have the capacity
to do this. You are clearly doing a wonderful job. Take a page for listeners and viewers. Take a
page from Ryan's playbook and just do something. Whatever it is, whatever skills you have,
put them to use. I do not have anything more. I think my last plug would be there is so much
suffering in this world. Do not for a minute be appeased and think that the new plant-based burger
came out and everything is good. No. If you look for it, it is out there. We have limited time on
this planet. I think we just need to put our heads down and turn away. Whatever we can do to help,
do it. You will feel more fulfilled. You will reduce suffering. I think it takes all of us
and I appreciate the opportunity and I appreciate all the great questions.
Of course. Thank you so much William for your work and for having accepted my invitation and
for having taken the time to answer my questions. Thank you everyone for listening. More people
deserve to know about animal partisan and their effective work. Make sure to share this episode
with family and friends. Next week, we are continuing the veteran vegan series with Chris.
Chris is a teacher by profession and he became vegan for health reasons. In my conversation
with Chris, we talk a lot about food and strategies to advocate for veganism. And Chris is very good
at that. I love his approach. Subscribe now and don't miss out on this episode. Finally, you can
always reach me on Instagram at veganreportpodcast. Thank you again for listening. Take care and see
you next Tuesday.