1

Introduction

The overarching vision of the Animal Justice Party is a better life for all.

This vision is founded in the conviction that: a human society that is kinder and gentler and

more just in its treatment of animals will be a kinder, gentler, more just society in every way.

In those beloved words of Gandhi: The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be

judged by the way its animals are treated.

Or in my own words: No-one does unto an animal what they wouldn’t do unto a human if it

was socially acceptable.

In this paper, I will explore the ways in which human and animal well-being are inseparable.

Why what is good for animals is good for humans, and what is bad for animals is bad

for humans

but also

why what is good for humans is good for animals, and what is bad for humans is bad

for animals

This analysis leads me to the conclusion that: in order to fully represent justice for animals,

AJP should support, in broad terms, all policies which promote compassion, justice and

equity for humans, and the protection of democratic processes, even when they appear to

have no direct impact on animals.

Additionally, because all environmental damage impacts on animals, I will argue: that the

AJP should develop a much more comprehensive environmental policy.

“A Better Life for All”

Recognising the full policy implications

of the AJP’s overarching vision

Frankie Seymour

2

To support policies covering animal justice, social justice, democratic process and the

environment, I also suggest that we need to broaden our policies relating to the economy and

education.

Finally, I suggest that: gearing our policies to better reflect social justice and environmental

issues will substantially broaden our voting support base.

So to begin with the first issue.

Good for animals is good for humans and bad for animals is bad for humans.

AJP policies already do quite well in terms of recognising this principle.

The slide shows three examples where this recognition is explicit in our policies.

These are principles which many people, perhaps most people in the community support

without hesitation.

They know what their own companion animals, or their own local wildlife, mean to them.

They know how empty their lives would be without them.

However, there is a point where many people believe that bad for animals is actually good for

humans.

For animal users, this is the point where welfare starts costing them money rather than saving

them money.

More generally, it’s the point where the consumer stops regarding animals as family members

and starts regarding them as food or tools or games/toys or pests.

For example:

They think:

3

eating animals is delicious, or perhaps even necessary;

testing products and drugs on animals provides us with heaps of miracle medicines;

using animals for entertainment is such fun for the kids;

killing animals they regard as pests or vermin is only right and proper.

Several AJP policies explicitly challenge these assumptions. Examples are shown below:

There are other AJP policies where the benefits for humans of good for animals are implied

rather than explicit, and others again where they are entirely absent, and not particularly

relevant.

Generally speaking AJP policies already have a firm handle on this aspect of human-animal

interdependence.

However, there is also the whole converse question that falls out of this:

is what is good for humans also good for animals, and

is what is bad for humans also bad for animals?

These are questions our policies at present barely touch on.

Yet, during an election campaign, they are the questions on which candidates most often have

to make up policy on the run.

There some areas where the answers are pretty obvious.

Examples:

Where humans don’t have enough money to shelter or feed themselves they won’t be

able to shelter or feed their companion animals.

4

When humans are sick or injured or very old, they may become unable to care for

their companion animals.

Where people get evicted from rental properties, or aged people are forced to move

into care facilities, they often have to give away their companion animals, frequently

with fatal consequences – for both human and animal.

Where people are poorly educated, even in disciplines that have nothing directly to do

with animals, things like reading, writing and arithmetic, their companion animals are

disadvantaged as a result of their carers’ disadvantage, for example inability to read

forms, or signs, or to budget properly etc.

However, there are other recurring questions of human well-being that come up when you’re

sitting on an election panel, questions which have no direct relationship to animals.

For example:

forced council amalgamations

marriage equality

equity in access to mobile phone coverage and the Internet.

We can just answer that these aren’t issues that have any impact on animals so we have no

policy.

That answer won’t win us any votes.

But the real question is: is it even true?

The entire history of human civilisation shows that every natural and anthropogenic

catastrophe that has caused incalculable suffering to humans, has caused orders of magnitude

worse suffering for animals.

War, conquest, revolution, plague, famine, any disaster, natural or man-made, however

frightful and pitiful the plight of the humans embroiled in it, the plight of animals is always

far, far worse.

Food runs out and people start eating their companion animals and any wild creatures

they can catch, killing them any way they can, however cruel.

Energy for heating runs out and all the carefully preserved remnant habitat disappears

for firewood.

5

Governments, in desperation to restore order in the chaos, ration resources and clamp

down on luxuries – which invariably include companion animals.

Nations go to war over resources or ideologies, either externally or internally, killing

thousands of humans and many more animals.

A zoonotic disease appears and the animals thought to be carriers are killed in their

millions.

Human suffering, disadvantage, inequity and injustice almost invariably transfer to animals

somewhere along the line.

Even inequity of access to modern communications technology impacts on animals, for

example when you urgently need to call the vet but you live in an area where mobile phone

signals are a bit capricious.

However, there is still another level at which good for humans is good for animals, and it is

one that is absolutely fundamental to AJP’s self-awareness as a political party.

The entire history of human civilisation shows that only when a society begins slowly

moving towards democracy, towards laws that are fair and just for humans, towards an

equitable distribution of resources, only then does that society even begin to consider creating

laws to protect animals.

