How does the animal question exist in politics? Which parties champion it, and which are reluctant or outright hostile? Should there be a party devoted entirely to animals, or should antispeciesism be anchored on the left? Less than a year before France’s 2027 presidential election, Victor Duran-Le Peuch, host of the podcast Comme un poisson dans l’eau, brought together Florence Dellerie, Orlando H. Benta and Pia Shazar for a round table at the Vegan Place event in Nantes, France, on 7 June 2026.
Victor Duran-Le Peuch: Let me introduce myself briefly: I’m Victor Duran-Le Peuch. I host a podcast called Comme un poisson dans l’eau, the podcast against speciesism, and I’ve written a book called En finir avec les idées fausses sur l’antispécisme [Putting an End to Misconceptions about Antispeciesism].
So we’re going to talk about this question of politicisation. To give a little bit of context: my impression is that over the last few years, in the animal advocacy movement, there has really been a rise in the politicisation of the issue, both in politics, as people say – so in the parties, in the National Assembly, well, there’s a lot more going on – but also, I think, in the way the animal question itself is conceived. It’s seen in an increasingly politicised way, but we’ll have time to develop that with my guests. And there have also been some landmark events. For example, the Parti animaliste [Animalist Party] has now existed for ten years, so an actual party in France devoted entirely to the animal question. There may be some stock-taking to do, and that’s what we’re trying to do today in this round table: where are we on this question?
And of course there is also the context of the upcoming presidential election, less than a year away, in France. It surely raises very particular issues for the antispeciesist movement – for us, in fact. Where do we stand? What do we need to do to try to weigh on this election? And we know how important it is in France, given what a presidential system we live in.
So much for the context. And so we’ll have the pleasure of dealing with this question with three wonderful guests. First, Florence Dellerie: you’re an author, scientific illustrator and science communicator. You’re also co-editor of L’Amorce, the journal against speciesism, and the creator of the website questionsanimalistes.com. Orlando H. Benta, you’re a communicator on questions of sentientism, the creator of the collective Réplique éthique, and also the host of the YouTube channel of the same name. And I should say that both your stands are just over there, if you want to pop over afterwards, and you’ll get even more information about all their work. And finally, Pia Shazar, you’re spokesperson for the Observatoire du spécisme [Observatory of Speciesism] in French-speaking Switzerland, and you’re also co-author, with Fanny Vaucher, of the graphic novel L’Usine du pire [The Factory of the Worst]. I think you have copies with you, and really, I read it the other evening and it’s incredible, this book; it’s really hard, really… Well, I don’t know, so many emotions went through me as I read it, thank you for that. It’s really worth it, so I encourage you to go and have a look at all the work too, both on this book and, more broadly, the work Pia and her comrades do at the Observatoire du spécisme.
So much for the introductions. And so, perhaps a first thing to establish. It may be obvious to us, but it’s perhaps worth saying – in any case, it can’t hurt: the extent to which, obviously, if we’re talking about animal advocacy, we’re talking about politics. It really is a fully political question, but we need to explain how, and why, and why, when people think, “Oh, this can be something that’s thought about outside politics, outside the organisation of collective life”, that’s perhaps not the right way to conceive of the animal question. I don’t know who wants to start on that.
Florence Dellerie: Hello everyone. Yes, the question of animals, of the animal cause, of animal ethics in the broad sense, is eminently political, if we also take the term “political” in the broad sense – so not necessarily in terms of parties, institutional or governmental organisation, laws and so on – but at the broader level of organisation, of how we actually go about living together with others, how we organise ourselves, how we organise our societies, and so on. And there, the question is indeed eminently political, because other animals are also persons, individuals who have hopes, expectations, who want to make choices, who can suffer from the way we treat them, who can experience pleasure, and so on. And so they have an interest in society also being organised according to their interests.
From there, they are also individuals who count morally, and whom it would be preferable to include in our circle of moral consideration and to take into account precisely as political subjects, and no longer, as we currently do, as commodities, raw materials that we exploit, kill, use in various ways, and so on. So the question is political at its root. And then there’s also a dimension that has more to do with politics as the organisation and exercise of power, with partisan questions, institutions, governments, as I was saying a moment ago. And there’s a lot to say there too. I don’t know if my comrades want to say a bit more about that.
Orlando H. Benta: To go a little further upstream from the question of parties: in any case, if we’re asking what is political, which subject is political or isn’t political, in reality I find it hard to see how you can say that there are subjects that are not political, since from the moment you talk about something, it necessarily has an impact on society – even if only by having none. And so the judgement we pass on it leads us to say, “OK, this one does indeed fall outside what we have to manage together politically” – but that is itself a political opinion; it’s a moral judgement we’re making in order to decide that something isn’t harmful to others, and so concerns only oneself, and so that on this point people can be left to decide for themselves what they want to do.
Victor Duran-Le Peuch: Great, thank you. We said we’d manage to be concise on that question, and we were, bravo. And that lets us go straight to the heart of the matter, which is also, in fact: fine, it’s fully political, but on the political spectrum, in party politics, in terms of the means we really have of influencing political decisions in our countries or at local level, where does the animal question sit? To put it quickly: is it an intrinsically left-wing question, or not? Is it a question anyone can take up, regardless of our other political positions? Well, how does all that sit? Pia, would you like to…?
Pia Shazar: Well, for me, I think that to answer that question, you have to distinguish the antispeciesist movement from the animal cause in the broad sense, in the sense that anyone can take an interest in the fate of animals, in the idea of reducing their suffering, for example; that’s something that has no specific place on the political spectrum. The antispeciesist movement, on the other hand, which is a struggle against a form of discrimination, is really a movement that belongs to a logic of struggle against forms of domination, and so we’re really, very typically, in a left-wing struggle. And for me – I think we’ll develop this a bit in the next questions – it’s a struggle that absolutely has to take place on the left, one that the left absolutely has to take up. But we also have a duty, as the antispeciesist movement, to be firmly anchored on the left ourselves, to make connections all the time. And I won’t say more, because I know that’s going to be the subject.
Florence Dellerie: Yes, I agree with this distinction between what you might call animal protection, or the defence of the animal cause, and the defence of antispeciesism properly speaking, that is, going back to the root and saying: the criterion of species is not relevant for deciding how we should treat or morally consider an individual. And often you have political formations spread quite widely across the political spectrum, which can be right-wing, left-wing and so on, that defend animals, meaning certain animals – often dogs, cats, the domesticated animals that live close to us, and so on – and that don’t care at all about, say, fish, crustaceans, animals in slaughterhouses, and so on. So there is quite a clear fracture, whereas antispeciesists, for their part, care about all animals who can suffer, so about all sentient beings in the broad sense. I think the distinction between the two is really important, because it materialises in very, very different ways, both in the theorising and in the acts and political decisions that are taken.
Orlando H. Benta: I would defend the idea that… So, yes, I agree that you have to dissociate the movement from the ideas, and above all antispeciesism from animal advocacy. You can care about other animals while having right-wing leanings. On the other hand, I think that respecting other animals, antispeciesism, is ontologically left-wing, that is, in its essence, by nature; it can’t be anywhere else. Well, we could [discuss] what we mean by left and right, but if we take it to be a division over progressivism or, on the contrary, being reactionary – if we go by those definitions – then granting rights to individuals who for the moment have none or few is necessarily a form of progressivism. If we consider it a question of values, same thing: being in solidarity and wanting tolerance and respect for individuals is rather something… So decentring yourself and trying to include everyone is rather a left-wing tendency. If we consider it to be about basic philosophical principles, for example meritocracy: meritocracy would entirely justify the idea that animals who are not as capable as us, for this or that reason, in this or that domain, do not deserve – or rather do deserve – to be oppressed, to be discriminated against, since if they were capable of getting themselves out of oppression, they would do so. So I find it hard to see how you can develop right-wing antispeciesist arguments. I’ve seen attempts, but I wasn’t very convinced.
Victor Duran-Le Peuch: Yes, well, let’s get to the substance, because I agree: I think most of the antispeciesists I know are left-wing at heart and consider this a struggle against an oppression, against a form of discrimination, a struggle for equality and emancipation, to put it quickly and to pick up on what you were saying. And yet, on the left, it’s not that clear. For the political left as it actually exists, it doesn’t seem to be all that clear that antispeciesism, the end of discrimination, the end of violence against other animals belong to the camp of emancipation. And so there’s a little point of tension to introduce here: why do we consider ourselves to be on the left, while the rest of the left doesn’t see it? Perhaps to get straight into the subject. And then, more broadly, where do the different parties across the political spectrum stand on the animal question? Do they take it up? Is it a total void? Is it rejection? Well, just to open up all these questions a bit.
