u/Whole-Talk5183

It is bad to kill animals if you don’t have too. Since it is bad, we have to have in our society a rule that says that killing of animals when you don’t have to is forbidden. To create this society you must express that killing of animals when you don’t have to must be forbidden. So you have a moral obligation to say that killing of animals when you don’t have to has to be forbidden.

It is bad to kill animals if you don’t have too. Since it is bad, we have to have in our society a rule that says that killing of animals when you don’t have to is forbidden. To create this society you must express that killing of animals when you don’t have to must be forbidden. So you have a moral obligation to say that killing of animals when you don’t have to has to be forbidden.

Animals have an interest in having the longest and happiest life possible. This interest exists. It is objective. Since this interest exists we must make sure that it is respected in our society. And the best way to make sure that it is respected is to create a new criminal offense prohibiting the act of killing animals. So we have the moral obligation to make sure that this criminal offense comes into existence as fast possible. To achieve that, we have to express the claim that killing animals has to be forbidden now. When a minority starts to make a claim, it changes the culture of the society. Discussion begins. During the discussion, arguments are shared. More and more people support the claim. Until the legal change happens.

So let’s express the claim that killing animals has to be forbidden.

Anoushavan Sarukhanyan

In the animal rights movement some use the conversion strategy aimed at persuading people to go vegan, some others use the social movement strategy aimed at expressing claims to obtain political and cultural change.(see the article Abolition of veganism, abolition of animal slavery)

The strategy of conversion is focused on consumption, while the social movement strategy is focused on political opinions and the creation of new norms. (For this last strategy see the article Societal change)

We want to live in a society where there is a norm stating that killing animals is forbidden. To have that society, we must express the claim that killing animals must be forbidden.

In our speciesist societies, there is a criminal offense which was created before Darwin, that prohibits the killing of humans. Now, we are after Darwin, we know that other animals have emotions as well. They have an interest in living the longest and happiest life possible. Our society has to respect their interest and create a new criminal offense prohibiting the killing of animals.

The more people will express the claim that killing animals has to be forbidden, the more it will create a discussion regarding this new norm and will push us forward the society where this norm exist. First there is the expression of the claim, then the discussion and finally the norm.

I believe that the social movement strategy is the most efficient. I believe also that in the social movement strategy the most efficient claim-making is the one that demands the prohibition of the killing of animals.

Expressing this claim creates a cultural change. The murder of humans is a taboo. The fact that we murder animals and not humans is a much bigger taboo. The act of saying that killing of animals has to be forbidden challenges this last taboo and creates cultural change.

All animal rights activists become so because one day or another they thought about speciesism. So questioning speciesism is very important. In our cultural framework, the claim which expression challenges the most speciesism is the claim that killing of animals has to be forbidden.

Let’s talk for the animals and express in our comlunications that killing them has to be forbidden. One day it will be. Because you did it.

Anoushavan Sarukhanyan

Source:

https://fortheabolitionofveganism.blogspot.com/2026/08/the-prohibitionist-position-social.html

Hi folks,

I am happy to inform you that two vegans won against Switzerland regarding the right to obtain balanced vegan meals in all public institutions. This judgement of 16 July og the European Court of Human Rights has to be now respected by 46 countries!!! If you want to spread the news you can send a press release in your country.

Here is a model:

Object: The European Court of Human Rights today delivered a landmark judgment strengthening the protection of anti-speciesist ethical convictions and the rights of people in institutional care.

In Switzerland, an animal rights activist in his thirties, who had committed acts of economic sabotage targeting a slaughterhouse and several butcher shops, was detained from 30 November 2018 to 24 October 2019. Although he requested to be provided with fully vegan meals throughout his detention, the prison authorities refused his request and failed to provide him with an entirely plant-based diet.

The case also concerned a woman in her mid-thirties who was undergoing treatment in a psychiatric hospital. During her hospitalization, she explained her anti-speciesist ethical convictions and requested meals consistent with those beliefs. In particular, she wrote to the hospital’s management stating:

« Male chicks are killed in the egg industry. Hens and cows are slaughtered once they are no longer economically profitable. I support the prohibition of these practices. I therefore ask you to acknowledge that I have the right to receive nutritionally balanced vegan meals. »

The hospital nevertheless failed to provide her with an appropriate diet that respected her ethical convictions.

Before the European Court of Human Rights, the applicants argued that opposition to speciesism—which the applicants defined as “the ideology that seeks to justify disregarding the interests and lives of animals simply because they belong to a different species”—constitutes a protected conviction under Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees, among other rights, freedom of thought and conscience.

The European Court of Human Rights held that both adherence to veganism and opposition to speciesism constitute important, coherent, and serious philosophical and ethical convictions deserving of protection under Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

According to attorney Gaspard Genton, who represented the hospitalized patient (Application A.S. v. Switzerland, no. 31515/22):

« This judgment confirms that public institutions in all 46 States Parties to the European Convention on Human Rights—including hospitals, prisons, universities, schools, childcare facilities, and the military—must provide nutritionally balanced vegan options for individuals who hold such convictions and, more broadly, must ensure that everyone has access to nutritionally balanced meals that are consistent with their deeply held beliefs. »

He added:

«This is an important step forward for human dignity, for the rights of hospitalized persons and individuals deprived of their liberty, and also for the dignity of animals.»

Our NGO welcomes this judgment and calls on public institutions throughout our country to adapt their policies and practices in order to comply with the legal obligations arising from it.

Link to the judgement: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/?i=001-251193

Contact:

NGO:

--------------------

Thanks!