Vegan activists storm Brighton steakhouse and blast diners with sounds of animal slaughter
Brighton activists from Direct Action Everywhere (DxE), an international animal rights network, descended on Brazilian restaurant Touro Steakhouse on West Street on Saturday evening (November 24).
Activists held signs with photos of animals and played audio of animals being slaughtered, telling diners to 'listen to their screams'. The group then stood outside the restaurant chanting: "What do we want? Animal liberation! When do we want it? Now."
A spokesperson for DxE Brighton said: "In a time where we are experiencing mass environmental destruction, largely due to our unsustainable and unethical food choices, it is paramount that we put our egos and selfishness aside and accept that we are all connected, we are all animals. We can no longer ignore the suffering and pain we cause. We are not the only sentient beings that inhabit this planet. We all have a responsibility to protect the vulnerable and fight for the oppressed. Over 70 billion farm animals are reared for food globally every year, most of these intensively. We put them there. What animals are facing now is without a shadow of a doubt a great injustice. Animal exploitation has become so normalised it goes virtually unnoticed but we are paying attention. People and businesses should not be able to enjoy the product or profit of animal suffering."
>Do these tactics actually work or do they simply backfire and make people less receptive to the point you're trying to make?
The latter. People don't typically like to have their life choices directly attacked, particularly not in obnoxious ways by obnoxious people. And a typical response to this sort of attack is to double down, I really think they're making people less likely to consider the actual ecological issued that animal farming presents. Even if I was a vegetarian, I'm not sure I'd tell people, as the association with these sorts of twunts is just too common.
A vegan activist who stormed a steak house and Tesco meat aisle is the daughter of a millionaire meat selling CEO.
Morgan Kayleigh Giampaolo raided the Touro steak house in Brighton to play animal slaughter noises to diners last week. She also attended a Tesco in Hove with 'Direct Action Everywhere' as they held a 'silent disruption' event, standing in the meat aisle with signs saying: 'It's not food it's violence' and graphic images of abattoirs while mothers pushed toddlers past them in prams.
Last week Direct Action Everywhere entered Touro Steakhouse in Brighton and got into a chanting match with a carnivorous stag party who yelled back 'Stand up if you love meat.' Members of the stag party, including a £250 'Oompa Loompa impersonator', started chanting back at them and even persuaded fellow diners to join in. Most of the diners at the Brazilian-themed restaurant appeared unmoved by the protest and carried on talking and eating, even when the activists played the noise of a cow being killed and shouted 'It's not meat, it's violence' repeatedly.
>>12866 I don't get it, are you saying it is wrong, or ridiculous, to hold views that differ to those of your parents? I for one think differently to mine on lots of things, and am even politically active about them. Does that shock or amuse you in some fashion?
It's basically a stereotype for a teenager or student to go out and protest against something their parents believe in. Bonus points if it's something they've made a lot of money doing.
The fact you don't innately understand that is odd. Either you don't have a good understanding of human interactions, or you're being deliberately obtuse.
>>12869 The people I've known most active in pointless hippy activism, the kind which is never destined to achieve anything other than stroking your ego and making yourself feel very righteous, have all been from very wealthy backgrounds. They decide to 'slum it' for a bit before inevitably going back to rejoin their comfortable well off lifestyle. It's also noticeable how the people targeted by their protests, those going out for a meal or to the supermarket, are ordinary working class folk rather than those actually creating and entrenching inequality because they've no desire whatsoever to meaningfully address the class system they're benefiting from.
The last thing any movement needs is clueless rich twats using your cause as a hobby horse.
Weirdly, it's sort of a consequence of benefits reforms under the Blair government. It's also the same reason why so many bands these days are incredibly posh.
Back in the 80s, you could sign on once a week, tell them "there are no jobs" and get your giro. There really weren't many jobs out there if you were young and unskilled, so what was the point of hassling you about it? Because unemployment benefit was so easy to claim, it acted as a de-facto minimum income - you could spend all week organising political protests or rehearsing with your band. It wasn't terribly difficult to sign on under two names for a bit if you needed some extra cash.