Florence Dellerie: Yes, I think one of the first observations we can make is that wanting egalitarianism, wanting emancipation and progressivism is not enough to take everyone into account. Because society was built in a certain way, certain forms of domination were put in place, and calling them into question requires adopting the perspective of the victims. And when you are yourself in a dominant position, it’s very, very difficult to really see who you are causing to suffer, to realise it, and so on.
As a matter of fact, the left too has blind spots that are enormous, and animals are one of those blind spots. The question of speciesism is one of those blind spots. Antispeciesism is not yet fully regarded as a legitimate struggle, because speciesism is not yet regarded as a real oppression in many parts of the left. But in fact that’s also the case for oppressions among humans. I think trans people, for example, could testify to this: there are many politicians, including on the left, who are not well enough informed about those struggles, about those issues, which are nonetheless very serious issues, particularly in a context of rising authoritarian regimes and a rising far right. It’s the same for children’s rights too: there are a lot of blind spots there, and so on.
So, in any case, what we have to avoid is telling ourselves: “I’m on the left, I’m progressive, so that’s it, I’ve sorted everything out.” We’re always still learning, and so on. And the left has a lot to learn from antispeciesists, from the antispeciesist movement in general. And then there’s also a personal interest in eating animals, in dressing in their skins, and so on, which has to be unlearned; you have to learn to detach yourself from it, and so on. And that can be very costly, since in the overall organisation of things everything is done to facilitate the exploitation of animals and to benefit from it, and everything is done to make life difficult for people who try to fight against it.
Orlando H. Benta: The thing is, also, that just because the theme is left-wing doesn’t mean the whole left has taken it up, in the same way that the fact that it’s left-wing doesn’t mean you can’t be right-wing and antispeciesist. The thing is that the left in general – the speciesist left – is, on the question of other animals, in reality right-wing, or even far-right. If we consider that [speciesism] is indeed a supremacism, a xenophobia, and so on, well, those are things that are rather connected to everything that is furthest to the right. So there you go.
Florence Dellerie: So, yes, just to pick up on the second part of your question, on the way this manifests itself, particularly in the political field. Once we’ve said that the left is doing a largely insufficient job on animals and is not at all up to the task, we have to see that there is nonetheless no equivalence between, roughly speaking, the left and the right of the political spectrum in terms of the consideration given to other animals. That is to say that politically, the parties of the left, overall, do much, much more for animals than the right, and a fortiori than the far right. The further you go to the right of the political spectrum, the more the treatment reserved for animals and the moral consideration granted to them amount to nothing, the more violent the treatment is and the more violent practices are legitimised. Because there is a strong attachment to tradition, and there is a strong attachment to inequality too, to superiority, to hierarchies.
And even worse than that, there is an attachment, on the far right, to borders – and not only to the borders of nations: to the species border too. It’s something that is very important for people on the far right. For example, Paul Sugy, who is a journalist at Le Figaro and a far-right activist, has written a book against antispeciesists and the antispeciesist movement in general. He defends borders, including the species border, and he clearly makes the connection between the two. The species border really means holding that there is a very, very sharp border between the human species and all other animal species, that this justifies a superiority – a superiority of essence, in fact – of humans over all other animals, that there is a natural hierarchy and a particular dignity of humans by virtue of which humans can grant themselves the right to exploit, to use other animals as they see fit, roughly speaking. So there is sometimes opposition to certain particularly cruel practices, but it won’t go very, very far, and in any case human superiority is always ratified in that way. Pia, perhaps you’d like to add something?
Pia Shazar: Yes, so I completely agree that the right has a particular attachment to certain values, which are values that fit perfectly with speciesism. But beyond that, the right has a particular attachment to the defence of economic interests. Now, most of the animals who are exploited on this earth – that’s really extremely bound up with economic interests. It would mean that if we wanted to stop animal exploitation, it would mean massive regulation, in which the right has strictly no interest. It’s really a very, very long way from its political agenda. So there are very economic, very material questions, a long way from supremacist ideology, that are at play on the right and that mean this is a movement that is incompatible both in terms of ideology and in terms of its very material and concrete political programme.
Florence Dellerie: Just a small clarification: that is indeed the case. When you move towards the right, you have economic questions, and the further you go to the right, to the far right, the more it becomes about identity, in fact. But there is indeed this economic dimension, which may be more at the centre and on the right.
Victor Duran-Le Peuch: Pia, perhaps you can enlighten us, because you have a view of France, but you also know the situation in Switzerland well, given that the Observatoire du spécisme you’re involved in is in French-speaking Switzerland. Is it the same way of positioning things? Is it the same situation – roughly, the right and even more so the far right do nothing at all, and the left does a little, but really not enough? Or are advances perhaps won in a slightly different way? Is the political situation comparable to that of France?
Pia Shazar: I think yes and no, in the sense that, in any case, it’s not the right and the far right that are going to take up the animal question. The far right in Switzerland is really represented by the farming world. So it’s a milieu that, on top of everything, has no interest in defending the animal cause, given that all the livestock farmers are in it.
That said, there have been many advances in Switzerland. It’s often said that Switzerland is the country with the strictest animal welfare standards in the world, and I think that’s true. There are many practices that are banned in Switzerland and permitted in France. That’s the case, for example, with the production of foie gras; it’s the case with battery farming of laying hens; fur farming is banned. Well, in short, there really are many, many things. Slaughter without stunning has been banned since the nineteenth century.
There are many practices in Switzerland that are banned, and it has to be said that this is not at all thanks to the left either. Typically, when you think… But in fact we’re in situations similar to France. If slaughter without stunning was banned in Switzerland in the nineteenth century, it was thanks to a largely antisemitic campaign that was run at the time. And today, the actors who concern themselves with slaughter with or without stunning are in fact actors who have an interest in circulating Islamophobic discourse. So we’re in that kind of thing where, yes, it benefits certain animals, and at the same time it’s done by means of massive and extremely racist communication. That’s the same in Switzerland and in France, I have the impression, just at different periods – and then it’s not the same categories of people being hit today as in the nineteenth century.
Yeah, so I think it’s somewhat similar, but in any case, what is surprising is that the advances we have in Switzerland for animal rights – frankly, you can’t say they’re thanks to the left. They’re a bit thanks to the Greens, who are a party of the centre, who stir themselves a little, but no more than that. And above all, it happens in an extremely silent way politically. We don’t have the same political culture at all in Switzerland. It’s a political culture much less given to making demands, where denouncing social problems is rather frowned upon, where political conflict is very, very much frowned upon. And so it all happens a bit behind the scenes, in silence, and all of a sudden, hey presto, you learn that as of today it’s illegal to shred chicks, but you don’t even really know what happened. There was zero fight, in fact.
Victor Duran-Le Peuch: That’s interesting, because my impression is that in France it’s going in another direction: it’s becoming a polarising subject, including in relation to the right, particularly the identitarian right, which makes it an issue of masculinity, of nationalism. But it’s something you also find on the left. It’s becoming an inflammatory subject, one that causes debate and explodes. We see the bullying, and even the harassment, that Sandrine Rousseau gets every time she raises the question and it gets a bit of media coverage in France – on barbecues. She has the misfortune to say that barbecuing is a guy thing, and that there’s a link between the consumption of animals and masculinity – which is really something well demonstrated and fairly obvious – and all of a sudden everyone flares up.
So that perhaps brings us to this question: within the left, there’s left and left, and the left as a whole, across the French political spectrum, doesn’t position itself in the same way on the animal question either. And I think you perhaps have some nuances to add about which lefts are the most promising, let’s put it that way, and which are the most reluctant really to win egalitarian advances for other animals.
