Vegans and “Green-Collared Criminals”: the Depoliticization of Animal Advocacy in Public Discourse

Abstract

While sustained public attention is often associated with the politicization of an issue, this paper argues that certain dominant strands of public discourse in relation to animal advocacy in fact serve to depoliticize the movement. Public discussion often equates animal advocacy with veganism, with the latter typically framed or understood as an individual’s dietary or lifestyle choice. Furthermore, animal activists are often associated with criminal, or even terrorist, behavior—as was highlighted when the Australian Prime Minister labelled animal activists as “green-collared criminals” in the wake of a public protest. In this paper, the implications of these two public narratives about animal activism is discussed with reference to two examples from Australia: the media coverage of a day of coordinated protests that took place on April 8, 2019, and the New South Wales state parliamentary debates surrounding the Right to Farm Bill 2019. By developing a multi-dimensional conceptual analysis of (de)politicization, this paper argues that the “veganization” (as a form of “issue-privatization”) and criminalization of animal activists in public discourse are both forms of depoliticization, in that they frame activists’ messages as, respectively, either more appropriately belonging within the private sphere of personal choice, or as not related to the public good at all. I conclude that to avoid the delegitimization that these discursive processes may entail, animal advocates need to develop counter-narratives that emphasize how their claims can support the strengthening of existing democratic institutions.