In response to Philip Boucher-Hayes' documentary

It all depends on how sensitive one is,some have a sense of humour,others are easily offended.

Sure should we ban every opinion and we'll all be silenced ????

No

Mentalmiss wrote: »

The evidence is available freely to any who care to open their eyes. Please read "How Not to Die". it is totally based on proven facts.

We're all going to die at some point.

Sure I'm dying laughing at the Op.

If we were all vegans lol we'd all look like the Simpson's...

Yellow, withdrawn, probably dysfunctional...
Because a huge majority of vegans are militant femminists or anti be anything but themselves.

I usually watch PBH's programmes, but mainly for entertainment value, I would never describe them as in depth research. I am intelligent enough to understand this. After I watched this particular programme I just knew there would be a post on Boards such as the OP above!

Please show respect and leave out ad hominems. It's one of the lowest forms of argument. If you have issue with what is written, writing your own cogent thesis would be of great help. We need to work together on these issues, not against each other. If you were a vegan or concerned with the life of animals that are exploited, I think you too would find it difficult when writing such a letter. It will be interesting for vegans and non-vegans to find out how much of the complaint holds up.

To me it's obvious that 'What are you eating?' / RTÉ / Philips Boucher-Hayes were out to discredit veganism. Please read my full post before you reply with any critical thinking.

1. Misrepresent and de-value:

This was done by reducing veganism to, and I quote: "a fashionable diet" at the off set, and putting it in a category with "other fad diets".

Did he say that many people confuse veganism with a diet, when in fact the act of excluding other animals from their food choices is just one way in which a vegan adheres to his or her ethical values? Unfortunately, he didn't.


Boucher-Hayes lists three possible motivations for going vegan and in this order:

- internet influence (you can't get any more vague than that)
- environmental concerns
- worry about animal welfare

- Do you think he stated that many people are motivated by their realisation that a sentient being, such as a cow, has the right to her life and her offspring? You're right, he didn't.

Boucher-Hayes proceeded to equate being vegan to being "a vegetarian purist" - which leads me on to my next point and RTÉ's next tactic...

2. Confuse:

Fashionable diet? motivated by environmental concerns? purist vegetarianism? motivated by worries of animal welfare?, vegans get mad?, give an animal fresh air before you slaughter him?...What???

All of these were given to describe veganism either directly from Boucher-Hayes or through conversations. It's understandable then, that a lot of non-vegans would be confused and have misconceptions and are more likely to perpetuate both the confusion and misconceptions (on boards.ie for example). I'm sure RTÉ have good researchers. How could they get it so wrong?

Apart from using the catchphrase descriptions such as "fashionable diet", "vegetarian purist and "fad diet" to de-value veganism, Boucher-Hayes also uses street interviews to unravel veganism for the viewers...

From the interviews we would conclude that a vegan is "a person who doesn't eat meat and is against dairy", "no animal products", and "completely animal friendly". One interviewee states that she doesn't want to eat animals that have been raised in cruel conditions - again lending to the idea of "animal welfare". Did you hear anything about a sentient being, such as a pig, having a right to live his or her own life free from harm? Me neither.

Boucher-Hayes then asks the street goers, "what do vegans eat?". The interviewees proceeded with their answers; "very little", "vegetables and grains", "tofu!". One interviewee says, regarding what vegans eat, "it's horrible! you want the real stuff, d'ya know what I mean?" :-( unfortunately I do.

Boucher-Hayes also gets help from a shop assistant in his local organic store where he asks her if she's vegan. She states, "I'm afraid if I call myself vegan a lot of vegans would get mad"... "I consider myself vegan"... but "I'm not 100% vegan"... "I'm flexitarian and **I'm praying that one day when this (organic farming?) becomes big enough that's it's either that we are all going to go organic and every chicken and every cow is going to see the light of day OR we are going to be smart about it, and go vegan and care about our bodies and the environment".

This is beyond confusing. So, she is vegan but she is not vegan but she almost is vegan, and she prays that one day we'll give animals fresh air and sunshine before we eat them? Humane exploitation? Humane slaughter? Oxymoron? ...or even better, why not look after our bodies and the environment and go vegan? Because veganism is about health and climate change, right? No. They are tremendous benefits though. This is just another example of how the program jumbles everything together and creates confusion for the uniformed spectator. I feel sorry for the shop assistant - they unashamedly used her for their hit piece. She's probably just still figuring it out.

**Veganism does not hope that one day all cows, chickens and pigs will live outdoors while they are being exploited or before they are slaughtered - "humane exploitation and humane slaughter are oxymorons.

