AnimalRights.Net

In a recent op-ed article, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals president Ingrid Newkirk defended her organization by claiming that “PETA does not condone . . . violent acts.”

But in fact, PETA or its representatives have often rationalized or celebrated violence. Consider just a few examples:

* In the December/January 2000 issue of ‘Genre’, PETA’s Dan Mathews was asked to name men of the 20th century he admired. Mathews told the magazine he admired serial killer Andrew Cunanan, “because he got Versace to stop doing fur.”

* In 1999, an animal rights terrorist group calling itself the Justice Department sent letters booby-trapped with razor blades to medical researchers and fur farms in the United States and Canada. When asked about the letters, Newkirk said, “I hope it frightens them [the researchers] out of their careers. If experimenters feel afraid now, that’s nothing compared with the fear, harm and death they have inflicted on their victims.”

* In a new author’s note in her book about the Animal Liberation Front, ‘Free the Animals’, Newkirk writes, “Determined to cause economic injury to the exploiters, ALF members burn down their emptied buildings and smash their vehicles to smithereens. Perhaps, after reading this book, you will find that you cannot blame them.”

* In 1994, PETA donated $42,500 to the Rodney Coronado Support Committee. Coronado is an animal rights terrorist who in 1995 pleaded guilty to firebombing a medical research facility at Michigan State University.

* In fact, Newkirk herself has expressed a wish to carry out arson. At a 1997 animal rights convention she said, “I wish we all would get up and go into the labs and take the animals out or burn them down.” In 1999 she expanded on that sentiment, telling the ‘Chronicle of Higher Education’, “I find it small wonder that the laboratories aren’t all burning to the ground. If I had more guts, I’d light a match.”

When Newkirk claims that PETA does not condone violent acts, what she really means is that it is more convenient at the moment to pretend that PETA doesn’t condone criminal acts. This is a pretty common animal rights tactic – never let principles or the truth get in the way.

But why do PETA and other groups sympathize with and celebrate violence? Because they’re losing their war against animal use, and they know it.

Don’t take my word for it. That’s the conclusion of PETA’s Bruce Friedrich. In 1998 animal rights activist Freeman Wicklund wrote an article for ‘Animal’s Agenda’ arguing that the animal rights movement should adopt a non-violent approach modeled on Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr.

Friedrich responded with an essay calling Wicklund’s views “obscene.” According to Friedrich, there are so few animal rights activists and such concerted opposition to the movement’s goals that a nonviolent strategy will never work.

Instead, “Direct action which utilizes a broader range of tactics, including secrecy and sabotage, is far more challenging, and, consequently, more effective… Considering the power of our opposition, can you imagine where we would be without surprise direct actions and the secrecy required for so much of what we do?”

When it first arrived on the scene, PETA and other animal rights groups were new and exotic and received press coverage far disproportionate to their numbers and usually very sympathetic.

As the 1990s wore on, however, the protests started receiving less attention and reporters began to view the animal rights movement more critically.

At the same time, it became apparent that while many Americans were rightly concerned about issues related to animal welfare, for the most part, people were unwilling to take that concern to the extremes demanded by some in the animal rights movement.

Even PETA’s own celebrity spokespeople can’t stay on message. Mary Tyler Moore shows up to oppose fur but then turns around and lobbies Congress for money to fund research on juvenile diabetes – research which will inevitably include animal experiments.

Like many political movements that have seen their progress thwarted, many in the animal rights movement now see violent acts as a legitimate and necessary tactic to further their agenda.

Even relatively successful groups such as PETA feel the need to rationalize, if not support or defend, such violence. And it matters not whether people suffer physical injury in such assaults. To debate the meaning of violence is akin to debating the meaning of ‘is.’

Newkirk may have devoted much time and money to saving pets in the wake of the World Trade Center attack, but she seems to have little, if any, regard for the medical researchers, farmers and others whose lives and livelihood are threatened by animal rights violence.

In a recent article, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals‘ Ingrid Newkirk claimed that her group does not condone violence. Really? Then why did Bruce Friedrich tell a group at the Animal Rights 2001 Conference that while he doesn’t “blow up stuff,”

…I do advocate it, and I think it’s a great way to bring about animal liberation.

