Australian actor Lynda Stoner starred in hit TV shows in the 1970s and 1980s including Cop Shop, Chances and Prisoner: Cell Block H. But she gave up a career in the limelight to campaign for animal rights. She spoke with Katrina Fox.
You work for Animal Liberation NSW. Tell us about your role.
My role with Animal Liberation is communications manager. Under that descriptor I have the privilege of researching animal rights issues and writing about them for brochures, the website and other avenues.
As with other people here much of the work I do is confined to the office and on other occasions I am involved with direct action. I lobby politicians, generate free promotional opportunities for this organisation such as ADSHEL billboards and free to air commercials and assist in the day to day running of the office.
A large portion of my time in the office is responding to our free call 1800 Cruelty Hotline. This service was set up over three years ago in response to an ever increasing number of calls coming from country and rural areas from people distressed by animal cruelty.
The RSPCA has a policy in NSW and Victoria of not taking anonymous calls which means the plight of many thousands of animals has gone unreported. Animal Liberation takes the case details and then becomes the informant which means the original caller no longer has to be involved.
Due to increasing numbers of calls the 1800 went into Victoria 2 years ago and into Tasmania last year. The RSPCA in
We have a good working relationship with the police, many councils, the DPI and when we can get caller contact details we are able to send through to the RSPCA in NSW.
We have a wonderful person working for us in Victoria who was an RSPCA inspector. He is a one person mover and shaker and did great work to assist animals during the bushfires.
He works tremendously well with official organisations and also knows the law back to front and his experience and can-do attitude ensures he can assist animals in peril rapidly.
When did you first become involved in animal rights?
I began in the animal rights movement in 1978 not long after Peter Singer’s momentous book Animal Liberation was released. Some months prior I had seen coverage of Harp seal pups being slaughtered for their fluffy, baby fur.
It stood to reason that if I hadn’t been aware of this iniquity there must be other areas of animal cruelty unbeknownst to me. I began researching areas of animal exploitation and took up volunteer work with the Wilderness Society.
What they do is terrific but I felt a sense of urgency in wanting to focus on animals that are subjugated in the name of “food,” “clothing” and “entertainment – rodeos, circuses, zoos.”
Someone recommended Peter’s book which I bought the same day and consumed four chapters of in a cab on the way to work.
The book, for me, was an epiphany. It shocked and distressed me but it was as though the book was calling me home. I cannot describe it any other way. I immediately stopped eating meat and over the next couple of days threw out all my leather goods and binned any cosmetics that had been tested on animals. I knew I would spend the rest of my life working for animal rights.
How did your new knowledge impact on your work as a renowned actor?
At the time I read the book I had just started working in a high-profile television show. The show alone should have absorbed all my attention but I was consumed by animal rights.
Friends and colleagues thought/hoped this was whimsy on my part – mostly because I became rabid, loud, judgemental and totally intolerant of anyone eating and wearing animals. I recall more arguments with more people (practically everyone) than at any other time in my life.
I am now of the opinion that I alienated more people during my dictatorial days than ever I persuaded them of the multi benefits of not contributing to the maltreatment of animals.
Back then vegetarianism (much less veganism!) was a relatively unknown phenomenon associated with “hippies” and “communes” – nonverbal descriptions of which included lots of eye rolling and sniggering.
It didn’t matter a whit to me if the entire population of talkback radio railed and belittled, I knew that what I read in Peter Singer’s book is the unarguable truth, we do not have the right to exploit any living creature.
I was pole-axed by the plight of animals and the monumental amount of ways humans use animals. Those concerns and how to stop them took me over more and more and culminated in the privilege of me now working fulltime at Animal Liberation, “at home.”
What are your thoughts on the bond between humans and animals?
Compassion toward animals is a symbiotic relationship. By respecting and nurturing the rights of nonhumans it seems a natural extension to respect and nurture all life.
I continue to be perplexed by people who believe compassion for one needs to be at the exclusion of the other. Surely we have sufficient compassion to encompass caring for all life forms.
