Compassionate Hockey Players and "Militant" Vegans

Canada's Globe and Mail published a story today on Georges Laraque, NHL star and -- yes -- vegan. The piece is mostly positive, but with a few annoying, condescending remarks that the journalist apparently felt obligated to get (and publish) from others in the world of hockey and one quick, three-word commentary from the journalist himself that troubled me. Here's an extract from the good parts:

No dairy, no poultry, no fish, no more leather shoes or animal byproducts, Laraque has been on a strict diet of vegetables, fruits, grains and legumes since June 1.

While he says he was partly motivated to improve his health for the hockey season, Laraque insists the decision was made primarily for political, rather than nutritional, reasons.

Everything changed, Laraque said, after he saw Earthlings, a 2006 documentary that is widely celebrated in animal-rights circles.

“It’s unconscionable what’s happening to animals in this country and the way we treat animals we eat. . . . I realized I had to make some big changes,” Laraque said.

Though Laraque said he will no longer buy leather of any kind, he hasn’t rid his closet or hockey bag of previously purchased leather products because, “that would be a further waste. And this way I don’t forget.”

OK, I may not be a great fan of hockey in general, but I'm quickly becoming a fan of this guy in particular. He goes on to give additional positive perspectives as the article continues, but I'll let you read the rest on your own.

What elicited a deep sigh from me just before the above extract, though, was how the journalist introduced Laraque: "Canadiens forward Georges Laraque, boulevardier, animal-rights activist and perhaps the most feared pugilist in the NHL, is a vegan . . . a militant one."

Really? Militant? Please, someone show me what makes him militant. The very next line was simply "No dairy, no poultry, no fish, no more leather shoes or animal byproducts." And none of this makes him a "militant" vegan; it simply makes him, um, you know, vegan.

This persistent portrayal of all consistent vegans as "militant" or "extremist," not only by the media but in some cases even by other animal advocates or self-defined vegans or vegetarians, is terribly frustrating. I've had the experience myself a few times--the experience of even those who call themselves vegan chastising me as "militant" simply for (politely) refusing their offer of food that I knew contained animal products. Vegan is vegan. And a vegan acting and eating like a vegan isn't "militant"; it's just honest and consistent. The idea behind these kinds of remarks is that in order to be a non-militant vegan, you must periodically be not a vegan at all, and that makes no sense.

Are you a militant if, as someone opposed to racism and sexism, you oppose racism and sexism all the time? Do you have to periodically tell an offensive racist joke or belittle a woman to prove you're not militant? No.

And a vegan shouldn't have to eat the cheese pizza or the cake with eggs in it or participate in any other behavior that goes against the very basics of his or her ethical beliefs just to avoid the militant label. That's ridiculous. And it's offensive.

Veganism isn't by definition "militant." It is by definition compassionate.

-----
Photo: Montreal Canadiens cupcakes, by Flickr user clevercupcakes, that someone needs to veganize for our pal Georges