It was the Major government that renamed Unemployment Benefit to Jobseekers Allowance, but it was the Blair government that really started turning the screws on claimants. The amount of money you got fell in real terms and you had to spend more and more time jumping through hoops to get it. Stricter identity checks made it significantly harder to travel around the country and sign on wherever you were. The same rules that made life difficult for dossers also made life difficult for artists or political activists from working class backgrounds.
>>12873 This is one thing that's a pretty good argument for UBI; allowing people to afford to learn to make income from their creativity would be a hell of a thing in the current climate
>>12873 During the 80s there was an alternative stream to UB called Enterprise Allowance, for which you just claimed to be self-employed instead. A number of artists used it to get started.
Seeing as the thread has moved on to 'bashing vegans' for now:-
>A tribunal is to be asked to decide whether veganism is a "philosophical belief" akin to a religion, in a landmark legal action.
>Jordi Casamitjana says he was sacked by the League Against Cruel Sports after disclosing it invested pension funds in firms involved in animal testing. He claims he was discriminated against, and the tribunal will now decide if veganism should be protected in law.
>The League Against Cruel Sports says he was dismissed for gross misconduct. It denies the sacking was because of his veganism.
>Mr Casamitjana says he is an "ethical" vegan. "Some people only eat a vegan diet but they don't care about the environment or the animals, they only care about their health," he told the BBC. "I care about the animals and the environment and my health and everything. That's why I use this term 'ethical veganism' because for me veganism is a belief and affects every single aspect of my life."
>Dietary vegans and ethical vegans both eat a plant-based diet. However, ethical vegans try to exclude all forms of animal exploitation, for instance avoiding wearing or buying clothing made from wool or leather, or toiletries from companies that carry out animal testing. They may refer to "companion animals" rather than "pets", and will avoid zoos or other environments where they consider animals are exploited.
>Mr Casamitjana worked for the animal welfare charity the League Against Cruel Sports and claims that, to his surprise, he discovered it was investing its pension funds in companies that carried out animal testing. He says he drew this to the attention of his managers. When nothing changed, he informed other employees and was sacked as a result. He is now bringing a legal case, claiming he was discriminated against on the basis of his vegan belief.
>>12876 What seems to have happened here is that he's found out that he can't claim protected disclosure and instead is trying to claim protected status. Not that I don't agree that it would be slightly hypocritical of LACS to choose to invest in such firms, but ultimately you can't go around disclosing confidential information and not expect to be fired.
>>12878 >he's found out that he can't claim protected disclosure and instead is trying to claim protected status
I don't understand what you're saying. He clearly believes LACS will be found to have dismissed him unlawfully, even though they say it was gross misconduct, so can you elaborate on his reasoning?
>>12879 >I don't understand what you're saying.
The Public Interest Disclosure Act provides protection for whistleblowers. My working theory is that he believes he was blowing the whistle, and has found out after the fact that the information he was revealing does not count under PIDA, and has tried to argue that he's being fired for being vegan, even though you generally don't get fired for gross misconduct on the spot.
Then again, I've just seen a clip on the news of him wearing a Mask of Shame so the whole thing could just be a stunt through which to get the information out.
I'm quite sure PETA does this sort of thing simply to garner attention. All their other tactics are designed to be headline grabbing, so I don't think it's much of a stretch that they know fine well that everyone will be talking about PETA if they release something daft like this.
Of course it does make them look excessively daft, so maybe not.
>>12881 >>12882 To play devil's advocate: why is it daft?
PETA's raison d'etre is to protect animals. And I'm sure neither of you are going to be so bold as to claim language has no effect on our behaviour. So in what way does this campaign not seek to achieve their aims?
>And I'm sure neither of you are going to be so bold as to claim language has no effect on our behaviour.
