Tag Archives: Alex Hershaft

Paul Watson Attempts Takeover of the Sierra Club

Posted on by
Reply

Paul Watson\’s announcement last summer at AR 2003 that he was just three seats away from controlling the board of the Sierra Club suddenly started getting a lot of media attention in early 2004 as the Sierra Club\’s April election deadline comes closer.

The Sierra Club, of course, has a $95 million budget which Watson wants to control in order to push his agenda. According to the Center for Consumer Freedom, Watson said at that time,

One of the reasons that I\’m on the, um, the Sierra Club board of directors right now is to try and change it Â… we\’re only three directors away from controlling that board. We control one-third of it right now. And, uh, once we get three more directors elected, the Sierra Club will not, no longer be pro-hunting and pro-trapping and we can use the resources of the $95-million-a-year budget to address some of these issues. And the heartening thing about it is that, in the last election, of the 750,000 members of the Sierra Club, only 8 percent of them voted. So, you know, a few hundred, or a few thousand people from the animal rights movement joining the Sierra Club — and making it a point to vote — will change the entire agenda of that organization.

According to Sierra Club executive director Carl Pope, about 18 percent of Sierra Club members fish or hunt, and Pope worries that those individuals would be driven from the organization and that it would end up marginal,

It\’s important to have hunters and fisherman in the Sierra Club. We are a big-tent organization. We want the Sierra Club to be a big-tent organization. We want the Sierra Club to be a comfortable place for Americans who want clean air, clean water, and to protect America\’s open spaces.

The most amusing commentary on the controversy came from FARM USA\’s Alex Hershaft who distributed a letter charging that it was, in fact, the hunters and fisherman who were trying to take over the Sierra Club rather than vice versa. According to Hershaft,

The Sierra Club, with 750,000 members and a $95 million annual budget, is being hijacked by the hunting, trapping, and fishing cadres in the forthcoming Board election. Their leaders have been urging members to join the Sierra Club in droves. We can not do any less.

Hershaft parted ways with reality long ago, so this claim should not surprise anyone.

According to Hershaft the three candidates the animal rights activists want to win are activists Kim McCoy and Robert Roy van de Hoek as well as Cornell University Professor David Pimentel.

Pimentel is part of the other group that is trying to hijack the Sierra Club — an organized effort by right wingers and extreme environmentalists to turn the Sierra Club into an anti-immigration organization. A few years ago this coalition managed to put up to a vote by the members a proposed anti-immigration stance that they wanted the Sierra Club would take, but that failed. Along with Dick Lamm and Frank Morris and promoted by racist web sites like VDARE.Org, the anti-immigration effort has also seen the Southern Poverty Law Center\’s Morris Dees enter his name as a candidate for the board in order to protest and highlight the anti-immigration effort.

Sources:

Keep the Sierra Club Out of Hunters\’ Clutches! Letter, Alex Hershaft, January 23, 2004.

Sierra Club: Ever More Radical. Center for Consumer Freedom, September 4, 2003.

Share

20th Annual World Farm Animals Day

Posted on by
Reply

Farm USA\’s Alex Hershaft recently distributed a press release announcing the 20th annual celebration of World Farm Animals Day. The release had an odd title, \”Activists bring the slaughterhouse to America\’s streets.\” Is that some sort of commentary on the movement\’s penchant for terrorism and destruction? Hershaft has, after all, made it clear that activists who espouse violence are more than welcome at his annual animal rights convention, and no sort of criticism of such activists will be permitted therein.

The press release was filled with several dubious claims, but smartly avoided publishing any statistics on the number of farm animals killed in 1983, when the event began, to 20 years later

When World Farm Animals Day began in 1983, Americans ate a total of 180.9 pounds of meat per capita every year. For 2003, the USDA projects Americans will eat 193.6 pounds of meat per capita. But, of course, for farm animals the situation is (from Farm USA\’s perspective) far worse.

Beef consumption during those 20 years declined from 74.2 pounds in 1983 to an estimated 62.0 pounds in 2003. The problem, of course, is that this means total chicken consumption skyrocketed from 34.5 pounds in 1983 to an estimated 53.3 pounds in 2003 — and it takes a lot more chickens to provide that additional 18.8 pounds of meat than it does cattle. The total number of farm animals has exploded just in the United States.

Yet, according to Farm USA,

Growing awareness of the adverse health consequences of meat consumption, including the largest recall of ground beef contaminated with E. coli, is driving consumers to meat alternatives offered by mainstream producers in local supermarkets.

