In late March 2017, major media outlets (Huffington Post, El Mundo, El País, Público, Antena 3, Tele 5, etc.) reported that “a vegan restaurant in Tarragona does not allow bottles of cow's milk.” The culinary skills and ethics of this restaurant were overshadowed by the deliberately generated controversy, which aimed to tarnish the image of the animal rights movement.
If the media wanted to link veganism with intransigence, intolerance, and fanaticism, it seems the El Vergel restaurant had handed it to them on a silver platter. A customer, upon entering the establishment with her baby, found a sign on the door asking mothers not to give bottles of cow's milk inside and offering plant-based baby drinks. Inside the restaurant, she saw similar signs. Despite this, she decided to give her baby a bottle of cow's milk. When the owner reprimanded her, she responded by expressing her outrage via Twitter. The social media conflict spread to the mainstream media. The central question of the debate was: "Is there anything crueler than closing the doors of an establishment to a mother and her baby?" "Is there anything more tyrannical than imposing your diet on a baby?"
Ángel Martín, the restaurant owner, tried to express his position through the same social network, but his messages and arguments only worsened the situation.He was eventually forced to close all his social media accounts.
On the Aula Animal Facebook page, we shared the news, and although, as expected, the messages supporting the restaurant were in the majority, the owner was also accused of intolerance. The sentiment of those who rejected the measure is reflected in the comment left by Naida Svenseshe: “I think it’s wrong because you can’t ask for tolerance and respect for your decision to be vegan if you don’t learn to respect others’ decisions. Besides… maybe that woman isn’t breastfeeding her baby because she can’t, not because she doesn’t want to, and… no vegan is banned from entering an omnivorous restaurant where vegan dishes are also available…”
But was it Ángel Martín who disrespected the mother and her baby, or was it the mother who disrespected Ángel's desire for his establishment to be free of animal exploitation? Why did the mother have to go to a vegan restaurant and—despite the signs posted inside and outside the establishment and despite being able to choose any other restaurant in the city—decide to give her baby a bottle of milk from another mother and later launch an attack against the restaurant on social media?
Rosa Alías responded as follows: “I am neither vegetarian nor vegan, but I agree with the restaurant; it is a private establishment and they have their rules. The mother already knew it was a vegan restaurant, and what's more, they have a photo on the restaurant door that clearly explains it.”
Another person shared a photo of the restaurant's exterior sign, which read: “Moms and babies. In this restaurant, we respect all mothers, of all species. Therefore, you can breastfeed your child or give them expressed breast milk, but no bottles containing cow's milk or milk from any other non-human animal. We have a plant-based alternative. Ask us! Please cooperate by complying with this rule in our establishment.”
No parece el mensaje que dejaría una persona intransigente que pretende imponer nada a los demás. Simplemente parece el mensaje de una persona que se preocupa por todas las madres, sin prejuicios de especie y que pide educadamente que en su establecimiento la gente no lleve a cabo conductas de explotación animal.
However, being right isn't always enough. Many people are bothered by veganism because it challenges their way of life. Therefore, they seize any opportunity to attack and discredit it. The same events wouldn't have generated interest if the restaurant hadn't been vegan, because it's generally accepted that—with extreme exceptions—when you voluntarily enter a private establishment, you must accept the rules of the person running it. The problem, then, is veganism itself, as it's a practical way of questioning the privileges we have over animals of other species.
The animal rights movement either didn't know how or couldn't turn the news in favor of the animals. Those who wanted to undermine the animal rights movement achieved their goal. The debate revolved around the totalitarian nature of some vegans and the harm done to the mother and her baby. No one offered a different perspective. No one suggested that this mother was asserting her right to exploit another mother in a more vulnerable situation. No one pointed out that Ángel Martín's intention was precisely to defend the mother in the worst situation. And this wasn't done because that other mother isn't recognized as such. In this society, she isn't an individual who should be respected; she's a product to serve us.
In reality, the most influential organizations didn't even try to steer the debate back in defense of cows. Rather, they fled the conflict. And they can't be blamed for that, because it was a losing battle from the start, and they know that if they want to defend animals, they must preserve a public image that has taken a great deal of effort to build.
We live in a society that doesn't understand why someone would ask for the same respect for cows as we recognize for humans, and that's why, although El Vergel's measure was sensible, in practice it has backfired on both the restaurant and the animals.
These situations can also occur in our daily lives. Let's suppose that for the birthday of the young daughter of a vegan family, they decide to invite her friends. The family prepares a large assortment of tapas and a big vegan cake. But the family of one of the invited girls decides that their daughter can't eat vegan food, not even for a snack. And the girl shows up to the celebration with a sandwich made with pork.
It will undoubtedly be an absurd situation because anyone can eat a vegan diet that is just as healthy, or even healthier, than a non-vegan. And even if that weren't the case, no one will be harmed by having a vegan snack, or even by skipping it altogether. The vegan family will have plenty of reasons to tell the other family that they don't want animals served as food at the celebration they're organizing. But the potential consequences should also be considered.
However well it is explained, the other attendees will not understand why one girl's family would prevent another girl from eating her sandwich, and a celebration that could serve to show that vegan food can be healthy and delicious at the same time, for all ages, can turn into a discussion where veganism appears as a source of conflict and an imposition.
Just as it would be difficult to understand requiring guests to remove their leather shoes at this hypothetical celebration, some people will find it hard to understand being denied the freedom to eat products of animal exploitation in a private setting. The problem, therefore, is knowing how to draw the line, taking into account not only what is most consistent with anti-speciesist ideals, but also what attitudes are best for animals in the social reality in which we live.
When our animal welfare measures affect the most vulnerable members of society, especially babies and children, we must be particularly careful and more flexible in setting boundaries. Sometimes, the most consistent approach is to be inconsistent.