I tend still towards impatience with people who say, “you should be working to help humans, not animals,” (this usually from people who are doing nothing to help anyone) and those who say they “only” love animals.
It’s as though we have all been born with a limited amount of empathy and if too much if used up we’ll be emptied out. If you eat meat and dairy products and wear animal skins you are directly responsible for the ongoing suffering of animals. The bonus of opting out of this misery is that your health will improve and so will our environment.
It is widely known now that the production of meat, dairy and leather are toxic to this planet. Compassion for all animals will generate a healthier planet and a healthier you and you will no longer be causing suffering to animals.
How do animals enrich our lives?
Animals enrich our lives by just being. Doing whatever they enjoy doing without intervention from humans wherever possible.
Having said that, many people’s lives are deepened by the company of a dog, cat, horse, rabbit, guinea pig, rat and others. For many their companion animal is their dearest friend, someone who loves them unconditionally. Animals don’t give a toss about what you are wearing, your profession or where you live.
If you are good to them they will reciprocate with trust and love. Children who have been taught healthy interaction with animals have a greater sense of empathy and through living with animals also learn responsibility for the welfare of others. Animals in a healthy environment are also just lots of fun.
We can learn so many things from animals. Depending on which species you care to study they all have unique capabilities and strengths. A good way to learn from animals is to go to their country of origin or absorb documentaries and read about them.
Never, ever go to a zoo or a circus because all you will see are animals that have been sublimated into what humans have done to them. Any time you go to anything other than a free-range zoo (and Animal Liberation would endorse these places only as a desperate measure) you will see stereotypic behaviour and animals that are as physiologically damaged as any human would be who was kept confined and deprived of normal behaviour and environment.
How has the animal rights movement impacted on your life?
The animal rights movement changed my life completely. I was on a life path I thought meant a great deal to me only to have it turn in a totally different direction. I am grateful to my old life though as it gave me the opportunity to get animal rights issues into the public forum in a way I could not otherwise have done.
Do you live with any companion animals?
My family and I have always had companion animals and I am happy my son has been around dogs since he was born up until age eighteen when our last beloved dog died.
Before my son was born I had three little dogs who were vegetarian (during my dictatorial years) and I must say they bloomed and flourished. However with our last dog I revised my views on denying him his natural carnivorous state.
And dogs and cats are carnivores. Check their fangs for one thing, their digestive tracts, a dog’s tendency to gulp and rip just as they’ve done for thousands of years. For our dog I subjected myself to walking into the butchers to get our boy his bones (or rather, someone else’s bones) and scalded myself for hypocrisy.
Vowed I would not get another companion animal if it meant another animal had to die to feed my chosen one/s. Besides, the grief we went through when Lobo died was it for me. So my life has been blessed with the company of animals but I doubt I will go there again. Perhaps a rabbit…or two…
What changes have you seen in the animal rights movement over the years?
The animal rights movement has grown rapidly since I first came into it, and it’s growing around the world. Minority countries tend still to pamper a chosen few species and close their eyes to the suffering of animals that make up their dinner and handbags.
Of-course having abattoirs, battery hen sheds, sow stalls and broiler (chicken meat) sheds behind closed doors far removed from the majority of the population means humans can more easily ignore suffering.
Tragically majority countries are tending to pick up minority countries intensive systems - tragically for the animals, human health and the environment. If everyone went vegan there would be sufficient food to feed the entire human population. And incidents of heart disease and cancer would plummet. If this sounds like Shangri-la then I am all for reaching for the best that we can be.
You’ve written a book containing vegan recipes – tell us about that.
It’s called Now Vegan! It was enjoyable to write and I co-opted friends and family into sharing their favourite dish.
Not surprisingly much of the book is taken up with chocolate, chocolate and more chocolate. I wanted the book to reflect the richness and variety of vegan food, to illustrate that vegans enjoy an abundance of inexpensive, nutritious, easy to prepare and holistically good cuisine.