All of this would be fine if he was highlighting misconceptions about veganism but this is actually how he establishes how the audience is to understand veganism and there is not a point at the end of the introduction in which he dispels misconceptions and puts the record straight. If he did, it would have been a good start and it might have sounded something like this - veganism is:

“an ideology that seeks to exclude, as far as possible and practical, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing, or any other purpose.

He could have added:

"Unlike the word "vegetarian", the word "vegan" specifically implies moral concern for animals. Therefore the ideology extends to more than just diet. Vegans don't wear leather, fur, wool or silk and are against zoos, circuses, rodeos, animal testing and any other industry that exploits or abuses animals.

Then he could have said:

"In dietary terms, it refers to the practice of dispensing with all animal produce, including meat, fish, poultry, eggs, animal milks, honey, and their derivatives. Many people confuse veganism with a diet, when in fact not eating other animals is just one way in which a vegan adheres to his or her ethical values - respecting the lives of sentient beings"

"In short, vegans believe that a sentient being, human or non-human, has the right to live his or her life without harm."

and in a perfect world he would have added:

"To show integrity I am not going to use a food show to make a hit piece on an ideology, rather I am going to test a whole food plant-based diet, and while I'm at it I'm going to give it my best effort and follow a diet recommended by a nutritionist and a dietitian, and I'm going to leave veganism to serious journalism that is focused on rights and liberties."

3. Create doubt (tobacco industry tactic) and concern:

Philip Boucher-Hayes did't follow the instructions of his dietitian and the results were not good. This one doesn't need much explaining so here is my very long rhetorical question:

Why would a rational and logical person who is working for Ireland's national broadcaster, which is paid by the public, undertake a diet for the benefit of the public's better understanding of the diet not take the supplements advised by the dietitian, when the dietitian explicitly told him that not taking supplements his where the diet goes wrong?

Was it actually a program about not taking supplements when advised? Because that's all anyone could have learnt about from the the program. Well, we also learnt that it's a confusing world inside Tv land.

And we must remember that 'go wrong' with regards to health is not to be taken lightly.

Fair enough, in the program Boucher-Hayes does give his motivations for not taking the supplements recommended by the dietitian:

"The dietitian told me to take supplement but I think it will be more interesting not to take one and see what happens to my body"

"And there's lots of "vegan" websites saying it's not necessary [to take supplements]"

But by logic alone we can see that neither one of these answers explains his decision not to take the supplements. The whole bases of the program would not be thrown out the window to make the program more interesting. That's just silly.

Taking advice from "vegan" websites just because they have the word vegan in them or because someone else in a hypothetical situation might use this website for nutritional advice doesn't ring through as rational or logical, especially when public health and ethical choices are being dealt with.

If I asked a structural engineer what was the surest way to construct a building without integrity and be assured it would fall, he might say something like construct a building without a foundation. If I was then to proceed to construct a building without a foundation you would either conclude that I wanted it to fall or that I was stupid. I don't believe Boucher-Hayes is stupid. Do you?

As I see it ,and it's only my opinion, RTÉ appear to want to weaken the possibility of a foundation that the general public may come to have with veganism in the future. And this is how they attempted to do it:

- Take a ideology based on ethics

- Package the ideology as a fashionable diet while only paying lip service to the ideology's core values

- Present false, confusing and conflicting ideas about the ideology (now a fashionable diet)

- Propose to test the fashionable diet (formally an ideology) with professional guidance

- Ignore the professional guidance, setting the test of the fashionable diet (formally an ideology) up to fail

- Convert the fashionable diet back into an ideology again. This is done to let veganism, the ideology, bare the weight of the negative results. And it is done by asking, I quote: "the last unanswered question about veganism" before they cut to the the test results. The question? Is it right to kill these animals just because we can when we can get protein from so many other places?" (The answer given was yes, once you eat all the animal and it's not done on an industrial scale - remember the oxymoron?) As I said, it has been converted back to an ideology just before the test results.

- Present the horrifying results of the food habits of an ideology (formally a fashionable diet) to the public.

- Let the ideology bare the weight of the negative results.

- Let the negative results create doubt in the public's mind (tobacco industry tactic).

- Sit back while your faithful minions throw around ad hominems, straw man arguments, disregard and general ignorance on boards.ie ;-D

It doesn't matter what else was in the program. All RTÉ wanted to do was to sow the seed of doubt. It's not rocket science.


All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.

{Arthur Schopenhauer}

Translation: First watch it on RTÉ. Second, read about it on boards.ie. Third, wait for another country to come to their senses and follow.


We can do better than this, we ARE better than this. Do some good research, have a think, watch a video. Think about aligning your actions with your heart. This is only about the animals. Nothing and no one else. So when you do think about it, only think about the animals and what their lives are worth to them, not to you.