Florence Dellerie: Well, you have to see that in France only parties situated on the left of the political spectrum have Animal Condition commissions. We have the REV [Révolution écologique pour le vivant], which is an explicitly antispeciesist party – Aymeric Caron’s REV – we have Les Écologistes [the Greens], LFI [La France insoumise] and the NPA [Nouveau Parti anticapitaliste]. These are all progressive parties, parties of the left, and they are the only ones to have an Animal Condition commission. They are also the only ones to have fairly substantial programmatic proposals – it’s a bit uneven, but still substantial – on the animal question. In any case, it’s a point that is addressed. In the other parties it’s non-existent, or else it’s measures that are very much focused on repression, on punishment: we’ll punish people who abandon their animals, we’ll punish isolated acts of cruelty towards cats and dogs. Those are things you find in the programme of the RN [Rassemblement national], for example, but they are completely insufficient as far as farmed animals and so on are concerned.
And we do have exceptions on the left, because we also have left-wing parties represented by figures who are deeply marked by speciesism. I’m thinking of Fabien Roussel [leader of the French Communist Party], because he’s really the typical example, who is fairly reactionary, who is in fact not really considered left-wing by a good part of the left, it has to be said, because he makes reactionary statements on many subjects. And he goes all in on gastronationalism, that is, using food as a means of promoting and celebrating national identity. That’s what he said in 2025, when he said: “Plus de Cochonou, moins de tofu” [More Cochonou – a French brand of pork sausage – less tofu]. So he’s really in that thing of “tofu’s no good, it’s not French, French gastronomy is sauciflard and pinard [sausage and plonk]”, and so on. And so we have this thing that is quite strange on the left, in fact, that is a bit the exception that proves the rule.
And then we also have outbursts – but again, from figures who aren’t necessarily considered very left-wing by the left and who are nonetheless left-wing politicians – like François Ruffin, for example, who said: “I don’t want the green movement to be built against hunting; I think it’s a stupid fight.” To which Marine Tondelier [leader of Les Écologistes] replied: “So, for Ruffin, I must be stupid.” Well, that was how she replied. And there you see that there are exceptions on the left too, but they are figures who are less left-wing, in fact, than most figures of the left.
Clearly, the political party that has most fully integrated this question, and in the most deep-rooted way too, is La France insoumise. Mélenchon was already talking about speciesism in 2022, for the presidential election. As far as I know, that’s the only time, the first time it has happened. It was quite significant, historically, to have a presidential candidate who talked about speciesism explicitly.
Pia Shazar: And Marine Tondelier too.
Florence Dellerie: Yes, but that was afterwards, wasn’t it? I think it was later, but I’m not sure; I wouldn’t swear to it. In any case, it’s really very rare. And there is a programmatic proposal: here I have Mélenchon’s 2027 programme just for the animal cause. It really is pages and pages and pages, it’s very developed and it goes to the roots. There, I’ll hand over to my comrades too.
Victor Duran-Le Peuch: I’m going to bring you in, Orlando, because during our preparation you mentioned a term that really struck me: carno-populism. And I have the impression that it’s also one of the aspects of this left that is reactionary in certain respects and that claims to speak for the people. There’s also this thing: it’s in the name of “oh no, actually, that’s a bobo [bourgeois-bohemian] thing” that antispeciesism or veganism gets rejected, and they’ll put themselves on the side of the… That’s what Roussel does, that’s what Ruffin does, in fact. It’s in the name of supposedly placing themselves on the side of the working classes that this cause gets rejected.
Orlando H. Benta: Well, I didn’t remember that it was me who’d mentioned the term, but it’s exactly what I wanted to pick up on, so that works out very well. It’s quite surprising, but the reasons why part of the left rejects the animal question are the same as the reasons why part of the right or the far right tries to embrace it. They are clientelist, populist reasons, where you try to win over part of the electorate by saying things that tend to rest precisely on identity, and on a form of essentialism about certain classes, which are assumed to be expecting to hear that kind of discourse.
So it will be defending, for example, dogs and cats on the far right – but only dogs and cats. Or condemning ritual slaughter – but only ritual slaughter, not all slaughter without stunning, to mention just that. It will also be criticising traditions that take place outside France, in other cultures, while not going and condemning… On the contrary, they’ll dig themselves into French traditions, however cruel they may be, or even create some: they’ll create pig festivals here, there and everywhere, where none existed before, in order to create a nationalist, identitarian, traditionalist feeling, all that.
Florence Dellerie: To pick up on that: it was indeed this discourse that consists in saying, as Ruffin does somewhat, “I defend hunting because hunting is also the working classes”, and so on. Personally, I find it very humiliating, in fact, to treat the working classes as if they were incapable of grappling with complex ethical questions, of questioning their stereotypes and prejudices, of changing their way of life and all that. I find that really very humiliating. And there are somewhat the same postcolonial discourses, where you get the idea that certain peoples practise hunting and fishing ancestrally and couldn’t be vegan. That’s really racist. Sandra Guimarães said so in the episode of your podcast where she’s the guest. I invite everyone to listen to it; that episode is really great. She talks specifically about populations in Brazil and all that. And yes, it’s a very condescending stance, very moralising and all. And it doesn’t reflect the reality of things either.
Victor Duran-Le Peuch: But these are arguments that sound left-wing. It’s in the name of a certain conception – a completely broken one, in fact – of placing yourself on the side of the people, or of supposedly criticising veganism because it’s colonial; it doesn’t stand up as soon as you look into it. But these are arguments that sound left-wing, in fact. And that’s the whole very perverse side of part of this left. We haven’t said it, but in fact it’s the gauche merguez, the “merguez left”! That’s it. Because, well, the movement has put a name to it: the barbecue left, the left of “we’re incapable of talking about equality and social justice without having a barbecue and lots of dead animals in the middle of our events”. It’s the left of the Fête de l’Humanité [the annual festival of the French Communist Party’s newspaper]. That’s the left we’ve been talking about all this time.
And you were saying, Florence, that LFI, La France insoumise, seems much more promising and seems to have made commitments. Sometimes I find we’re a bit lost, because Mélenchon said “antispeciesism” once, and then afterwards we don’t know how that finally translates into the commitments of elected representatives. There are outbursts where Marine Tondelier tells us at one point that she’s antispeciesist, and then, three years later, she hasn’t mentioned it again, and then she’s defending comté, she’s defending cheese. Well, it can be a bit difficult, in fact, just to find your bearings when you’re antispeciesist and you’re trying to find out which parties are doing most to advance the question, or which are really committed to doing so if they’re elected and come to power.
Are there tools we can take up, or that are accessible, just to find out what the reality of the commitments is beyond the words and the grand declarations? Even those can already indicate something, but on the actual votes, really: which parties really do things for animals, and which are enemies of animals? Do we have ways of knowing?
Florence Dellerie: You have to know how political action for animals can take concrete form, because it can really take many, many forms. It can be just public statements, which don’t have enormous value because they don’t necessarily commit the people who make them. It can also be questions put to the government: officially, you table a question to raise an issue and try to get it thought about, and so on. You can also propose bills, and you can of course vote laws through, and so on, propose things at European level and all that. So there are different degrees, in fact, of political action.
And there are tools that make it possible to document this type of political action, in particular the website Politique & animaux run by L214 [a French animal advocacy organisation], which documents statements, written questions to the government, bills, who voted for what. And there you realise – that’s why I was saying earlier that there is after all no equivalence between left and right where animals are concerned – the gulf there is between what the right does, what the far right does and what the left does.
You can also notice it through particular initiatives. For example, L214 has launched the Sauvetage du siècle [Rescue of the Century], which is an initiative that aims to reduce the number of animals killed by 50 per cent by 2030, I believe, I think. And this Sauvetage du siècle can be signed by political figures. When you see who signs the Sauvetage du siècle, and in particular the whole set of proposals that are made, or part of the proposals that are made, it’s the same, there’s no equivalence. A very, very large majority of the people who have signed the Sauvetage du siècle proposals are figures who were attached to the NFP in 2024, for the snap legislative elections – the Nouveau Front populaire [New Popular Front], sorry, the NFP. So they are figures of the left. And I believe there are one or two figures from the Rassemblement national who have signed certain proposals, but it’s generally two proposals out of ten, for example. It’s a commitment that is extremely marginal and extremely weak. So there you are, there’s no equivalence. This tool, Politique & animaux, lets you know that. Initiatives like the Sauvetage du siècle let you know that too.
