An interesting thing happened on Monday night. QandA panelist and Labor MP, Anna Burke, dropped the term “vegan” amidst a conversation on terrorism, in order to refute the suggested need for a litmus test targeting Islamic extremists:

Transcript: “Any extremism is wrong so who’s going to take the litmus test? You know, Catholics who were part of the IRA? You know, people who want to tell us that, you know, we can’t eat any sort of meat. You know, the vegan extremists who put vegan signs all over the footpaths? What litmus test do you take and who do you give it to? It’s extremism that we need to knock out, not one religion or another.”

‘Islamic extremists, the IRA, vegans with their placards…’ Wait. What?

Vegans?

The term “extreme” has been used before to describe the conscientious decision to refrain from consuming animal products. To be fair, it may certainly appear an extensive measure to those who have not been exposed to that particular lifestyle, or its practical and philosophical under-pinnings. But to call a vegan “extremist” in the context of a debate on terrorism (at all, in fact, in the current socio-political climate where extremism and terrorism are colloquially synonymous) is not only misleading, it can be incredibly problematic.

At a NSW Farmer’s Association meeting in 2013, the then minister for Primary Industries Katrina Hodgkinson (speaking on the filming of cruelty in agriculture by animal activists) stated that “We have to win the fight on this one and we have to keep putting it up to city people that… they can not support these groups such as Animals Australia and can not support what they’re doing… these people are vandals. These people are akin to terrorists.” (Read full article here)

The term “terrorism” is bandied around a lot in media and political spheres, and is continually being used to impinge upon and restrict individual rights and freedoms (such as the passing of recent metadata retention laws, which can be explored further here). It creates and builds upon pre-existing fears of the “other” that allows the individual to (if not willingly, at least unwittingly) concede these rights with very little protest. It is also being used in attempts to restrict access to industrial farms, under the guise of ‘biosecurity laws’- colloquially known as Ag-gag laws– particularly as increasing amounts of footage are released by activists depicting inhumane practices on Australian farms.

While such laws are yet to pass, using the terms “extremist” and “terrorist” within the current socio-political climate can be incredibly problematic as such terms have a powerful effect on public opinion. They may also serve to further exclude those who speak out against animal cruelty from mainstream dialogue; detracting from the small amount of progress made thus far.

In Burke’s defence, the remark was rather flippantly made (the transcript alone does little to suggest the tone in which it was said). It was probably also meant to disregard the suggestion of a litmus test (specifically, as the questioner suggested) for those of the Islamic faith. She is also a proponent of Choose Cruelty Free, a campaign against animal testing (and cosmetic testing in particular) and has links to the page on her official site. But even the most offhand of remarks can both cause and perpetuate problematic paradigms, so it is surprising that a person so evidently compassionate chose to use this as her example of an extremism that requires ‘knocking out’.

As an aside, choosing to eat a potato over a (likely) tortured and (certainly) slaughtered animal is not, as is suggested, particularly extreme. Taste buds are not worth more than the life of a sentient creature, surely?

Watch the full QandA episode here.