Certainly there is a rise in the popularity of vegan and vegetarian products, but Farm USA makes the mistake of associating that with a total rejection of meat, which is simply not happening (my family, I suspect, is typical — we buy plenty of meat substitutes along with our chicken and turkey).

Moreover current estimates put the total number of farm animals worldwide as likely doubling this century as the per capita incomes in the underdeveloped world increase to developed world levels.

Farm USA also makes this odd warning about foot and mouth disease,

The foot-and-mouth and mad cow epidemics have devastated the European meat industry and threaten to have a similar effect in the U.S.

But, of course, the foot-and-mouth and mad cow epidemics have been a boon for American animal agriculture which has been exporting meat to make up for the problems in Europe. Neither Mad Cow nor foot-and-mouth have yet to rear their heads in the United States despite the wishful thinking of some animal rights activists.

It won\’t be too long before Hershaft is issuing the press release for the 30th and then the 40th and so on observances of World Farm Animals Day.

Source:

Activists bring the slaughterhouse to America\’s street. Farm USA, August 25, 2002.

Share

Alex Hershaft: No Room for Feminist Protesters, But Open Arms for Terrorists

Posted on by
Reply

Alex Hershaft had a problem — the discussion board set up on VegSource.Com to serve as a place for activists to talk about their memories of Animal Rights 2002 was being dominated by a debate by remarks made by Howard Lyman and the appropriateness of campaigns by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals which use sex to sell the animal rights message.

So Hershaft did what most people in groups try to do when faced with internal dissent — try to focus that anger back at a common foe. So on Monday, July 15, Hershaft posted the text of an op-ed by David Martosko, who is director of research at the Center for Consumer Freedom. But that article and Hershaft\’s ensuing comments raised more problems and questions than they answered.

That was an odd choice because Martosko\’s main point was that animal rights violence and terrorism is a mainstream part of the movement, and there was no better example of the truth of this than that advocates of violence were given prominent platforms at AR 2002. Martosko wrote, for example,

One such miscreant is actually a fugitive from justice. Paul Watson, who runs the misleadingly-named Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, made over a half-dozen speeches at AR2002, despite his continued defiance of a warrant for his arrest in Costa Rica. Watson, whose own ship has a bow filled with cement (for ramming and sinking other boats), openly advocated the baseball-bat approach to conflict resolution, telling the audience: \”The fact is that we live in an extremely violent culture, and we all justify violence if itÂ’s for what we believe in.\” In another session, ominously titled \”Direct Tactics,\” Watson advised the assembled activists that \”ThereÂ’s nothing wrong with being a terrorist, as long as you win.\”

Other memorable moments from AR2002 included former Animal Liberation Front (ALF) \”spokesperson\” Kevin Jonas embracing the T-word (\”TodayÂ’s terrorist is tomorrowÂ’s freedom fighter\”) and encouraging more activists to cross the line into lawbreaking: \”Why should any one of us feel that ‘it shouldn\’t be me taking that brick and chucking it through that window?Â’\” he implored. \”Why shouldnÂ’t I be going to that fur farm down the road and opening up those cages? ItÂ’s not hard; it doesn\’t take a rocket scientist. You don\’t need a 4-year degree to call in a bomb hoax.\” Jonas (sometimes spelled \”Kjonaas\”) was profiled in yesterdayÂ’s Philadelphia Inquirer, defending his group and its violent actions. \”I don\’t feel any sympathy for people in England or America who have had their cars tipped or torched,\” he offered, \”because those cars were paid for out of blood money.\”

To Hershaft, apparently, Martosko\’s highlighting of the advocates of violence at AR2002 is representative of the real adversaries the animal rights movement faces.

This post by Hershaft brought a quick response by animal rights activist Dean Smith who was also one of the speakers at AR 2002. In a post titled, \”Our \”adversary\” has a point\”, Smith wrote,

Like it or not, the comments at AR2002 encouraging the use of violence as a means for achieving animal liberation could very well have been the impetus for the actions referenced in this article. The main point of the panel was to encourage this type of action, violent and otherwise. Why do we run away when violent acts occur and act as if they weren\’t encouraged by movement leaders (tacitly and otherwise).

. . .

Both Dan Murphy in his recent column and the columnist referenced here are right to criticize our movement for violent actions. I personally wish that more leaders in this movement would have the fortitude to do so as well.

A couple others chimed in with agreement, and one, identified only as \”Ali M\”, put the question about terrorism and animal rights to Hershaft directly,

Alex, I\’m confused about the message behind your post. What are you saying about animal rights activists who break the law? What are you saying about animal rights terrorists? There is a very clear distinction between breaking the law & being a terrorist. I hope you are not suggesting otherwise. Who are you saying is \”our real adversaries?\” Please respond.