And then there are other laws that are harder to spot as tools for the destruction of animals, like the Duplomb law, for example, or the agricultural emergency law. We’re right in the middle of that now. These are agricultural laws in the broad sense, or environmental laws in the broad sense, and there is always in these laws a section that concerns the exploitation of other animals – mainly making it easier to set up intensive farms, things like that. So, in fact, an amplification of animals’ suffering that is really enormous. So it’s also worth looking at the content of these laws, the Duplomb law, the agricultural emergency law, and also looking at who votes for what.
Here I’d refer you to the work of Awenig Marié, who has a doctorate in political science and who published an article in the outlet Bon Pote in which he analysed 11,000 amendments, some fifty of which concerned intensive livestock farming. And in fact, in his analysis, only the left-wing groups systematically voted in favour of a change of model. So it’s radically the left that is doing the work and trying to… It doesn’t show up in the form of laws: in fact, often we’re just trying to go against either the status quo or things that are even worse. But in any case, only the left has committed itself. So that Bon Pote article, which is precisely about where the political parties stand on intensive farming, is very, very instructive too. I don’t know if you want to pick up on that.
Victor Duran-Le Peuch: And for the other French-speaking countries – because we can also learn from our neighbours, or from people who perhaps have comparable or different political situations, and that can inform us too – for example in Switzerland or in Belgium, if you know… Pia, perhaps you know Switzerland better: do we have tools like that too?
Pia Shazar: Yes, we have the equivalent of… well, we have Animaux Politique Suisse, which also lets you see the votes of all the candidates on different types of ballots. And inevitably the political programmes too, because in the political programmes you can see whether there’s anything there. We have a very different system, where we have no presidential elections at all or anything like that. But you can see whether a party is interested in the animal question, whether it has planned to address the subject by proposing motions or not. For the moment it’s rather the Greens who table items of business about the animal question, but that’s about all.
Florence Dellerie: On the Greens too, this is interesting: there is a point of convergence between the interest of animals and ecological interests, because the exploitation of animals entails negative externalities for the environment that are really extremely significant in terms of land use, greenhouse gas emissions, water consumption, air quality too, eutrophication, and so on. And so there are political convergences to be found there, at once in defence of… well, in rejecting speciesism and in trying to protect the environment. So we can have bridges. Typically, making public catering or canteens more plant-based is an issue that responds both to climate concerns and to ethical concerns in relation to animals. There are convergences to be built on that too.
Victor Duran-Le Peuch: Yes, it’s funny, that ties in with what you were saying earlier, Pia: certain advances are won rather discreetly. But then certain setbacks can be too. That’s what you were also saying about the Duplomb law, in fact. Sometimes it’s just… Animals are, most often, a total blind spot of politics. They count for so little in a speciesist society that in the end, most of the time, the impact on their existence and their lives isn’t even considered in the laws. And yet they are affected all the time, all the time, all the time, by all the decisions of collective life, so of the polis, of politics, that we take in our societies, which we regard as purely human when in fact we live in interspecies societies. It affects them. And it’s in the name of that impact, which is most often appallingly negative and which we would like to be more positive, that we’re also here to reflect on this question: how do we change things?
So let’s go, let’s wade right in. Now that we’ve sketched the panorama, the state of play: strategy. Let’s talk concretely: what do we need to do? We don’t all agree, even in the genuinely antispeciesist part of the movement – so not the vaguely animal-advocacy part, or any form of commitment to animals, any advance for companion animals and all that, where it can be anyone who has that sensibility and who is really very interested in the question and in the fate of other animals. But when it’s really about the end of oppression, advancing the project of equality and emancipation – there, as we’ve said, it’s rather a left-wing thing, and so the relationship to it is very different – what do we do with that, in fact?
Because there are sort of two options taking shape – it’s more complex than that, but roughly. First option: we have to stake everything on the left and help it rise, because it’s the left that will give us a real antispeciesist project, and that will shake up society and turn everything around for us, for the better, for other animals too and not only for humans, obviously. Or, second option: in fact, that’s too divisive. The left is losing ground. We’re in a context of a shift to the right, of the rise of far rights in Europe and all over the world. There’s a risk that the far right will find itself in power after the 2027 presidential election. There are people in the movement who say to themselves – I really am wading in here – that in that case we shouldn’t stake things on the left. We should make the animal question a non-polarising question. We shouldn’t stake things on antispeciesism, in particular. We should stake things on pragmatic, concrete advances that are as consensual as possible.
So those are the two big strategies, and there are big debates going on in the movement, but we don’t often have the opportunity to put those debates on the table, so that’s the opportunity we have today, which is great. There, I’ve waded in, and now I’ll leave you to find your way out with regard to those options.
Pia Shazar: I’m happy to start. Personally, I’m on team “invest in the left”, simply because I think the economic brakes that the right will put on any change in practices in terms of animal exploitation are too great. And I think we have major obstacles if we have to talk with the right.
And so, for me, we have three things to do, in relation to the whole discussion we had earlier. First, when we start having debates, for example about Brigitte Bardot – was she anti… Brigitte Bardot was not antispeciesist. I think the antispeciesist movement owes it to itself to have the same clarity on these subjects as the feminist movement has with regard to Némésis [a French far-right identitarian women’s collective]. That is to say, we have strictly nothing to do with those people. And it’s really a topic in feminist circles, the extent to which Némésis is the swindle of the century, the extent to which Némésis comes and appropriates certain questions in order to advance a racist agenda. I think we have a duty in the antispeciesist movement to have the same clarity on that level. It’s true that we’re in a much more delicate position than the feminist movement, because the antispeciesist movement is far more of a minority than the feminist movement, but that’s no excuse. It’s just a factor to take into account.
The other thing we must do, I think, that we can do in the antispeciesist movement too: yes, there is this merguez left that is unbearable and that I don’t excuse at all. On the other hand, that doesn’t mean we have nothing to do ourselves. I think it’s a reality that the antispeciesist movement is to a large extent bobo, disconnected from certain working-class realities. That’s not true of the antispeciesist movement everywhere in the world. I think there is really a lot to gain from building a genuinely popular antispeciesist movement and, in the end, from really investing in the left, giving strength for example to LFI, to Animaux insoumis, defending the antispeciesist question in left-wing groups. So we do have a role to play. Just to say: we’ve tackled the left pretty hard here; I think we have something to do on our side too.
Florence Dellerie: Yes, in fact, I think there’s also a question of pragmatism, of telling ourselves that it will also be much easier to have a go at the left if the left is in power and we have a certain freedom to demonstrate, a certain freedom of the press, certain democratic values that are still there, and so on. And it will be completely impossible to do that if the far right is in power. Because the far right in power – people tend to say we’ve never tried it, but you really have to have forgotten history to tell yourself that we’ve never tried the far right. And at the moment there are also far-right municipalities, which are small-scale models of what the far right could produce in France at the level of the presidency. People who live in far-right municipalities can testify to the extent to which associations are curbed, stripped of their subsidies, shows cancelled because they’re judged too egalitarian, because – well – they don’t fit the agenda, and so on. So we have, I think, a strategic interest in fighting very, very actively, very firmly and without compromise against the far right in particular.
You have to see that the far right will attack, as we were saying with the Duplomb law, both animals directly, by preserving traditions, by being very close to farming circles and livestock-farming circles too – as is the case in Switzerland, as Pia was saying – by being a great defender of bullfighting, of hunting, of hunting with hounds, of lots of traditions that are very harmful to animals, but also of the consumption of meat, of charcuterie, and so on. And it will also attack animals indirectly, by attacking whistleblowers. That is what has been attempted several times by the right, hand in hand with the far right, notably with the Le Fur amendment, not so long ago, which is an amendment that is very regularly re-tabled to try to penalise, to [abolish the tax deduction for] donations made to organisations like L214. It has even got to the point where the amendment has been nicknamed “the anti-L214 amendment”, so much is that really what is being targeted. And that is an extremely serious threat. We need the general public to be informed about what goes on in farms and slaughterhouses. And systematically, the far right targets that.
Another indirect threat, which is much less talked about and which we almost never mention: the far right tends to make people’s lives precarious. I’m thinking of Giorgia Meloni’s far right, for example, in Italy. The equivalent of the RSA [France’s minimum income benefit] was abolished, which means that people who had been receiving it found themselves in survival mode. And people in survival mode don’t volunteer, aren’t going to get involved in associations, and so on. They’re just going to try to find food, look after their children and all that. So there’s also this question: to carry the animal question we need people who have a pension, who can get involved in associations once they’ve retired, who can commit themselves to others because they live in relative comfort, because they have a bit of time to devote to altruism. We also need freedom to demonstrate, freedom of the press, freedom of expression, and so on – everything the far right fights against. So for me, you also have to have this overall view: not only to see what concerns animals strictly speaking, but also the context in which we can defend them.
