Animal Rights Advocacy and Legitimate Public Deliberation

John Hadley

Political Studies, 2015, vol. 63, issue 3, 696-712

Abstract: type="main">

In this article I offer a response to recent debate over direct action animal advocacy and legitimate public deliberation in liberal democracies. Mathew Humphrey and Marc Stears and Stephen D'Arcy have argued that liberal democracies ought to tolerate direct action animal advocacy in the interests of promoting the right of proponents of non-mainstream views to inform public deliberation and decision making. I argue that the precise scope of Humphrey and Stears' and D'Arcy's analyses is unclear and important parts of their theory are under-described. I highlight the logical and practical implications of their claim that direct action is useful as a means of overcoming the stifling influence of conventional wisdom. I conclude by arguing that tolerance for direct action advocacy ought not to extend to controversial animal rights campaigning tactics such as making threats, using incendiary devices and damaging property.

Date: 2015
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://hdl.handle.net/10.1111/1467-9248.12105 (text/html)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:bla:polstu:v:63:y:2015:i:3:p:696-712

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.blackwell ... bs.asp?ref=0032-3217

Access Statistics for this article

Political Studies is currently edited by Matthew Festenstein and Martin Smith

More articles in Political Studies from Political Studies Association
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Wiley Content Delivery ().