Human compassion for other animals has been around as long as humans have, but it was

only after the Renaissance and the Reformation in Europe, when humanitarian and

liberationist thought began to flourish, on the eve of the English Revolution and the birth of

constitutional monarchy, that the first animal protection legislation was passed anywhere in

the world:

in Ireland (by an English governor, Thomas Wentworth) in 1635.

Thomas Wentworth

1st Earl of Strafford

then in the pre-revolution British Massachusetts colony in North America in 1641,

then in Cromwell’s England in 1654.

It is certainly only after the beginnings of Parliamentary democracy in any country, that

comprehensive ‘prevention of cruelty to animals’ legislation has ever been contemplated.

It is only in the environment of a relatively stable Parliamentary democracy like Australia

6

that it has become possible for an Animal Justice Party, and all we represent, to even think

about existing.

Protecting the last three and a half centuries of wins for human justice, equity and democracy,

even when they appear to have nothing to do with animals, may, in fact, be the most

important thing the AJP has to do to protect animals.

Above all things, we must protect the right of humans to fight for the rights of other animals.

A very recent assault on this right, and a dangerous precedent for both human and animal

rights, is the abomination of ag-gag laws.

Protecting our right to protect animals requires us to protect the rights of humans per se.

We must never take our democracy for granted.

Even stable democracies are not invulnerable to the greed of a few and the indolence and

ignorance of the many.

I would urge the AJP to recognise and articulate the principles of democracy, and human

justice and equity, as principles it supports, irrespective of whether there is any obvious

connection with animals, simply because they are pre-requisites for the Party’s own

existence.

Another area where I believe the AJP needs to become much more involved, is

environmental policy.

The AJP already has several policies on environmental issues including climate change and

wildlife habitat.

But again, in my view, we need much more than this.

There is simply no environmental problem that does not directly or indirectly harm animals.

All animals (including, incidentally, humans) are wholly dependent on the environment for

air, food, water and a habitable climate.

Climate change, along with many other environmental problems that both contribute to and

result from climate change, is causing an increase in the severity, frequency and duration of

natural disasters: droughts, fires, famines, floods, blizzards, dust storm, sea surges.

These disasters, along with the post-industrial scale of habitat loss, both terrestrial and

marine, is driving whole species of plant and animal to extinction, and those extinctions are

causing further extinctions and further climate destabilisation.

7

We need to be aware, however, that it is not just the environmental changes themselves that

will hurt and kill animals.

The response of human society, as the environmental catastrophe begins to bite, will multiply

the animal impacts of the environmental disaster.

As the environmental changes push more and more humans into desperation, as always,

animals will suffer orders of magnitude more than humans, just as they have in any every

famine and plague and war in history.

The AJP therefore has a perfect right to take an interest in every aspect of environment

policy.

In fact, I believe we have an absolute obligation to take leadership of Australia’s

environmental policy agenda, on behalf of animals.

As a starting point, I have compiled what I would consider to be an ideal AJP environment

policy in nine points. I have tried to keep each point as a broad catch-all, intending that these

points should cover just about every possible environmental issue. If I have left anything out,

I will certainly amend it.

There should be no further intentional clearing or burning of any remaining area of

native vegetation in Australia for any reason. Bushfire control should be maintained

by natural, stable and self-sustaining populations native or naturalised wild

herbivores.

All human production of animals for food or other products must be replaced by plant

crop production.

o Agricultural animals should be bred down to small populations which are

preserved in sanctuaries (to maintain species and gene pools that would

become extinct if bred out of existence), and their status as individuals raised

(along with that of companion animals) to that of human children.

o All land formerly used for animal agriculture should be used for crop

production (including plantation forestry and hemp; plantation forestry would

preclude colonisation by animals so that their homes are not destroyed by

ongoing forestry operations), restoration of wildlife habitat, or for solar and

wind farms (which must be designed not to impede wildlife traffic either on

the ground or in the air, or otherwise impact on the environment).

o Cell culture meat, cheese and leathers, which are already entering commercial

production, will help humans with the changeover to vegan meats, cheeses and

fabrics, and provide an ongoing food supply for carnivorous companion

animals.

No more native plants or animals should be hunted, harvested or otherwise removed

from their natural habitat (terrestrial, aquatic or marine) other than for the

compassionate purpose of saving their individual lives or quality of life, or the

ecological purpose of re-establishing healthy wild populations in other locations

where they are ecologically needed.

Naturalised animals in wildlife habitat should be removed from wildlife habitat only if

there is compelling evidence that the negative impacts of their presence outweigh the

positive, and only by rehoming and/or fertility control.

8

No further expansion of urban/suburban development into wildlife habitat or crop

land should be permitted. Zero population growth of the human and companion

animal populations should be maintained by fertility control (voluntary in the case of

humans, and by selecting to maximise health and well-being in the case of companion

animals); and any further infrastructure needed for human settlements, including

ample green space, should be built upwards and/or downwards rather than outwards.

All roads that pose a danger to wildlife should be fully fenced with plenty of

underpasses and overpasses for wildlife.