Orlando H. Benta: So, thinking that we can expect something from the right is, for me, as if we told ourselves that we can expect to leave the capitalist model via the right – I mean, without heading towards something that would be a feudal model, or something even worse than what we’re in. Right-wing degrowth: I don’t believe in it. Right-wing ecology: I don’t believe in it. Right-wing feminism: I don’t believe in it – we’ve talked about that. I don’t believe in right-wing animal advocacy either; I explained why earlier.
In terms of strategy properly speaking, I think one of the riskiest things is to have certainties. Because strategy is projections, it’s analysis of context. We never have all the data. And we can quickly draw conclusions that would in fact lead us to places where, in the end, things don’t happen exactly as we thought they would, and we find ourselves stuck. I think we have to try to stay somewhat open, to consider, to test, and above all to try not to close certain doors for good. Even if, still in this logic of not having too many certainties, I’m also not in favour of plunging headlong into the “in any case, we need a bit of everything, and it’s the complementarity of actions that works”, and so on. I do think we need complementarity of actions, but that doesn’t mean we need every action. I think there really are things that can do us a disservice.
Among the things that can do us a disservice, incidentally, I think there’s really opening the subject up to the right, because I think one of the best ways of putting the left off is to say: “Look, it’s a right-wing subject too.” And if we start saying that it’s not a subject that belongs to the left and that the left must take up, how do we go about telling the left: “You need to take up this issue”? I think we have more leverage if we say: “You ought to be dealing with this”, in the same way that it’s for the left to deal with feminism, anti-racism, anti-ableism, and so on.
In any case, we’re not going to succeed in fighting with the numbers we have. There are too few of us, we talked about it earlier, we’re a tiny minority, so we’re going to have to broaden out. Where do we want to broaden out? Who are our closest allies? If it’s not the left, progressives, people who seek to be in solidarity with others, who are we going to expect that from? So no: our next allies, the next people to convince to join the ranks and take up these questions, are those people.
And I find it hard to see how we can think of liberating other animals if humans themselves, within society, are not liberated. How can we lay claim to equal consideration if, within the group we belong to, there is already no such equality of consideration? I don’t understand how anyone can think of liberating other animals before having first liberated human animals. That doesn’t mean it’s a priority in itself; it’s just that, mechanically, I don’t see how it works.
There’s also something else: here we’re talking a lot about how to go about things on the political level to reform institutions, to have political parties that will take up the question. There are other ways of doing politics than just in parties, and there are other ways of changing a system than by voting or by electing people. I know that in France we’re not allowed to call for revolution, so far be it from me to do so. If the left is not up to the task – and it is not up to the task – it’s in fact for animal advocates to put the pressure on and say that it may be time to get moving, in the same way that animal advocates themselves, antispeciesists, should also apply that same principle to themselves and ask: “Where am I not up to the task, on the other questions of the left?”
Because in any case, for me… I don’t want to say “my conviction”, because that’s perhaps a bit strong, but it’s my opinion that we will only get out of this through coherence between struggles, that is, by telling ourselves that as long as there is one injustice, the principle of injustice remains. And so we can only oppose all of it. There is in reality only one struggle, even if there are different modes of struggle and different fronts.
Florence Dellerie: Yes, just to pick up on what you were saying: there’s this accusation, sometimes – well, this idea – that society is shifting to the right, that the far right is rising, and so on, so perhaps we should collaborate a bit with those people so that our political project has more chance of getting through, and so on. For me, that really is a great deal of political naivety, in fact, for the reasons I mentioned earlier – precarity, the wrecking of democratic life, attacks on the freedom to demonstrate, on freedom of the press, and so on – but also for all the human victims of the far right – and of the right, to some extent, but particularly of the far right – which systematically attacks the most vulnerable populations, people who are victims of racism, of sexism, gender minorities, and so on.
And I think it’s a mistake to consider that, in this context, the animal question is being artificially pushed to the left by left-wing antispeciesists. It’s just that the left and the right don’t have the same relationship to domination, in fact. So, structurally, the question cannot be considered in the same way by the left and by the right. And I think it’s also a somewhat privileged stance to say: “Right, we’re going to ally with the far right or with the right to win victories for the cause I defend”, even if it means throwing everyone else under the bus. I think it’s good to see the big picture, to see the somewhat wider image.
And then, the observation about the shift to the right can also be put in perspective. I’m thinking of the work of Vincent Tiberj, who explains that we have a sense of a shift to the right, but that it nonetheless has to be put in perspective. Because in fact, social attitudes are evolving towards more egalitarianism and more progressivism, social struggles are advancing all the same, and there is a shift to the right rather from above, so among elites, big companies, billionaires and so on, and the media – because the media are to a large extent owned by billionaires and there is a heavy concentration of media ownership, as we can see with Bolloré, with Stérin, and so on. But there is a shift to the left at the base, in fact, among the mass of people, which keeps moving towards more equality, more tolerance, more inclusion, and so on.
So we have to be careful about that, all the more so since there is an enormous part of the electorate in France that doesn’t vote: people who are not on the electoral register and who could vote, and other people who are registered but who don’t vote, for lots of reasons, often out of a feeling of not being part of political life, of not being understood and all that. And we see that when those populations mobilise very strongly to go and vote, exceptionally, because they have to, often in the face of the far right, as was the case with the NFP in 2024, well, then, all of a sudden, the far right is countered, a left-wing coalition can win, and so on. So this image of a shift to the right that we should supposedly follow, because that’s what’s happening and all that, is very relative. You really have to look at the data. I think it’s much less clear than some people would have us believe.
Victor Duran-Le Peuch: Does everything you’re saying there – that the future of antispeciesism is on the left – hold only for the advance of the antispeciesist movement properly speaking? Since we introduced this distinction at the beginning: antispeciesism is really on the left, a struggle against domination, for equality; but animal advocacy, a priori – you may not agree with this, Orlando – or at any rate the animal question, a relative and partial interest in certain animals, is something anyone can be moved by. And so, isn’t there a complementarity of strategies?
It’s a real question, because some have followed another strategy, in fact, including within the movement: people, mostly antispeciesists, who are for a vegan world in particular, said to themselves: “We’re going to follow a cross-party strategy.” That has been the case of the Parti animaliste for ten years, in fact, which has rather followed a strategy of saying: “OK, we’re not going to make it something labelled antispeciesist, we’re not going to anchor it explicitly on the left, we’re going to try to aim wide, in fact, and find something consensual that is devoted entirely to the animal question, without making too many connections with other subjects.” So it’s almost the complete reverse of the strategy you seem to be presenting, and presenting as the most promising.
Can we also take stock of that other strategy that has been followed in the movement, which does the exact opposite, which isolates the animal question from the others and which says rather that we should go looking for coalitions, and that the way to advance pragmatically in politics is not to risk polarising too much… Because your argument just now, Orlando – some people in the movement would reply that it’s a symmetrical argument, in fact. That is, if we have a discourse that is “right-compatible”, then the left won’t want to take it up; but in fact there are people who tell us: if we make the animal question too much of a left-wing question, then we won’t be able to go looking for broad coalitions, because it will make people on the right even more reactive and reactionary on the question of animals. And so it will be a question completely marked as left-wing, and only the total success of the left would make it possible to win advances in politics. There, just to set that out. Pia, would you like to…?
Pia Shazar: Yes, that’s good timing, because I wanted to talk about precisely that. In fact, when we say “do we collaborate with the right or do we not collaborate with the right?”, what does collaborating with the right mean? It can mean really, really a lot of things. What is certain is that we have a duty to wrest victories and advances for animals. And wresting concrete victories for animals – well, those won’t be antispeciesist victories properly speaking. Because an antispeciesist victory is really extremely demanding. Here we’re going to have to go step by step. And those steps – yes, it’s entirely possible that the right will take them up, or some of them at any rate. You can find that incoherent – and it is absolutely incoherent – but the world is incoherent, people are incoherent, and so it’s entirely possible for the right to be incoherent and to take part in this in one way or another.