Lynda Stoner is the communications manager at Animal Liberation NSW. Now Vegan! is available internationally at Amazon and in Australia from the Cruelty Free Shop.
Image of Lynda Stoner courtesy of Animal Liberation NSW.
Add to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed
written by Russell Edwards, 24 May 2010
You have actually tacitly agreed that animal rights labels entire ecosystems as "of concern" and fundamentally flawed. It is only by appeal to some vague problem with "tinkering" (that apparently only applies to non-human animals) that you have avoided the logical consequence that ecosystems ought to be destroyed. You avert the absurd consequence at the last minute, not by invoking any part of AR philosophy, but by trumping it with some ill-defined external consideration. (the anti-tinkering clause.)
So yes, I think you have helped me demonstrate that AR leads to absurd conclusions that are fundamentally opposed to the operation of natural ecosystems and the existence of biodiversity.
Now, you are free to deny that there is any value worth conserving in ecosystems and biodiversity. Absurdity as such is in the eye of the beholder. But I think the vast majority of contemporary humans would strongly disagree that those are without value.
Furthermore, your inconsistent application of the "tinkering" escape clause reveals which side of this argument is truly "speciesist".
written by Alex Melonas, 24 May 2010
I am going to stop because in the final analysis Russell YOU have not shown how "animal rights" is "an altogether insane philosophy" but, again, YOU have certainly suggested that IF we take your reasoning about "natural" this and that seriously some rather insane and terrible consequences would result. "Land ethic" fans like yourself need to address the naturalistic and is/ought fallacies in your reasoning that make your conclusions quite silly.
written by Alex Melonas, 23 May 2010
written by Russell Edwards, 23 May 2010
Seems pretty "speciesist" to me.
written by Alex Melonas, 23 May 2010
But then my obvious rebuttal is that you are begging the question because rape, violence, and bigotry are also a part of your (evolutionary, genetic, and so on) "nature", but you would NEVER argue that I shouldn't be advocating against rape, violence, and bigotry. So, no, "animal rights" activists will NOT concede that point to you because it does not follow logically...unless you believe in rape, violence, and bigotry?
The crux is this: because this "part of your nature", like rape, violence, and bigotry causes harm and death, then our moral principles tell us that you ought to keep those "parts of your nature" in check Russell.
written by Russell Edwards, 22 May 2010
You just think it's not advisable to tinker with nature in general.
So, if I consider myself part of nature, will you agree to let me be and not attempt to stop me eating meat and hunting?
Could you get all animal rights activists to agree to that?
written by Alex Melonas, 22 May 2010
Russell, if you READ the thread, a clear answer to your questions is there. The suffering and death caused by predation concern me because suffering and death qua suffering and death are impartially bad. And therefore, all things considered, if that suffering and death did not occur, that would be a GOOD thing.
However, as I wrote to initially refute your challenge to "animal rights", our efforts at "tinkering" with "nature" have NOT resulted in good or non-harmful consequences because of the enormous variables at work and our flawed capacities in various respects. And therefore, since YOU have yet to prove that there are "natural values" (again, it is the "is" in the is/ought fallacy and YOU have yet to justify the jump from "is" to "ought"), as a HYPOTHETICAL, a lion not being a carnivore would be a good thing, but in praxis, our "tinkering" such would most likely cause far more harm than good and so we should take the position of NON-INTERFERENCE and allow the lion to eat the deer.
(It would follow, then, that if those "natural behaviors" DON'T cause suffering and death then my concerns would not arise.)
So, we can conclude I think and AT LEAST concede that you have certainly not shown that "animal rights" is "an altogether insane philosophy".
written by Russell Edwards, 22 May 2010
Thanks for your clarification on your stance ... you say "I said, again, quite clearly, that things would be better, all considered, if such predation did not occur because of the suffering and death that it causes." and complain that I'm jumping to conclusions about what that means for you. No, I'm just asking you questions, and would still like an answer. How about I just ask one question this time:
Do you think it is morally wrong to interfere with an animal's existence by forcing it to have a particular diet?
written by Alex Melonas, 22 May 2010
"Amoral" simply means the action cannot be judged on the basis of morality/ethics. "Nature" falls into this category in that we cannot judge a collectivity of non-moral agents as acting morally or immorally, e.g. When I say the suffering and death caused by predation "concerns" me I clearly meant that suffering and death qua suffering and death concern me. And therefore, IF "nature" could be free of such predation, AND because YOU have yet to establish why such predation is a "natural value", things would be better if such suffering and death due to predation did not occur.