I certainly am, particularly when it comes to proverbs, which are so far removed from the literal for anyone who understands them. Whens the last time you or anyone else for that matter threw a stone at a bird? If they did I can guarantee it's not because they heard someone say it.
Why are you using terms like devil's advocate. Advocating for the devil. Do you hate God? Are you being deliberately proactive to christains. Don't you realise the power of language and the insensitivity of your words?
>>12885 >I certainly am
I'm sorry but you're just wrong. Any linguist will tell you there are reams of evidence showing that different words influence the way we think and act.
>Whens the last time you or anyone else for that matter threw a stone at a bird?
So you genuinely think that PETA's objective in encouraging people not to talk about throwing stones at birds is to stop their perceived epidemic of people literally throwing stones at birds? Maybe that explains why you think it's daft - you've totally misunderstood it?
>>12888 >>12890 Look, lad. Make yourself a cup of tea and have a bit of a think about how you're spending your Sunday. The linguistic evidence relates to grammatical structure (accusation sentences etc.) which impacts upon thinking patterns but that is a damn big difference to acting out given we have free will. If anything the very concept of this should be scary enough if we're outright doing brainwashing by calling a spade a teaspoon.
What goes beyond this i.e. words is a pseudo-science that dehumanises everyone (and in this case everything) and is only pursued by the most feckless HR graduates. People don't throw rocks at birds or go make lemonade when the tequila runs out because there is at the very least a complete divorce going on with what may have once been very practical proverbs.
>>12894 Left looks like she'd be very loose and sloppy, with no firmness to her body whatsoever. She'd drive you up the wall with the inane things she frequently utters.
Middle looks like there's some hidden horror lurking beneath, like she's got a ridiculously hairy muff and it's all matted with discharge because she doesn't believe in washing.
Right is ice cold. She just lies there like a dead fish during sex.
>>12894 >>12895 Left has an undiagnosed learning disability and is quick to anger.
Middle is a skinny-fat bloke who grew a vagina to go with those sad tits.
Right has an eating disorder and cutting scars - like shagging a greyhound.
>A new McDonald's chicken sandwich launched for Christmas has come under fire by some disappointed customers.
>The 'Jerk Chicken Sandwich' features two crispy chicken selects topped with spicy jerk sauce, bacon, pepper jack cheese, onion and lettuce in a sourdough bun. Some customers have accused the chain of "cultural appropriation" after the £4.39 sandwich was released earlier this month.
>Jerk marinade is usually made with allspice and Scotch bonnet peppers. On McDonald's website, the ingredients for the sauce include "tomato paste, Habanero chilli puree, caramelised sugar syrup, spices, garlic, ginger and basil."
I realise this is a tired arguement but why is it you can only culturally appropriate black or brown people's foods? Nobody's ever gotten in trouble for making a carbonara while being English, despite the severe pain it causes Italians.
The real crime here is that they've put two chicken selects in there instead of one chicken burger - nobody expects a McDonalds sandwich to be that structurally unsound, and will lead to a lot of unwarranted filling spillage. I understand the reasons for using an item already on the menu, but a McChicken patty or Legend patty would have been more appropriate, or they could have continued production of the middle ground patty they used for the recent Chicken BLT burger.
>>13965 It's because we're racist and dismiss their complaints as whining. There is a deep culture surrounding pasta in Italy. There are rules about which shapes go with which sauces and which ingredients. Spaghetti bolognese particularly annoys them, because what's usually served up is napolitana, and neither are supposed to go with spaghetti.
>A horrified Sainsbury's shopper has demanded the supermarket rename their "Big Daddy" steak after she spotted it in a shop last week - as she believes the name is "sexist and misogynistic".
>Rose Robinson was left appalled when she visited her local Sainsbury's and spotted a rump steak on sale that was labelled as a "big daddy beef rump steak", and said she was "bewildered" as to the supermarket's thought process behind it.