Hershaft replied with a curt, chilling message,

From: AlexH. (pool-138-88-95-208.res.east.verizon.net)

Subject: Our real adversaries are consumerfreedom.com …

Date: July 15, 2002 at 3:26 pm PST

In Reply to: Re: Lest we forget our real adversaries posted by Ali M on July 15, 2002 at 2:26 pm:

… and their fellow shills for the meat, dairy, research, and animal oppressing industries. Since the people attacked in the editorial were my plenary speakers, I didn\’t realize my post required clarification.

For Hershaft, then, the real adversaries of the animal rights movement are those outside of it who dare criticize activists like Paul Watson and Kevin Jonas for their endorsement of violence. To Hershaft, people like Jonas are not dangerous advocates of violence but rather \”my plenary speakers.\”

In Hershaft\’s vision of the animal rights movement, feminists who go up on stage to read a statement in protest of an award given to a beauty pageant winner are divisive and may be banned from future animal rights conferences. Those who openly advocate violence, however, are not only welcome, but the real adversaries to the movement are those, like Martosko, who simply report about how the animal rights movement tolerates and encourages violent extremism.

This is the same Hershaft who earlier this year complained that people ignored instructions at Animal Rights 2001 and brought their dogs, complaining that the Hilton was angry about this and he needed to keep the event at the Hilton because \”we are trying to project a middle class image.\” It\’s hard to tell where he thinks bomb hoaxes, property discussion and arson fit into a \”middle class image.\”

Sources:

Animal-rights fanatics: Doctor Dolittle gone bad. David Martosko, Seattle Times, July 15, 2002.

Lest we forget our real adversaries. Alex Hershaft, VegSource.Com, July 15, 2002.

Our \”adversary\” has a point. Dean Smith, VegSource.Com, July 15, 2002.

Yes. \”Sydney\”, VegSource.Com, July 15, 2002.

Re: Lest we forget our real adversaries. \”Ali M.\”, VegSource.Com, July 15, 2002.

Our real adversaries are consumerfreedom.com …. Alex Hershaft, VegSource.Com, July 15, 2002.

Share

Problems at AR 2002

Posted on by
Reply

This year, as he did last year, Alex Hershaft moderated an AR 2002 \”memory board\” on VegSource.Com to allow activists to reminisce about the event. The main topic of discussion, however, centered around a group of women at the event who were offended by comments that Howard Lyman made prior to the July 2 keynote.

As Hershaft relates the story,

On the evening of Tuesday, July 2, the MC was in a jocular mood. He talked about my being willing to dye my hair purple and to put rings through my nose if that\’s what it took to attract young people. Later, in introducing Natasha Allas, Miss World USA 2000, he said: \”There have been a number of speakers at this conference who have alluded to the shape of the movement … I would like to introduce to you, as the ideal shape of the movement, Natasha Allas, Miss World USA, the shape of the movement.\” Later, as Actress Charlotte Ross was leaving the stage, he added \”Is there a bit of a doubt in your mind about the shape of the movement. To show you that there is room for improvement, I stand in front of you.\”

These comments caused several activists to leave the room and apparently angrily denounced Lyman\’s comments as sexist. Apparently while the keynote speech was still going on, seven of the individual walked on stage and read a statement attacking Lyman and sexism in the animal rights movement. They then started a petition among AR 2002 attendees which gathered about 200 signatures.

Hershaft writes that,

At the closing plenary the next day, I made a statement that expressed my sincere regret, as organizer of the conference, that the remarks offended some people and noted that sexism has no place at the AR2002 conference. I also stated that the subsequent disruption was self-indulgent, and deeply disrespectful and offensive to the MC, to me, to the Conference, and to the other participants.

On the AR2002 memory board, Hershaft announced that one of the women who was involved in this, Barbara Chang, was banned from attending AR2003 for her disruptive actions. For her part, Chang says she is working on a \”Boycott AR2003\” web site.

The best comment about the controversy, however, noted that it was a bit telling that the assembled activists were apparently more offended by Lyman\’s \”shape of the movement\” comments than they were by Peter Singer\’s comments about killing human infants.

Source:

AR 2002 Memory Board. VegSource.Com, July 2002.

Share

Should Animal Rights Advocates Start Promoting Beef?

Posted on by
Reply

Earlier this week I mentioned that I though the veggie burger being offered by Burger King was doomed to failure — despite claims by some overenthusiastic vegans and vegetarians, there is no great movement among the general population to foreswear meat. This is confirmed, ironically, by statistics from animal rights activists themselves.