Thanks to the folks at the Guest Choice Network you can hear Friedrich in his own words. They have a 1 megabyte WAV file of Friedrich going on at lenght about the glories of animal rights terrorism. You can download it at http://www.guestchoice.com/downloads/peta_quote.wav

The Animal Liberation Front claimed credit this week for breaking into and damaging a laboratory facility owned by Sierra Biomedical, but a spokesman for the company says it believes that a current or former employee is likely responsible for the damage.

Sierra Biomedical spokesman Christopher DiFrancesco told the Associated Press that the company suspects an insider because a) the terrorists knew how to bypass the security system, and b) some areas of the lab appeared to have been deliberately left untouched.

While the ALF claimed it destroyed virtually ever piece of equipment in the lab, DiFrancesco said that in fact only about 25 percent of the equipment was damaged and there was little or no destruction of research.

Police and the FBI are currently fingerprinting and interviewing current and former employees of the lab, but have made no arrests.

Source:

Lab thinks employee probably the vandal. Ben Fox, Associated Press, November 14, 2001.

A New York-based animal rights group called Wildlife Watch is attempting to exploit the 9/11 terrorist attacks to push its anti-hunting agenda. According to Wildlife Watch, terrorists could use hunting season to launch terrorist attacks (I’m not making this up).

According to Wildlife Watch’s Anne Muller, hunting “is just a wonderful opportunity for someone who would want to do a terrorist act. They don’t have to report their whereabouts and can be lurking anywhere. They can lurk in groups.” The group elaborated on that view in a press release saying,

Armed and camouflaged individuals can get close to chemical, agricultural, business facilities, gas pipelines, electrical powerlines, substations, transformers and airports. Local police and environmental conservation officers will merely slough off concerns saying that the individuals are ‘just hunting.’

For its part, the New York Department of Environmental Conservation understands the real message that Wildlife Watch is trying to communicate. “We take our direction from law enforcement professionals, not groups that would attempt to use the war on terrorism to advance their own agenda,” said spokesman Peter Constant.

Wildlife Watch posted a message on an animal rights e-mail list recently asking people to send letters to various New York officials demanding a suspension of the hunting season, which is scheduled to begin on Nov. 19. It included a sample letter which, among other things, said,

Hunting is not a necessity, true subsistence hunters (those who depend on the meat) are less than 1/10th of 1% of the population. Because the wildlife management agencies are benefiting, and their bureaucratic survival depends on the use of firearms and ammunition, it is they who are putting the rest of us at risk. Their claim that hunting conditions pose no threat to the welfare of society is self-serving and doesn’t allow us to prevent against possible terrorist occurrences.

Actually, from here it seems like the animal rights activists who are desperately trying to convince the public that they are still relevant.

Source:

N.Y. wildlife group calls hunting a terror threat. Fox News, November 10, 2001.

Letters needed to suspend hunting in NY State. Wildlife Watch, e-mail communication, November 14, 2001.

The Animal Liberation Front claimed responsibility yesterday for a break-in at a Sierra Biomedical Facility in San Diego, California.

In a press release, the ALF claimed it entered the building and spent “several hours” smashing equipment and destroying files. According to the communique,

No high-price contract is worth murder nor is it worth what the ALF will do to stop these murders. We were thorough and determined, they will not soon recover from our visit.

Source:

ALF Destroys equipment at San Diego Lab. Frontline Information Service, November 12, 2001.

As a number of newspapers have recently pointed out, the animal rights terrorists hardly paused at all after the 9/11 attacks to resume their criminal ways. While People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and other groups at least temporarily decided to tone things down, the Animal Liberation Front and Earth Liberation Front have continued their methods of arson and property destruction designed to intimidate those working in animal enterprises.

Writing in the Daily Telegraph, Alexander Chancellor hit the nail on the head in describing the sort of people who continue to wage this war of terrorism,

Animal rights spokesmen claim that such actions constitute neither violence nor terrorism, but are aimed at saving the lives of animals and will continue until animal “blood stops spilling.” Such people have always been much less concerned about the spilling of human blood, which may explain why they not allowed the thousands of deaths on September 11 to affect their behavior.

Well put.

Source:

Footnote. Alexander Chancellor, The Daily Telegraph, November 13, 2001.

Ananova reported last week that some wildlife experts are afraid that parents will run out and buy owls as Christmas gifts after seeing ‘Harry Potter and the Sorceror’s Stone.’ A spokesman for the Raptor Foundation told the The Mirror,

We’re very concerned youngsters may want snowy owls as pets. You don’t need any qualifications to buy one – just money.