And that’s the case, for example – because here we’re talking about collaborating with parties, but there’s also everything that comes under collaborating with the business world – when we publish investigations and then go and negotiate over them with this or that giant company to get it to sign up to a change of practices. That’s the case with the European Chicken Commitment, for example, which LDC [a major French poultry group] ended up signing. There too, we’re talking with real political enemies, if not evil incarnate. And yet we do it all the same, because it allows us to wrest victories.
So, just to nuance this business of collaborating, yes or no: it’s the same right now in Switzerland, where we’re trying to get motions passed. Parliament has a right-wing majority. If we say to ourselves “no, we only want the votes of the left”, we lose. That’s all. So, at some point, I think we really have to be clear about what collaborating means. It doesn’t mean going to work with the right, but on the other hand, at some point, they’re going to have to vote for these things too.
Florence Dellerie: Yes, but I agree with that observation. There are laws that are cross-party, that can achieve very, very good results. I’m thinking of the ban on fur production in Poland, which is very recent and which is really, I think, a major victory for animals, because it’s a very big fur producer and it’s very significant. And it’s a cross-party law; it was won thanks to coalitions, and so on.
Personally, I think we have to distinguish two things: working with the right and working with the far right. Personally, I don’t treat the two as equivalent. And personally I also defend what happens in Belgium – well, in part of Belgium – with the media, namely the cordon sanitaire. There is a difference between working with the right, telling ourselves that we’ll be able to win certain advances in certain contexts, that it’s better than nothing, and so on, and that we’ll be able to work with companies… There is a difference between that and actively collaborating with the far right, that is, a formation – in France at any rate – that has its origins among Nazis, that has a history which has never been erased despite an extremely active trivialisation and normalisation, which is working very, very well, and whose project is to destroy democracy, to actively harm certain human populations, animals, and so on. It’s really not of the same order. So for me, working with the right is really one thing; working with the far right is really something else.
And there are also phases of struggle, a chronology. At the moment it seems OK to me, in the context we’re in, to work with companies, to do the work of L214 and lots of other organisations to obtain alignment with the European Chicken Commitment or the Pig Minimum Standards, or things like that, because it’s effective for animals right away and these are small advances that we would have difficulty obtaining otherwise, I think. But that’s acceptable because we’re in a context where it’s possible and where it doesn’t harm other populations, in particular human populations. On the other hand, collaborating with the far right if the far right is in power, or resigning ourselves to its coming to power by saying “we won’t avoid it, so we’re not going to resist” – that, for me, is a miscalculation. For me, that’s shooting ourselves in the foot, and shooting the animals directly, in fact.
So there’s this chronology of struggle, and first of all there’s a difference between going along with and acting in spite of. We’ll be able to go along with the far right if the far right comes to power, and we’ll be able to act in spite of it, in spite of the fact that it’s in power. That’s in fact what is happening in Trump’s United States too, where a whole section of the judges, some of the elected representatives and so on are acting in spite of Trump. They’re still trying to do things. But that doesn’t stop us fighting so that it doesn’t happen. In fact, I think we really have to do everything to prevent the far right from coming to power in France in 2027, including in the name of antispeciesism, of course.
To come back to the cross-party stance displayed by the Parti animaliste: I have the impression of a bit of confusion there too. I’ve never quite grasped the limits of this cross-party approach and of the ideological boundary that is drawn between struggles, and so on. Because the Parti animaliste has several times said publicly: “We are of course feminist, of course anti-racist.” Those are left-wing positions too, in fact; they are republican values, they are not values found on the far right or [in] a certain part of the rather hard right, and so on. And there have also been alliances for the municipal elections. The Parti animaliste, in spite of everything, allied itself with right-wing parties among others for the last municipal elections, in 2026, in France. That raises questions, because there had always been this refusal to ally with other political formations. So it makes me wonder. I find that the position is not necessarily very, very clear.
Orlando H. Benta: Yes, I think the Parti animaliste had a good strategy in saying: “Look, this subject is political, it has to be taken up.” And so at that point, the cross-party approach was justifiable, saying: “Right, look, we’re not politicising the question, we’re just saying: this exists, there’s an electorate that votes for it.” On the other hand, I think that at some point that strategy has its limits. That is, once there has been a politicisation, an appropriation of the question, you do have to notice which side it belongs to, and continuing to try to pretend that it can come from the right is, to my mind, a mistake – or a great deal of optimism. I don’t see how that can happen, for all the reasons we’ve given.
As for operating with the right and making do with the right, I agree that we’re going to have to. Personally, I have no problem with people agreeing with me. If tomorrow the right becomes anti-racist, anti-sexist, anti-ableist, antispeciesist and so on, it’ll simply be left-wing. So go ahead, guys. The thing is that the right today – at any rate, I’ll speak for what we have in France – is a right that is busy criticising the rule of law, a right that uses repression against social movements, that is dismantling social protections, so one that is authoritarian, that regularly comes out with xenophobic statements. I’m not sure that the right we have today isn’t just far-right, in fact. So what is left of the right with which we can advance? We have no choice but to make do with it, but then I think Florence’s formula was very good, in what she said before: collaborating and making do with are not the same thing. Well, collaborating… There: going along with or acting in spite of.
As for what you were saying to me earlier, that I perhaps didn’t agree: I’ve clarified my position on animal advocacy, but I think animal advocacy can… Well, right-wing animal advocacy exists, of course. There are people who can take an interest in the animal question, in the fate of animals, from the right: you just have to be a welfarist to begin with, to be interested in animal welfare and not to want their liberation, their emancipation, their inclusion in society at all, but just to want better treatment. And that’s already an animal-advocacy position: maintaining domination, but with better consideration. And it can also be justified ideologically, with angelisation, for example, where animals are regarded as pure beings who must be protected because they’re innocent, and so on. And it also ties in with patriarchal logics in which, in fact, we must take care of animals because we are the dominant ones and we bear responsibility for them. That is completely compatible with right-wing ideologies. On the other hand, it’s not compatible with a will to equality, that is, with considering that the criterion of species is not relevant for deciding on moral consideration.
I think that in terms of strategies there’s also a difference between making do with the right and trying to move things forward on the quiet, discreetly, under the radar, in order to discuss, to push ideas, to move things forward and so on, and, at the same time, openly saying: “No, no, the question belongs to everyone.” For me, those are already two different things: agreeing on certain laws, or else claiming that philosophically it comes to the same thing. And I do think that we won’t obtain animal liberation just like that, by snapping our fingers. It will go through reforms; it will go through what you were saying, opportune alliances where we’ve managed to get the opposition to vote with us.
But the thing is that this already contributes, in my view, to one of the most important things for liberation: cultural change, that is, being able to say: “Right, look, we all agree that there’s a problem here, and from now on there’s no going back. That’s an achievement secured. This thing is no longer acceptable, and we move forward.” Society does have to evolve, and society means the whole of society, not only the left. Besides, the aim of the left is to move the right forward, in the end. But on the other hand, we can ask ourselves what they get out of it, when we do manage to agree on certain things, even, why not, to obtain funds from the right: what does it allow them to get in return? Because if what’s at stake is indeed not animal liberation, then why are they doing it? And I think that, when we’re working out a strategy, we have to ask ourselves seriously what we’re sacrificing for what we’re obtaining.
Victor Duran-Le Peuch: There would be so much more to say, to debate, to discuss and to think about on these questions, but I want to be sure we have time for an exchange with the audience. And right after, perhaps, a mini final question for each of you. Really concretely now, with the upcoming presidential election in France in view in particular: what do we do? How should the antispeciesist movement get itself into marching order? What can we concretely do to mobilise and try to do what’s best for other animals?
Pia Shazar: Right, I’ll try. In any case, what is certain is: mobilise massively. I often hear people say that they’re in despair, that they feel completely powerless in the face of the violence of what animals go through, for example, or in the face of other realities. We’re never as powerless as when we don’t mobilise. And by mobilising, I really mean joining an organisation, joining a project, setting up a project yourself, coordinating with other people to set up progressive projects for animals and/or against the far right, and devoting a large and significant part of your schedule to it.