Alex Hershaft, who had posted to an animal rights e-mail list about the importance of Burger King veggie burger, also recently posted statistics to the same e-mail list demonstrating why the veggie burger will fail.

In 1980, per capita consumption of meat in the United Stats was 196 pounds. By 1990, that had risen to 201 pounds, and in 2001 hit 209 pounds, according to the USDA Economic Research Service.

Consumption in beef and pork products are expected to decline somewhat over the next 10 years, but largely because people are expected to eat more chicken and turkey.

Hershaft tries to spin the change as also being due to increased vegetarian/vegan options,

Consumption is now leveling off, reflecting market saturation and increase consumer interest in meat alternatives like veggie burgers, soy dogs, and soy lunch \’meats.\’

The reality is, however, that after 20 years of trying to convince Americans to adopt vegetarian lifestyles, the animal rights movement hasn\’t even made a small dent in meat consumption, with the biggest consumer change being eating more chicken and turkey rather than beef and pork.

Ironically, the switch to chicken and turkey will mean a massive increase in the total number of animals killed. Assuming the USDA is correct in its estimates here is how the numbers would change over the next ten years (these are very rough estimates intended only to show the magnitude of change):

Cows killed: -4.2 million
Pigs killed: -4.7 million
Chickens killed: +639 million
Turkeys killed: +31 million
Net: +661.1 million animals

If the animal rights movement really wants to minimize the total number of animals killed for meat, it should start with a campaign addressed to American consumers to the effect that if they are going to eat meat, the most humane option is beef. Just don\’t hold your breath waiting.

Source:

2002 Death Statistics (PDF). Farm USA, Winter/Spring 2002.

More than 10 billion animals killed for food in the U.S. Alex Hershaft e-mail, accessed April 24, 2002.

US animal flesh consumption at 209 lbs. Alex Hershaft, e-mail, Accessed April 24, 2002.

Share

Vegan Dreams vs. Burger King Reality

Posted on by
1

Burger King recently announced that it will offer a veggie burger at all of its 8,000+ outlets across the country. For animal rights activists, that is a double edged sword.

Alex Hershaft wrote an e-mail letter to an animal rights newsletter highlighting the possibilities and perils of Burger King\’s decision. Of course Hershaft couldn\’t just discuss the issue without first giving a rundown of what many in the animal rights movement really long for,

Once up on a time, in our wildest dreams, we may have picture victory as an array of slaughterhouses and fast food chains lying in smoldering ruins, or at the very least, undergoing bankruptcy proceedings . . .

Smoldering ruins? And people in the animal rights movement wonder why the press tends to depict them as a bunch of nutbags.

But, moving on, Hershaft argues that,

As a welcome reality check, Burger King, the evil transnational corporate giant, has handed us a beautiful present for this year\’s Meatout observance: a real veggie burger. Not just in a dozen avant-garde outlets in Greenwich Village, but in all 8,300 outlets throughout America.

Not that this will make much of a difference to the true vegan fanatics, since as Hershaft notes the vegan patty will be grilled along side burgers, the mayonnaise Burger King uses is not vegan, and there is \”butter flavor\” in the bun (and, lets not forget, \”Moreover, BK is still the evil transnational corporate giant.\”)

But, still, here is big opportunity for the animal rights movement. Just get everyone in America to buy veggie burgers at Burger King rather than burgers, and save the lives of many farm animals. \”One of the nicest things that we can do for these wretched animals,\” Hershaft wrote, \”is to promote this product to all our friends and supporters.\”

This is especially important because, as Hershaft notes,

You can be sure that all the other fast food chains are waiting to see how this product does. If it succeeds, it will prevent the suffering and death of millions. But, if it fails, it will set us back substantially. We absolutely can not afford to let that happen.

So, allow me to go out on a limb here for a moment — this veggie burger is going to fail. In fact, I hope that Burger King at some point releases figures on just how many veggie burgers they sell, because I doubt Burger King\’s target market overlaps very much with people who are vegetarians/vegans.

If Hershaft and others are counting on the success of Burger King\’s veggie burger to save animals, they\’re in for a rude awakening.

Source:

Dreams, Reality, and Burger King. Alex Hershaft, E-mail, April 17, 2002.

Share

Revisiting Some AR2001 Complaints

Posted on by
Reply

Missed this the first time around, but someone dug up a fascinating message that Alex Hershaft posted to VegSource.Com describing the aftermath of last year\’s Animal Rights 2001 conference. It seems that The Hilton used for this conference was less than pleased with some of the shenanigans that occurred at the July meeting.

