Digital Dissenter

At the end of May I attended an Animal Rights Symposium that brought together some of the most influential people from the South African animal rights movement. The talks were enlightening and the discussions were thought-provoking, but when it came to deciding on a way forward for our cause, we all seemed to hit a brick wall.

Some activists took the stance that we needed to advocate veganism as a healthy and ethical lifestyle choice, and many of the people who backed this idea were adamant that anything short of veganism was a cop-out. The suggestion that has stuck with me though was one that advocated a much more incremental approach to the cause and the realisation of its ultimate goals.


Vital to achieving any kind of tangible change in terms of the treatment of animals in our country, is the formation of a firm legal basis for animal rights. This is because the courts are inherently conservative and will only develop the law incrementally. While we are unlikely to get a constitutional amendment to extend constitutional rights to animals, we can start by ensuring that the animal welfare legislation that exists is developed and enhanced. As greater protections are afforded to animals, it will be increasingly difficult to deny them further legal protection.

The movement needs to be very careful in how it picks its battles. It needs to start small, building incrementally to the final goal of getting animals recognised as legal persons. As a start, the movement needs to persuade the courts to recognise that the animal welfare legislation exists to protect animals for their own sake rather than protecting human beings “finer sensibilities". Justice Cameron's minority judgment in NSPCA v Openshaw should provide a good basis to work from, as he explicitly recognised that animals are sentient creatures who are deserving of legal consideration.

In developing this type of precedent, the movement will need to focus on soft targets that attract the public's sympathy. As far as possible, we should avoid taking on difficult and complex subjects such as ritual slaughter. Firstly, these cases are likely to backfire on us as it would be very easy for a powerful (and rich) group such as South Africa's traditional leaders to challenge all forms of animal welfare legislation on the grounds that they infringe the constitutional right to cultural expression. Given the somewhat conservative composition of our courts at the moment, they would have very strong prospects of succeeding. Secondly, these issues are also likely to produce very negative reactions from the public that risks further alienating the animal rights movement from the mainstream.

This is all well and good but one may wonder where exactly digital activism fits into this. In terms of winning public sympathy, there are few better ways to do so than via online platforms. These platforms could range from social networking sites such as Facebook and their “Causes” or “Groups”, to video channels, to blogs to the more mainstream online media sources such as online news websites in which users can comment on articles and spark debate.

The power of social media and the increasingly participatory nature of the internet can be harnessed to great effect by movements for social change. For example, in 2007 a story broke about a Johannesburg based man who brutally killed his husky puppy with a chainsaw. The story gained almost viral status on the internet and attracted a huge amount of attention. The public outcry on news websites and on social networking sites was considerable. While many people may not agree on the ethics of ritual slaughter or meat-eating, the savage murder of one of our beloved household pets is something that will always draw public sympathy.
Which brings me to my ultimate point. The use of digital media is key to raising the public profile of certain issues and drawing out responses from the otherwise silent masses. The “silent masses” refers to the vast majority of people who have ethical inclinations but do not voice them actively – unless compelled to do so. The power of the silent masses, when activated or riled up, to propel a movement forward should not be underestimated.

The public response to the judgement on the husky case was highly critical of the light sentence that the accused was given. It is cases and incidents such as that one that if used effectively by the movement, could bring about those key successes in the court-room that will lay the foundation for the realisation of the goals of the movement.

Court-room battles alone are not enough. The animal rights movement needs to link its legal battles with its social activism, especially its digital activism, in order to awaken the power of the silent masses and to elevate animal rights issues in the public consciousness.