There’s no other way. Changes aren’t going to happen because once a month we did a little bit of this. I’m a bit sorry to say this, but I think there’s a real urgency to making this a priority in our lives, and so to accepting that we replace some of our activities with activism. That’s how it has been possible to wrest victories over the years, for every cause. Some people may think that’s a bit sacrificial. I think it’s also seizing the opportunity and the chance we have, for those people who have the privilege of being able to do it. In any case, we must seize the opportunity to be active and to bring to bear the power we really have. Because if we give it everything, in fact, changes are possible. And that has already been seen on lots of issues.
Orlando H. Benta: Yes, I agree with everything you’ve just said. For me, then, we have to talk about it, join groups. And I’d even say – I’m coming out with a slightly provocative catchphrase: you want to fight for animals? Then go and fight for humans. Meaning: join groups that do something other than defend the… Sorry, let me add a bit of nuance: also join groups that do something other than concern themselves with the fate of other animals. Quite simply because it’s important, it’s essential that we join animal advocacy organisations, that we’re part of them; I think everyone should indeed be in organisations that are – I’ll even go further – antispeciesist, sentientist. But I think it’s also important not to stay only among ourselves, because we won’t broaden out if all we do is campaign among ourselves.
We have a big, big problem today, in my view, a weakness: it’s that the movement is perhaps not popular enough, perhaps not embedded enough, not in contact with people – which is also complicated. It’s understandable to want to stay among ourselves, because it’s tiresome to be with people who are constantly going to bring us back to our antispeciesism or our veganism. It will constantly raise questions of exclusion, and so on. It’s a bit tiresome, so we perhaps prefer to campaign within animal advocacy movements, but it’s important all the same to go and confront others, to widen our bubbles.
The minimum to do, for me, is to support the people who are already doing things, whether that’s organisations, collectives, content creators, politicians. So showing that, making it visible. Whether it’s when you’re with friends or family, when a discussion comes up, it’s important at that moment too to hold the line and say: “Well, no, you can’t say that, this person is right.” Even if you’re not vegan yourself or whatever: it’s not so much a question of what you do, it’s very much a question of what you think and what you say. Cultural change comes with ideas, even if it’s also important to have a practice – practice conveys ideas. But what we defend verbally matters, even if we’re not perfect ourselves, I’d say – for what perfection means anyway.
So the minimum is to support, but then it is indeed to take part. There’s a lot to do, whether it’s being on the ground by joining local groups, whether it’s in organisations, in institutions, wherever you can go, even in companies, why not. It’s also on social media. We perhaps tend to neglect that terrain a bit, because it’s extremely tiresome, you have the impression you’re only talking to bots, and so on. But in fact the far right manages to win notably thanks to social media. So we mustn’t leave them the space. And it’s perhaps one of the places where we can most burst our bubbles and not stay only among ourselves. So I think those are avenues; there’s a lot to do.
And one last point: taking care of our structures, that is, of what already exists. It doesn’t just exist like that, it doesn’t hold up by itself. It takes an enormous amount of energy to keep structures going, and so to maintain them, to behave in the right way when we’re inside those structures, to make sure things are done well, in inverted commas, as much on the human level as in terms of the effectiveness of what we produce. It’s an everyday energy, an everyday attentiveness. Every person who takes part in a collective commitment takes on a share of the burden of that good organisation, and that shouldn’t be neglected. When you’re part of a movement, you’re part of a movement.
Florence Dellerie: Yes, I agree with what has been said. I would have added that one of the points that seems essential to me is support for independent media. I mentioned earlier the concentration of the media, the Bolloré media, and so on. The animal question is also covered in independent media. We’ve seen it lately in Mediapart, which has started to take it up a bit, which is good; in Reporterre, in Bon Pote – well, there’s an opening. Comme un poisson dans l’eau… well, it’s not on the same scale, but do support the small independent media, the small podcasts, Poule sentimentale – there are lots of things to support. Either financially, or also by sharing the content, by talking about it, and so on. It’s really important, because the circulation of information, building your struggle too, knowing what you’re talking about and being more at ease talking about it, and so on – that’s really important.
Then, not staying alone. Taking part in Vegan Place events, in moments like this, also lets you recharge a bit, gather strength. And on that subject, really, I invite everyone to come to the March for the Closure of Slaughterhouses organised by L214 in Paris on 11 July. I think it’s a moment that is very, very, very important. Of course we won’t obtain the closure of slaughterhouses after this march – or else that would be truly incredible. But that’s not the point: the point is to carry this message into the public space, to draw media attention to the fact that there is an intrinsic problem with slaughterhouses, however they operate. And it’s also a galvanising moment. We find ourselves together, and it gives incredible strength to say to ourselves “there are 4,000 or 5,000 of us”, as was the case in the last years it took place, in 2018-2019; to find ourselves 4,000 or 5,000 strong and say to ourselves “all these people want to close the slaughterhouses” – that’s really not nothing, and it gives a lot of strength too. We need that, I think, to keep our spirits up and keep the same momentum, and so on.
So: 11 July in Paris, and counter the far right by every means, really. I think that’s one of the essential points, given what is coming and what is potentially coming in France. To fight and never to compromise with the far right: that’s my view of things, at any rate.
Orlando H. Benta: We can tend to think that our own action doesn’t count for much: there’s so much to do, and we do so little. In fact, the thing is that if everyone thinks like that, nothing happens any more at all. The movement is made up solely of lots of people doing things, small or large. And if you don’t know what to do, there will always be people to help you with that. Join collectives and just ask the question: “How can I help?” Extra hands are needed everywhere. So there will always be people to help you find your place in the movement.
Pia Shazar: And if you’re not comfortable in one place, just go somewhere else. There’s often a question of a lack of legitimacy, of feeling you lack the skills. You have to get trained. There are lots of spaces in animal advocacy circles to get trained, and outside them too, because you can train in different ways, on different subjects, to make yourself useful to the animal cause, to arrive with skills. So it’s simply that. What we’re saying is that you have to get involved, and real involvement means freeing up time, training to become competent in this or that structure. And there you are: put in the work, basically. But with joy – it’s possible.
Victor Duran-Le Peuch: Brilliant, we’ll do all that. Do you have questions to pick up on these things, on the questions of politicisation? I’m sure you have lots of questions.
Audience question: Hello everyone. Thank you for your talk, it was really interesting. It’s not really a question properly speaking; it’s more a remark that could be useful, I think, to those who want to defend animals day to day. In fact, by pure logic, we often tend to treat speciesists’ arguments as arguments, in fact. And from there the fight is almost ineffective, in so far as, since it is logically impossible to defend killing and raping animals, it’s not possible to have arguments, let’s say, in favour. Consequently, we should systematically treat speciesists’ “arguments” rather as subterfuges and insist on that, in the sense that this is not a fight of arguments versus arguments; it’s a fight of reason versus subterfuge. And from there, I think the message will get across much better, but it requires being fairly stoical and not reacting to speciesists’ “arguments”, and really insisting on the psychology of subterfuge, which, for me, is not brought to light enough. That’s all.
Florence Dellerie: To pick up on that remark, I do think it’s an important point, and one we also see in public debate, in the media, in relation to the far right: much less importance is given to truth, to the structure of arguments, to facts, to figures, on the far right and among speciesists than among people who defend equality. And we find ourselves, in fact, trying to debunk arguments that really make no sense at all, statements that are really very dangerous, and so on. And we’re also somewhat losing the media battle on that score.
And indeed, to counter that, so as not always to be reacting, a big issue is to take up room in the media space, to write op-eds, articles, to be in the media, on TV panels, in podcasts, on the radio, live, and so on, to take the space and develop our theses without having to respond to inane stuff, as you say. And one of the things we can do – Orlando was talking about social media – which is very effective, is to mention, for example under the big media outlets, under speciesist statements or things like that, the people who create content – mention Victor, mention people who create content, in fact – and encourage the media to invite those people to speak; to create networks, in fact, to promote antispeciesist comrades, organisations and so on, to say: “Invite Brigitte Gothière [co-founder of L214], in fact, if you want to talk about ethics; don’t invite the cook from wherever who’s promoting pork.” There you go.
Orlando H. Benta: In fact, the problem is precisely that they are arguments; they’re just bad arguments, that is, they’re invalid or false, because the premises they rest on are false, but they’re formalised as arguments. And the idea is indeed to optimise the time we have to speak, because in truth there’s no real belief in those arguments at all. It is indeed a device that is there just to reduce cognitive dissonance. And so it’s important to know how that cognitive dissonance works, how those reduction mechanisms can be defused, but also to know how to respond properly, that is, to identify the thesis being defended, oppose it, and so on. That really is work on rhetoric, in epistemology, in axiology, and so on.
