Causes can be a
great rallying point for humanity. When people band together around an ideal
there is scope for them to achieve a lot and overcome some pretty large odds.
In fact causes are an opportunity for people to work together to change prevailing
circumstances or attitudes.
There are times,
however when this can go spectacularly wrong and in my experience this is
usually when logic is abandoned in favour of fanatical idealism. Idealism
without the fanatical aspect is a good thing because it allows us to imagine
how things don’t need to stay as they are and could in fact be much better.
However it is always important to overlay a certain logical template on your
idealism to ensure it has not become, to use the current term du jour, a dopey
idea.
I have been
watching the unfolding or rather the unravelling of what would have begun as an
earnest and worthy cause lately that is just such an example.
All causes have
their wacky end of the spectrum and therein lies a dilemma for those more level
headed members of the cause. Namely who do you let in and who do you run a mile
from? There will be times when this will be a hard call to make; but if you
care about your cause there are times when you will have to make it.
The reality is
that extremists tend to marginalise your cause and give it a generally unacceptable
public face. Nobody knows this better than the Green Party of Aotearoa New
Zealand. Like many groups dedicated to social change they began by accepting
all sorts into their organisation. But because most of their policies were outside
the existing mainstream this meant they attracted a lot of fringe dwellers and
(let’s face it) a fairly good sprinkling of loonies as well. Although having
said that; in the current climate it would be hard to imagine that we thought
some of those Green Party members that were, shall we say; less helpful to
their cause were actually loonies when you compare them to some of this current
Government’s support parties.
However the
point is that the Green Party grew up a bit and a more savvy leadership emerged
that knows and understands that to win a cause you have to win popular support.
This does not mean you have to pander; it simply means you have to find less
scary and flaky ways of making your point. It also helps if you can keep your
cool and remain firmly placed up there on the moral high ground. I used to be
involved with a fairly feisty and effective community organisation a few years
back and we always worked on the principle that you achieve far being firm and
not backing down from your cause but by remaining calm and reasonable you would
leave a far better and more effective impression than a screaming rabble ever does.
It is this
realisation that accounts for the outstanding electoral performance by the
Green Party in the 2011 elections. Their policies have always been more mainstream
than most people realised but many couldn’t see that because of some of the
loopier characters who hogged the limelight and diverted attention by their
very fringe-dwelling status away from the real issues. The wacky extremists
became the darlings of the media who too often like to print something a bit salacious
and ‘oo-er’ rather than something of substance.
What actually
brought this subject to mind was an incident this week involving two causes
that I think both need to get a bit more organised and define themselves better
so they don’t become defined only by their loonier supporters. The two causes
are veganism and animal rights. Both are worthy causes – I am a supporter of
animal rights and I have been a vegetarian (although not vegan) for almost 40
years - but both are heavily promoted by some of their more fanatical
supporters. Some of these people are by their conduct simply alienating the
majority of the public through their strident aggression with the result that
the validity of their cause is being lost.
I have been watching
with increasing dismay a series of postings on both subjects that are little
more than hatred against a large group of people. If the object of their spleen
was women, disabled people, gays or a specific religious or racial group they
would be prosecuted for stirring up such hatred against those groups. It is one
thing to disagree with someone, or to mock them or even severely criticise or
chastise them; but it is counter-productive to your cause to simply heap abuse
upon them. That only results in the wider public viewing you and your followers
as a bunch of uncouth hooligans and your cause as a lunatic fringe thing that
no normal person would want anything to do with.
Another thing I
have lately has been serious disconnect between the stated aims of some of
these ‘activists’ and their behaviours. For example it seems rather stupid to
post every single peace clip you can find while spewing vile spleen upon everyone
who doesn’t subscribe to your viewpoint. That is hardly the stuff of a caring
sentient being. But what gave me the idea for this blog this week was the last
in a series of really bizarre contradictions I have been observing from someone
who claims to be a fervent (or is that fevered) supporter of animal welfare. I
had seen postings about how much they cared and so I was a bit puzzled a while
ago when I learned this person had ‘rescued’ a couple of mice that had entered
their house. The animals weren’t injured; it was just that the rescuer didn’t
want to release them to be eaten by a cat or dog or actually dispatch them
themselves. Rescuing mice is a rather odd concept in my opinion to start with,
but there were more surprises in store for me when I learned this person was
keeping said mice in a cage and running around a little wheel. I am pretty
certain the mice were not consulted before being thrust into this pointless
existence, which tends to look like their rights didn’t get a look in that
time.
But what really
blew my mind this week was when I saw a posting championing a vegan diet for
dogs as being the best and most natural way to feed them. Duhhh! I drew the
poster’s considerable ire when I pointed out the stupidity of this claim. I got
‘dumped’ for suggesting that to feed a dog on a vegan diet was actually animal
abuse as they are not designed for that.
Oh well such are
the slings and arrows of Outrageous Fortune or some other Westie programme. I
suppose I could have been more direct and said if I found somebody forcing
their dog onto a vegan diet I’d take them prisoner and force feed them on some
equally inappropriate diet but hey, them’s the words of loonies. (Shutup in the
back)