Mentalmiss wrote: »

Vegetarian Society of Ireland
Published by Maureen O'Sullivan · 7 hrs
In response to Philip Boucher-Hayes' documentary on what he terms as "veganism", I have sent this complaint in to RTE. I will keep you appraised:
School of Law,
National Universisty of Ireland,
Galway.

To: RTE Complaint

March 10, 2018

RE: Philip Boucher-Hayes Documentary on Veganism

Dear Sir/Madam,

I wish to make a complaint about the above programme which violates the European Convention on Human Rights and I would request that you remove this broadcast from all sites without delay and issue an apology and corrections to the misinformation contained in the broadcast. I lecture in Law at the National University of Ireland, Galway and I am Chairperson of the Vegetarian Society of Ireland. We also support vegan aims and the broadcast has caused deep offence throughout the country and beyond. You would not dare to make a programme about religious minorities which lampooned their food choices and showed their “sacred cows” being cut up and eaten. Your legal advisors may have failed to mention to you that Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights which relates to freedom of conscience protects beliefs such as vegetarianism, veganism and environmentalism on an equal footing to Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Jainism, Hinduism, Buddhism and so on and, whether you like it or not, you are bound by this law and you have a duty to ensure that your broadcasts comply.

Your broadcast also violates equality legislation in the provision of services to minorities – would you make a programme which makes fun of the disabled, ethnic minorities, the elderly or those with gender identity issues? Yet, equality legislation also extends to those who seek to live their lives more ethically and you show a worrying dearth of knowledge in this regard. I was most surprised that you did not edit out Darina Allen’s comment that she thought that “cranky” vegans needed a steak. Ms. Allen presides over a large family emporium that recently has added a number of vegan products to its range (Cully and Sully soups, for example) so the somewhat ambidextrous approach to our “market” is not easy to rationalise and, again, violates our rights under the Convention (together with several other binding international and regional legal instruments). Moreover, would you have edited out a comment whereby Muslims or Jews were depicted as “cranky” for not eating pork? I suspect the answer would be in the affirmative and again, you are legally obliged to treat vegans and vegetarians in the same manner.

Likewise, we would like to know how the animals in the programme were killed and whether you ensured that this was done within the provisions of the Animal Health and Welfare Act 2013 as it is an offence under the Act to kill if this is done with “unnecessary cruelty”. We will require a detailed response from you. Whilst vegans oppose killing animals, I am interested whether you also acted with disregard for this law, given your blasé approach to the issue of rights.

Furthermore, justifying meat eating because “it tastes delicious” or because we’ve allegedly eaten meat for millions of years shows your utter unawareness of Ireland’s diversity – the Vegetarian Societies have been around for hundreds of years in Ireland and the Proclamation of the Republic was reportedly signed by seven members of the Irish Republican Brotherhood prior to the Easter Rising in 1916 in a Vegetarian Café, the Irish Farm Produce Café. Kirkpatrick and Faragó note that many advocates of Irish nationalism, feminism and animal advocacy also championed the cause of vegetarianism. You may have heard of the great Irish writer, George Bernard Shaw who said that “[w]hile we ourselves are the living graves of murdered beasts, how can we expect any ideal conditions on this earth?” Shaw, incidentally, was the only person to have won the Nobel Prize for Literature as well as an Oscar. More recently, great cultural icons such as Sharon Shannon is vegan and a passionate advocate for animal rights, to name but a very few. Why was your broadcast not balanced with such examples? You are required to pay heed to balance under the governing legislation but you do not appear to be aware of it, leaving you open to liabilities in this regard.

I will not take up the many false claims about nutrition in the programme and the skewed premise of being given nutritional advice, refusing to follow it and yet giving a negative assessment of a plant based dietary adventure of one month as there are others better placed to request you to correct the many falsehoods in your programme. You bring investigative journalism into disrepute and you really have lost a lot of respect, caused a lot of upset and wasted a lot of time which could be used otherwise on the large amount of work that non-meat eaters do in rescuing animals, campaigning against their abuse and seeking to improve the wellbeing of all creatures of the Earth. If there are members of the community deemed “cranky”, it may be because we are dealing with massive injustices and are seeking to have them redressed. If you have nothing positive to contribute to us, please deploy your negativity elsewhere – or not at all.

If you fail to take this complaint seriously and address it in a satisfactory manner, we will have to consider taking this matter further.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely,

____________________________
Dr. Maureen O’Sullivan,
Lecturer (Above the Bar) in Law,
School of Law,
National University of Ireland,
Galway,
Ireland.

E-mail: maureen.osullivan@nuigalway.ie
Tel: +353 91 495627

Nothing worse than putting out ones dirty laundry and sharing it in public.

That's here forever now