(from 12-24 onwards): Policy Decision

In the last phase, about a month after the press release of Wakker Dier, the state secretary declares that the use of the calf puller is allowed under restrictions. In her argumentation she points out the calf puller is supportive for both the cow and the farmers. Both groups celebrate this decision as a victory, and as a consequence of their efforts. Wakker Dier stresses the restrictions to the use of the calf puller: ‘State Secretary Dijksma demands restrictions for the use of the calf puller; now the tool is used illicitly and without control’. The sector on the other hand stresses that the use of the calf puller by farmers is finally legalized. The most influential tweet comes from a PR professional:

‘The fact that Dijksma finds calf puller OK, is thanks to all farmers that told their honest and real story on (social) media’. The attention for the issue fades out, but The Facebook page continues to function as an important platform for farmers to critique Wakker Dier.

In this phase, disputant on both sides frame their own group as winner and recapture their main frame: farmers stress their collective action on social media and their honest and true stories, while Wakker Dier stresses the illegal use and the policy decision as a result of their action. There is almost no interaction between the groups.

130

Chapter 5

back to Table of Contents 2. The Calf Separation Issue and the #CalfLove Movement

Phase 1 (1-19 till 3-11): Animal Rights Activism and Parliamentary Questions

The consequences of the increased milk production after the end of the milk quote in April 2015 was a topic of public debate, which led to an investigatory documentary “top-sport in the milk industry”

(Zembla, 2015) and a parliamentary debate on January 27, 2016 (dertig-leden debate). Both in the documentary and the debate, one of the issues brought forward was the separation of the calf and cow right after birth. The motion of the Political Party for Animals to make a plan for keeping the calf with the cow after birth was accepted by the majority of the parliament on 9 February.

The accepted motion is celebrated by animal right advocates on Twitter and Facebook. There is little response from the agrarian community, but the next day LTO (Dutch Federation of Agriculture and Horticulture) post a messages stressing that ‘farmers want the best for their calves’, which is shared among farmers and professionals in the agricultural sector. The second day after the accepted motion both groups ask their adherents for support, mobilization and action: animal right advocates are asked to let a national newspaper know that ‘calves should stay with their mother cow’ and farmers are asked to share their ‘honest and true story’ on social media. Up until this moment, there is little interaction between the two groups, and they do not name or blame each other. However, on the evening of February 11, a woman farmer sends an open letter to Marianne Thieme, the leader of the Party for Animals, which gets widely shared. In this letter, she writes how Thieme’s action affects her emotionally because of the negative portrayal of farmers (‘you made me angry and sad’), emphasizes that farmers can be trusted (‘we care for our cows with love, knowledge and skills’) and makes a normative appeal (‘I would like to see the government decide on this issue based on facts, not emotions’).

131 Using Emotions to Frame Issues and Identities in Conflict

5

back to Table of Contents

This triggers a dispute between farmers and animal rights advocates. Both claim that animal welfare is their central concern, but they frame animal welfare in different ways. Similar to the calf puller case, animal right advocates portray the farming practice as part of an immoral industrial farming system; framing economic interest and unnatural labor practices as binary opposites of animal welfare. The natural-frame is mostly used as a heuristic device to make sense of animal welfare (‘is the calf with cow a mistake of mother nature?’) and to stress the shortcomings of opponents (‘farmers do not understand a thing about the nature of cow and calf’). In this frame, disputant make comparisons with humans, and their personal experience (e.g. their care for their child).

Ecologists get involved as experts about nature (in the wild), while farmers present themselves as experts on the farm. Disputants on both sides invite opponents to come and have a look at a farm that practices what they preach (that does or does not separate calves), implying their access to an objective truth for the out-group to see for themselves. Moreover, farmers establish a frame in which emotion is directly opposed to animal welfare. This is constructed by a widely used phrase on Twitter “it is a choice between animal welfare or emotion - we go for the first”. In parallel, emotions are literally opposed to facts: “this is about emotion vs. facts”. Taken together, emotion – as a discursive category – is considered to be in contrast with animal welfare and facts.

In sum, although the parties express distinct opinions about the policy solution and responsibilities, there is no interaction initially. An open letter of a woman farmer triggers the dispute between farmers and animal right advocates. Both parties claim that animal welfare is their central concern, but use issue-frames to ‘make a difference’ by implicating identity-frames (e.g. this is a matter of nature, and I am an ecologist, so I am right). However, there is little blaming and labelling in this phase and social media activity gradually declines. State Secretary Van Dam announced to wait for a research report before his decision.

Phase 2 (3-11 till 4-22): Farmers’ Movement: #CalfLove

About a month after the accepted motion, a group of dairy women farmers who frequently interact on closed Facebook communities (‘koeienboerinnen’) organise a collective action and petition. They present themselves as ‘Women farmers’ and use the collective action frame ‘#kalverliefde’ (literally:

Calf-Love), which is a common Dutch expression used to refer to juvenile love. According to one of the leaders: ’politicians were already responding too much out of emotions, but this was the last straw that made us decide to take action’ (Karin van der Toorn). They use a common catchphrase

‘we give our calves the best start, this motion hits us within our heart’. The political party CDA express their moral support and sectoral and private organisations (NMV, LTO) provide strategic and financial support. On March 15 the woman farmers present their petition at the parliament in

132

Chapter 5

back to Table of Contents Den Haag. #CalfLove becomes number 1 trending topic on Twitter in the Netherlands and triggers peak Facebook and news media attention. Their speech in Den Hague receives news media attention and is widely shared and commented on social media. In this speech they stress their identity (‘you will understand that we, woman farmers, mothers, modern woman, came here today’), how they care for their animals (‘it would hurt us deeply to take away the calf from its mother only after some time’) and make an appeal to politicians (‘listen to experts-by-experience before you decide based on emotional and political appealing grounds’).

Although the movement targets politicians, animal right advocates massively respond on social media, contesting the sincerity of the emotions that the farmers express (‘woman farmers heart or hard for cows?’ and ‘so-called love’). In return, woman farmers blame animal right advocates for being irrational (handling out of emotions) and deceptive (making use of emotions in communication strategies), and generally condemn the ‘emo-debate’. Moreover, they again stress that they share the real, honest and true story, and that vegans do not know. Animal right advocates directly oppose this by calling their companions to also use #CalfLove and reveal the ‘real TRUTH’.

The parties thus make use of similar frames and contest who is most credible.