Anyone who would buy an owl on a whim after seeing the ‘Harry Potter’ movie is an idiot who has a lot more problems than just a high maintenance raptor.

Source:

Wildlife experts fear Harry Potter will spark owl pet craze. Ananova, November 10, 2001.

With the 2002 World Cup slated to take place in South Korea and Japan, Fifa — football’s governing body — is pressuring South Korea to take actions against the eating of dogs.

According to the BBC, during the 1988 Seoul Olympics South Korea outright banned restaurants that served dog meat, but a soup made from dog meat is very popular.

It is unclear from the BBC story whether Fifa objects to dog meat itself or only to the sometimes cruel methods used to prepare and kill dogs used for food. Either way, someone might want to point out to Fifa that the leather used to create the official World Cup soccer balls is also produced under conditions which many animal rights activists consider to be cruel.

Source:

S Korea dog meat row deepens. The BBC, November 12, 2001.

Reaction to Barry Horne’s death from animal rights activists was swift and predictable — Horne was a hero and his death will likely inspire more violent actions against people in animal industries.

Ronnie Lee, founder of the Animal Liberation Front, said, “I think there are some people who would regard him as a martyr. Everyone in the animal rights movement feels a combination of sadness and anger over his death. That includes people whose thing is to carry out personal actions on animal rights abusers.”

Andrew Tyler, director of Animal Aid, said he did not condone arson but called Horne a “thoroughly dedicated anti-vivisectionist.”

Robin Webb, current ALF spokesman, said, “Barry has given his life. It will harden people’s resolve. … I can’t predict what will happen but people are becoming angry and I belive this will make them angrier. Some people are becoming more radical still.”

Scriptwriter and animal rights activist Carla Lane said, “I don’t believe in violence, arson, or anything like that, but I believe in why Barry did what he did. I hope he will make others think more deeply about it, because if someone is prepared to give their life they must have seen something that was deeply, deeply upsetting to them.”

And Kevin Jonas of Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty, weighed in to predict that violent actions would escalate. “He was a household name for animal rights activists around the world,” Jonas said. “I can only predict that his death is going to spark a reaction.”

Companies and police in Great Britain are reportedly already preparing for an increase in animal rights related terrorism following Horne’s death. During his last hunger strike, the Animal Rights Militia issued a list of 10 people it claimed it would kill if Horne died. Given the outpouring of love for such a violent individual, don’t expect the activists to pull their punches.

Sources:

Police alert after animal rights bomber dies on hunger strike. Richard Ford, The Times (London), November 6, 2001.

Animal rights activist dies after hunger strike. Ian Burrell, The Independent (London), November 6, 2001.

Interview. The Guardian (London), November 6, 2001.

Animal activists mourn their martyr dies in hunger strike: Firebomber dies after fourth hunger strike bid to change vivisection policy. Sarah Hall, The Guardian (London), November 6, 2001.

Companies on alert after death of activist: Animal rights group wars of violence. Jimmy Burns and David Firn, The Financial Times (London), November 6, 2001.

Firebomber dies on hunger strike. Philip Johnston, The Daily Telegraph (London), November 6, 2001.

It’s long been a staple of science fiction — cure a disease such as diabetes by injecting extremely tiny nanotech machines into the body that will automatically regulate insulin level. Now, however, thanks to medical research with animals, this scenario is now science fact and likely to head to tests in human beings within a few years.

Bioengineering researcher Tejal Desai has managed to create a nanotech device that essentially cures rats afflicted with diabetes. Desai’s method involves injecting the diabetic mice with extremely small machines that contain insulin-producing cells.

The major obstacle to such an approach is that the bodies of both animals and human beings will launch an immune system attack against the insulin-producing cells. Desai gets around this by including tiny pores in the nanomachine that are only 7 nanometers across — wide enough to allow insulin to leave the nanomachine, but too small for antibodies to invade and attack.

Once in the bloodstream, the nanomachines should last a lifetime, meaning an insulin nanomachine would essentially be a cure for diabetes.

Desai’s next step will be long-term studies of her insulin nanomachines in small animals, followed by tests on larger animals such as chimpanzees.

Source:

Tiny capsules float downstream. Kristen Philipkoski, Wired, October 29, 2001.