Seals, Stigma and Survival

What is non-violence philosophy?

In environmental and animal rights activism, non-violence is a frequent term cited by actors to describe both their organisational philosophy and to describe the foundational characteristics of their activism. However, what is often being described in practical terms is the absence of physical violence (Chenoweth and Cunningham, 2013, p. 72). Non-violent philosophy, however, is “more concerned with limiting and avoiding harm than in the use of force against the will of others” (Baldoli and Radaelu, 2019, p. 1166) and involves “the absence of violence (negative), but also the strengthening of the capacity for popular power and popular resistance against oppression and injustice (positive)” (Atack, 2012, p. 8).

The literature on nonviolence broadly sub-divides the concept into two broad categories that explain the users and mindsets of individuals and organisations that claim to be proponents of the philosophy: principled and pragmatic (Bharadwaj, 1998; Sharp, 2005; Atack, 2012). The breakdown of practitioners reflects nuances in non-violence which expose non-violence to be “for some people is the ultimate fulfillment of a belief system is for others merely a useful technique – a means to an end” (Zelko, 2013, p. 14). For principled non-violence, “proponents… attach some deeper ethical or religious significance to avoiding or replacing violence in political action and social relationships more generally” (Atack, 2012, p. 9). In contrast, for “[p]ragmatic proponents of nonviolent political action use these methods, because they seem to be the most effective under the circumstances or because armed resistance or armed conflict are not realistic options” (Atack, 2012, p. 9). The distinction between principled and pragmatic non-violence is very important. Bharadwaj argues that “nonviolence around the world has been and is being carried out largely in the pragmatic mode … [and] that the majority of followers are attracted mainly to the charisma and effectiveness of leaders and not to their commitment to principled nonviolence” (Bharadwaj, 1998, p. 79).

Why does non-violence matter in anti-sealing activism?

Nonviolence is a key philosophy in activism (Sharp, 2005; Bharadwaj, 1998; Atack, 2012). The belief that their work is non-violent may be a genuinely held by many organisations and their members who claim to adhere to it. However, environmental and animal rights organisation who align themselves with nonviolence also stand to benefit from association with non-violence philosophy and key historical figures who typify and the moral authority they possess in our society, such as Gandhi and MLK and civil rights justice (Atack, 2012).

Organisations actively foster connections between their adherence to non-violence and these esteemed representatives of the principled non-violence and their moral legitimacy irrespective of whether they consistency practice principled non-violence versus pragmatic. For example, Greenpeace’s Canadian office highlights Gandhi and MLK-era civil rights marchers on their website in the same page where they outline their connection to, belief in, and practice of non-violence. Gandhi and the civil rights marchers are described as “[c]ourageous, inspiring people have engaged in peaceful protest, at risk of repercussions, to stand for their cause” with Greenpeace then connecting itself directly to the “courageous” legacy of these historical figures (Greenpeace Canada, n.d.).

Who are some of the big players in anti-sealing activism (past and continuous) that explicitly state they practice non-violence?

A number of the high profile environmental and animal rights organisations that participated in anti-sealing campaigning claim to practice non-violence. Some leading actors in the anti-sealing protests explicitly claim to be proponents of non-violence including Greenpeace, the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and Sea Shepherd Conservation Society.

• Greenpeace: “We believe that non-violence direct action is required when all other avenues, such as dialogue or legal action, have been investigated and exhausted, or are clearly not viable” (Greenpeace Canada, n.d.).
  • Technically stopped being involved in anti-sealing activism in 1985 (Woods, 1986).
• PETA: “PETA maintains a creed of nonviolence and does not advocate actions in which anyone, human or nonhuman, is injured” (PETA, n.d.).
• Sea Shepherd: “Sea Shepherd adheres to the utilization of non-violent principles in the course of all actions and has taken a standard against violence in the protection of the oceans” (Sea Shepherd, 2024).