All human use of fossil fuels should be replaced by clean energy sources (solar, wind,

tidal, hydroelectric and geothermal) that do not release greenhouse gases. Nuclear

energy will never be a safe option, until someone invents cold fusion.

All pollution and waste produced by human settlements and industries should be

reclaimed and reused within those settlements and industries.

Existing measures to prevent the use of the chlorofluorocarbons which caused the

hole in the Earth’s ozone layer must be maintained and enhanced.

Animal justice, social justice and environmental protection all require at the very least a

sound shake-up of current economic policy.

The same sorts of economic changes that the AJP is advocating in its current economic policy

on behalf of animal justice, especially those relating to changing taxation regimes, could be

crafted to also improve both social justice and environmental protection, thus providing even

greater protection to animals.

One area of economic reform that is critical not just for protecting animals directly, but also

for protecting the necessary human environment - physical, social and political - for properly

protecting animals at the higher level is specific taxation measures aimed at breaking the

backs of the multinational corporations.

These monsters are not only the primary killers of the world’s animals and the primary

gougers of the physical environment on which all animals including humans depend, they

are also more powerful than elected governments and therefore the greatest threat to

democracy anywhere in the world.

And finally there is education policy. The other greatest threat to democracy, animals and the

environment is the ignorance and indolence of that voting public.

To address this, I would like to see the AJP education policy, for both children and adults,

extended to ensure that every member of the Australian community understands what it cost

to win the benefits we take for granted.

We need to ensure people understand our political system:

how it works;

its uniqueness in human history; and

how extremely easy it would be to lose it all.

9

Of course, to ever have enough influence to persuade any government to begin to implement

even a shadow of these policies, we would need to get a lot more people to vote for us.

However, I think that broadening our policy base to include the entirety of social justice,

democratic process, environment protection, the economy and education will significantly

extend our support base among the voters.

There is a contrary argument to this: that we can draw more support from mainstream voting

animal lovers by focusing on the narrower PoCTA type issues, especially companion animal

issues; and that we will scare voters off if we bombard them with the broader truth of what

we really want for animals.

It’s true that a narrower strategy might win us quite a lot of votes from marginal voters who

see little to choose between the major parties, and who are frightened or disappointed by the

Greens.

But there are two good reasons why we should not withhold the broader truth of our policies

when speaking to a mainstream audience during an election.

One is simply as a matter of integrity, not creating a public perception of a disjunct between

our candidates’ election speeches and our published policies.

One of the reasons why so many voters mistrust all governments and politicians, one of the

reasons for the ever-increasing informal vote, is the perception that all politicians invariably

lie.

10

We might win a lot of votes simply by not falling into this stereotype.

During the lead-up to the July election, I sat on a candidate’s panel in the beef country

heartland of Nimmitabel and told them the AJP policy on phasing out animal agriculture.

What I sensed from the audience was not so much horror as almost a feeling of relief, not

that I was advocating they replace their beef cattle with solar and wind farms (which is

what I was doing), but that I had been honest about our intentions.

It must have been a refreshing novelty to them. A few people in Nimmitabel even voted

for me!

The other reason for having the very broad and fully public range of policies I’ve suggested is

that there are many other voters out there who do genuinely care about animals.

They do support our policies entirely.

But they will not vote for us because they don’t know where we stand on the other issues that

matter to them just as much as animals: social justice, the environment, democracy.

My guess is that those voters probably out-number those who would vote for us just because

they love animals.

I believe these people, whose compassion is not limited to either humans or animals, will

vote for us if we can convince them to trust us on the human and environment issues.

So in summary, I am advocating that the AJP:

1. Develop a much broader general policy covering all issues of human well-being, social

justice and matters of democracy:

noting specific issues, such as loss of income, that directly affect animals,

but also noting that human well-being and democratic processes provide the pre-

requisite social and political climate to enable reforms for the well-being of animals.

2. Develop a much broader and comprehensive environment policy on the basis that all

environmental damage harms animals.

3. Further develop our economic and education policies to support our policies on animal

justice, social justice, democratic process and the environment.

4. Promote these policies widely and openly in order to increase our support base among

voters who care about animals but who also care about human well-being and the

environment.

And of course, I’m also advocating that we never stop looking forward to the day when we

have enough public support to form an AJP government.

11

12

Concluding Song

ANTHEM FOR THE ANIMALS

(Tune: The Battle Hymn of the Republic/John Brown’s Body/Solidarity Forever)

Who are these whom we would liberate from suffering and fear

Twenty thousand years in shackles but deliverance is near

Our kin, our fellow animals, so innocent and dear

All creatures shall be free

Chorus:

Forward we will go together

Forward we will go together

Forward we will go together

All creatures shall be free

They are those who share our planet, share our blood, and share our pain

Our brothers and our sisters, bought and sold for sport or gain

We at last will bring them justice, we will break the final chain

All creatures shall be free

Chorus

We who threw off our own slavery, of gender, class and race

We will end this final villainy, this error, this disgrace

This last of all injustice will dissolve without a trace

All creatures shall be free

Chorus

© Frankie Seymour 2016

13