Now, your concern with my refutation of your argument about "genetic heritage" (that is, the is/ought fallacy in your argument) is classic jumping to conclusions. I NEVER said carnivorous animals do not have the right to live according to their natural behavior. I said, again, quite clearly, that things would be better, all considered, if such predation did not occur because of the suffering and death that it causes.
written by Russell Edwards, 22 May 2010
Regarding your point (2), if you do not believe animals (including humans) have a right to live according to their natural behaviour patterns, which surely includes predation, then I take it you would disagree with Linda Stoner, who argued above that it is wrong for an animal to be "deprived of normal behaviour". I also take it you would be supportive of any person who decided to embark on a crusade to force wild animals to live on a vegan diet.
Finally I'd like you to clarify again your position on natural predator-prey relationships. You have said they are amoral but they "concern" you. So which of the following would you agree with
1) Nature is a seething mess of one rights violation after another
2) Nature is fundamentally wrong
3) Nature is fundamentally flawed
4) There is much about nature that is problematic
5) Nature would be greatly improved if all predatory species did not exist
I know you won't agree with all of them as you are disawoing the "moral" word, but I'm curious to get a better idea what you mean by "concern".
written by Alex Melonas, 22 May 2010
1) You suggest a clear naturalistic fallacy whereby what is "natural" stands in for what is moral/ethical, but that is fallacious in that what is "natural" is a) not entirely clear and b) merely the result of random, genetic mutation in response to environmental stimuli. And therefore, we cannot reasonably ascertain a moral/ethical conclusion from the mere existence of a fact like there are carnivores
2) Your appeal to "genetic heritage" is what is called an is/ought fallacy. Like with the naturalistic fallacy, an "is" like we evolved to hunt and eat meat (assuming that is true) is again, merely the result of genetic mutation -- arbitrary, chance happenstance, as it were. And therefore, you have to JUSTIFY how you go about deriving a moral/ethical claim from this "fact" because the two premises -- an "is" and an "ought" -- are clearly different. If they were not then rape would have to be morally justified in that males of our species have evolved to use sexual aggression to the point of rape for the end of procreation. So, IF eating meat is justified on your reasoning, THEN so is rape, necessarily.
So, in the end, you have STILL yet to prove "animal rights" wanting, nor established that there are "natural values".
written by Russell Edwards, 21 May 2010
You have asserted that ecosystems are amoral, but then said that particular interactions between organisms within ecosystems "concern" you. Those interactions actually make up the backbone of what the ecosystem IS, namely, a network of relationships between organisms. So, if those predator-prey interactions "concern" you, then the entire existence of ecoystems "concerns" you. You cannot have one without the other. And you cannot have biodiversity without ecosystems, either.
Am I "speciesist?" No, quite the opposite. I only ask to be granted the same privilege as any organism not of my species-- the right to live according to my genetic heritage, and the physiology and psychology it bestows upon me. This means eating meat and hunting to obtain that meat. (And, incidentally, in the unique case of Homo sapiens, the communal development and use of complex technology to accomplish this.)
A majority of animal rights activists seek to prevent me from doing this, but don't actively seek to deny that right to other species. So they are "speciesist" in this way.