And those are themes that are dealt with notably – if you go to our stands over there – by Raie Futée and by Yohann Hoarau of the podcast Éthique & Psycho. I very strongly recommend those two creators to begin with. I think you should watch all their content before… Well, as a baseline, if you’re antispeciesist. But of course there’s what we do with Réplique éthique, where precisely we aim to respond to the different arguments. And if you’re interested, we’ve even developed an app to save you time, to go and grab directly the videos or texts that correspond to each argument. And of course Florence’s work, with all the fact sheets on which it’s summarised – it’s very clear: “What do we answer to that?” Bang, no time wasted, on to the next thing.
Audience question: Hello. I was wondering… Earlier you talked a little about potential alliances with the right on certain subjects, particularly when it comes to votes. And the question that was raised was: so what do we give in exchange? Have you in fact noticed anything? What is in it for them, in fact, in voting for things connected with antispeciesism, or with more equality on other subjects?
Orlando H. Benta: Racism, generally. I mean, what’s going to be of interest… If, for example, we manage to get advances on slaughter, it will be because there is… – well, it may be, sorry – because behind it there’s a racist agenda that seeks to divide. We have all the populist stuff we talked about too. I just wanted to say that.
Florence Dellerie: Yes, there can also be an interest in normalisation, in “showing their credentials”, in inverted commas. That’s also what the far right does – not only the far right, but Marine Le Pen, for example, when she arrives at the National Assembly with her kittens in a carrier and explains how much she loves cats, how passionate she is, and so on. When in fact she breeds cats to preserve breeds and all that, so it’s speciesist in itself. But in any case she sells the thing as an affection for animals, and so on. It lets her polish her image, gives her a good image. Gabriel Attal has done it with his dogs. Éric Zemmour has done it with his labradors. It’s a bit of a hardy perennial of political life, showing that you love cats, dogs, and so on. What they gain from it is also popularity: they manage to normalise themselves and make themselves liked.
So that is still a big issue too, being able to say: “Look, we love animals, because we voted for this thing”, even though the measure isn’t all that significant for the animals who are really most under threat. There are also double standards there. When I see Bardella saying that slaughter without stunning is vile, on grounds of animal dignity, and at the same time promoting bullfighting… Well, there’s a paradox. And then, when he talks about slaughter without stunning, he doesn’t talk about lobsters being boiled alive. He doesn’t talk about fish, who benefit from almost no welfare measures and who are left to asphyxiate on the decks of trawlers, and so on. He doesn’t talk about that at all. He really falls back on clichés to gain popularity.
Orlando H. Benta: To give a slightly less caricatural answer than what I said before: it also provides a moral endorsement, a way of making yourself look [good] – that ties in with what you were saying – of saying: “I’m a good person, since I care about the fate of the weakest, of animals.” And I think we see this instrumentalisation elsewhere too, notably when we see how the right – and the far right, even worse, more scandalously – tries to seize on the question of the fight against antisemitism, against Judeophobia. When in fact what we get is a placebo of a struggle, which simulates interest in that legitimate struggle and which, in the end, strips it of all its substance. And [it] acts as if this were a struggle that belonged to it and that it alone was taking up, as if others didn’t care about it. I have the impression there’s somewhat the same effect with animal advocacy: “Look, we’re the good guys, since we’re doing this.”
Pia Shazar: But I’d add some more nuance regarding the fact that, in most concrete cases, what we’re trying to move forward are very small measures. What we’re putting in place are measures to enlarge the spaces for animals, for example, that kind of thing. So, beyond that – I agree with you that there’s an image interest in it – frankly, there’s also a good chance that people on the right, or even the far right, think it’s a good thing, sincerely. That’s still a factor to take into account. And when you have a whole assembly to get to vote on an item, there will also be people who are sincerely interested in this or that specific subject dealing with animals’ living conditions, even if, in other respects, they’re on the far right. That’s entirely possible.
Florence Dellerie: Yes, in any case, it’s what we were saying earlier: when we talk about a system, to begin with, there are always exceptions within the system. In the same way that Fabien Roussel is something of an exception on the left with regard to animals, there are also people who are exceptions on the far right and who pay particular attention to animals, and so on. It’s not at all incompatible. And indeed there are people who are on the right too, who are very concerned about… who are vegetarian, and so on. Well, it’s not at all incompatible. There you go.
[Inaudible question from the audience.]
Florence Dellerie: So, I think… Sorry, I didn’t hear everything. I think the question is: why stop at the far right when applying a cordon sanitaire, since the boundaries are perhaps increasingly blurred? And I’m not saying it’s simple. Yeah. Clearly, I agree that there is a continuum, and one that is increasingly confused, precisely. And there’s also a convergence with the far right on the part of parties that, at the time, were the republican right. We see it with Éric Ciotti and the whole grouping of Républicains who are moving very close to the RN and who are frankly embracing its theses, or who are even more racist than the racists. And I agree that the boundary is blurred.
So, on principle, I think it’s important to tell ourselves that we apply a cordon sanitaire. How do we apply it concretely, if only to distinguish which media…? I ask myself the question when I’m invited: which media do I agree to go on, and which media do I refuse to go on? And the answer is not that simple. For example, I’ve ruled out Le Figaro. I’ve put it on the cordon sanitaire side, because for me it’s a far-right newspaper. But that’s not everyone’s opinion, and it’s not necessarily labelled as such. I think that on the Wikipedia page for Le Figaro it doesn’t say that it’s a far-right newspaper, unlike Valeurs actuelles, for example. And likewise, on the Wikipedia page for Le Point, there are discussions: is it a far-right magazine? I think it is. But that’s an opinion backed up by the articles, the covers they run, who they promote as political figures around the world, and so on. It’s not necessarily very easy to decide. So I don’t have a really clear-cut solution for saying “this is a yes; this is a no”. It’s a bit case by case. And I agree that there’s a slide and that it’s really not obvious. I don’t have a better answer.
Victor Duran-Le Peuch: We’re going to wrap up and hand over. But we can see that it’s a really important question, and one we’ll be able to come back to in the coming months, because there’s a great deal to say about it. Thank you for your questions and for the exchanges. Many thanks to the speakers. And enjoy the rest of Vegan Place!
Florence Dellerie is an author, scientific illustrator and science communicator in France. She is co-editor of L’Amorce, a French-language journal against speciesism, and the creator of the website Questions animalistes.
Orlando H. Benta is a French communicator on questions of sentientism, the creator of the collective Réplique éthique and host of the YouTube channel of the same name.
Pia Shazar is spokesperson for the Observatoire du spécisme (Observatory of Speciesism) in Switzerland and co-author, with Fanny Vaucher, of the graphic novel ‘L’Usine du pire’.
Victor Duran-Le Peuch is the creator and host of Comme un poisson dans l’eau, a French-language podcast against speciesism, and the author of ‘En finir avec les idées fausses sur l’antispécisme’.
This round table took place on 7 June 2026 at the Vegan Place event in Nantes, France, organised by the association Nantes Vivante. The recording first appeared on Comme un poisson dans l’eau, a French-language podcast against speciesism, on 8 September 2026. The transcript has been lightly edited for readability; words in square brackets were added by the editors or the translator. Translated from the French for the Left Renewal Blog.
More content from this blog
- Pierre Vidal-Naquet’s Advocacy for Palestinian Rights: Between Support and Critique in Postcolonial France, by Nedjib Sidi Moussa – 26 January 2026
- Indonesia Is Experiencing a Serious Wave of Protests, by Andrea Ferrario – 31 August 2025
- If You’re Hunting for Nazis, Don’t Forget to Check Russia, by radical dumpling – 7 June 2026
- Sudan Drowning in Blood and Hunger, by Blade Runner – 31 October 2025
- Will the French Right Be Reborn on the Far Right?, by Philippe Marlière – 29 December 2025
Except where noted otherwise, original writing and translations produced by the Left Renewal Blog Collective are published under a Creative Commons Attribution–NonCommercial–ShareAlike 4.0 licence. Republished and translated material remains subject to the licence and terms of its original publication.