Am I accusing you of this? Not yet-- part of what I am trying to get out of you is whether your abolitionist policy for natural behaviour applies to ALL species or only to human beings.
written by Alex Melonas, 20 May 2010
written by Russell Edwards, 20 May 2010
Great!
written by Alex Melonas, 20 May 2010
written by Alex Melonas, 19 May 2010
written by Russell Edwards, 19 May 2010
As for your distinction between your actions in relation to nature and not the actions of one third party animal against another, I have two questions. Firstly, why does this not apply when one of the third party animals is a human? Why do you feel the need to interfere in only that case? Secondly, do you really believe that inaction is not just another type of action? Inaction is as much a choice as any other action and is surely just as amenable to moral judgement.
written by Alexandra, 19 May 2010
written by Alex Melonas, 18 May 2010
In addition, the animals that currently exist would be cared for, NOT released into the wild because releasing them would not be taking their interests seriously; likewise with human children, for example, who lack the capacities to survive without adult humans. Therefore, it is not "genocide" at all, but merely taking their interests seriously.
@Bestuvall: Singer does not advocate bestiality, he merely argues that consensual sex with animals would cause LESS harm than our traditional practices of exploitation, which was an example used to expose our moral irrationality on this point: we are willing to cause significant unnecessary harm to animals because we like how they taste and so on, but on the issue of bestiality, for some reason, we say NO, even though, in the final analysis, it would cause LESS harm and death to these same animals. That is totally irrational.
@Russell: There is no such thing as "natural values", only how our actions affect individual sentient beings (animals) in those "natural" ecosystems. Accordingly, we would not "radically" transform anything because that would cause more harm, in the end, for these individual animals. So, we do not have a "duty" to stop anything in nature; our duties concern OUR actions in relation to "nature", not the actions between a lion and a gazelle.
Furthermore, "animal rights" is concerned with moral agents; therefore, since animals, like children, are NOT moral agents, what a lion does to a gazelle is NOT morally wrong because the lion cannot act morally or immorally. The same is true with mentally handicapped humans. However, since babies and the mentally handicapped are humans living in society we have good reason to stop them from causing harm, but, as I said before, intervening in "nature" would cause MORE harm than if we did not intervene, so we should not "sterilize" or otherwise "radically" transform "nature."
written by Tractor, 17 May 2010
written by bestuvall, 16 May 2010
written by Russell Edwards, 16 May 2010
What about other people breeding dogs? Isn't it your duty to stop them?
What about wild carnivores? Shouldn't we be out there sterilising them all? Radically transform all natural ecosystems to remove all carnivorous predators?
If you think it through, animal rights philosophy is actually fundamentally opposed to natural values of ecosystems and biodiversity. An altogether insane philosophy.
There isn’t anything inherently “good” about “nature”; “nature” is merely, and I mean merely, the “is” in the is/ought fallacy. The existence of carnivores and omnivores and herbivores is the arbitrary result of ongoing genetic mutation in response to external stimuli. “Nature”, the product of this process, is a capricious, chance phenomenon. In other words, “nature” is devoid of all moral/ethical content, and any attempt to connect an ethical/moral claim to “nature” is bound to be an is/ought or naturalistic fallacy.
The relevant ethical/moral concern, then, for me, is the harm and death that occurs in “nature”. Hypothetically, therefore, if genetic tinkering could result in the end of predation then that would be ethically/morally better, in the final analysis, than the alternative (e.g. allowing the lion to continue preying on a gazelle).
Because harm and death concern me, the practical limitations to this kind of evaluative argument, however, are impossible to overcome. The complexity or too many variable problem and human fallibility arise and such genetic tampering would no doubt result in more harm and death. We cannot lock carnivores up because of the necessary connections in "nature", as it currently stands, between healthy ecosystems and predation. Russell's ignorance on this point, and thus his criticism of my position, is evidence to support my claim that if we "tinker" more problems will arise. Therefore, a strong policy of non-intervention is appropriate.
But I do hasten to add in response to those who appeal to the “self-evident” value of bio-diversity, or “nature” more generally, that your reasoning is predicated on a basic philosophical confusion. There is no inherent value in “nature” (for the reasons I mentioned above) and therefore altering “nature” (and hypothetically eliminating carnivores and omnivores) is not an unreasoned position.