Prior to the conference, The Hilton had spent millions of dollars renovating its site and, as a result, instituted a no pets policy. Apparently many visitors to AR2001 simply ignored that request,

In spite of it [the no pets policy], a number of people brought their dogs, and the hotel didn\’t appreciate having to clean up after those animals who urinated on the new carpet. We will probably have to enforce a \”no animal companion\” policy of our own, unless someone can come up with a better solution.

Hmmm…what about the rights of the poor companion animals? (In fact several people replied to Hershaft that this was just a base prejudice against animals on the part of The Hilton).

The Hilton apparently did not appreciate the much-publicized protests at Nieman Marcus and Wendy\’s (with the Wendy\’s protest ending in several arrests).

The hotel is a member of the local merchants association, and the demonstrations at the nearby Wendy\’s and Neiman Marcus gave them grief. We will have demonstrations at future conferences, but they will be part of the program, non-invasive, and well away from the hotel. However, here again, we will have to ask all participants to refrain from staging rump activities of their own

The Hilton was apparently not very happy when Neiman Marcus complained that protesters arrived in a Hilton van.

Of course when the Salt Lake City Olympic Committee set up protests areas for activists far from events, the activists acted as if the Constitution of the United States had been repealed. But scheduling demos so as to not offend The Hilton is apparently another story.

The message concludes that it is important to maintain the goodwill of The Hilton because, \”We need a high-class venue, because of our size and because we are trying to project a middle class image.\”

Yeah, wouldn\’t want people to think they\’re a bunch of nuts who protest Wendy\’s and can\’t keep their dogs from urinating on the carpet.

Source:

Hotel Grievances. Alex Hershaft, July 23, 2001.

Share

Do Animal Rights Activists Care More About Animals Than Human Beings?

Posted on by
Reply

Animal rights activists come in for a lot of criticism, but the one argument
that seems to really get under their skin is the claim that they care more about
animals than they do about human beings. Animal rights groups and individuals
will go to great lengths to show they value human life. They argue they simply
want humans to value the lives of animals.

Do animal rights activists care more about animals than human beings? Comments
made by prominent activists and groups after the September 11 terrorist attacks
speak volumes:

  • Alex Hershaft runs a group called Farm USA that manages a national animal
    rights convention. On September 23, Farm USA issued a press release quoting
    Hershaft saying, \”Worldwide, every day, 125 million innocent, sentient animals
    are dreadfully abused and butchered for food. These tragedies are perpetrated
    by a worldwide animal agricultural terrorist network that is much more threatening
    to planetary survival than the Al Queda network, because it kills more people
    and animals, because it kills them unrelentingly every day, because it is
    pervasive and accepted. For every human being who dies of warfare, crime,
    or terrorism, 10,000 innocent, sentient animals die a violent death.\”

  • The next day, Michael W. Fox of the Humane Society of the United States
    blamed the 9/11 attacks on humanity\’s crimes against nature. In an essay distributed
    via e-mail, Fox wrote that, \”Our collective violence against Nature and against
    human nature, from the plight of endangered cultures, wildlife and the environment,
    to the sufferings of indigenous peoples and of domestic animals, especially
    in factory farms and commercial laboratories around the world, needs to be
    acknowledged. Until we find atonement with Nature and all beings, human and
    non-human, how can human nature find peace and not annihilate all that our
    better natures embrace?\”

  • In its October issue, the widely read animal rights magazine \”Animal People\”
    included an unsigned editorial linking Osama bin Laden\’s fanaticism to meat
    eating. More disturbing, however, was the magazine\’s comparison of farm animals
    to the victims who died onboard the hijacked planes. According to the magazine,
    \”Many and perhaps most of the nine billion animals sent to slaughter in the
    U.S. each year, as well as the billions killed abroad, have at least as long
    to sense doom as did the September 11 victims. Neither are the animals\’ last
    cries as unlike the cell phone calls made by some of the September 11 victims
    as the typical meat-eater would like to believe. Equally disturbing to meat-eaters
    might be awareness that doomed animals, too, often put up frantic resistance,
    like the passengers who tried to retake United Airlines flight 93…\”

  • Lee Ryan, a member of the British boy band Blue, put the comparison in stark
    and crude language. Ryan, who styles himself an animal rights activist, asked
    the British tabloid The Sun, \”What about whales? They are ignoring
    animals that are more important. Animals need saving and that\’s more important
    . . . Who gives a f— about New York when elephants are being killed.\”

  • To his credit, animal rights philosopher Peter Singer did criticize the
    idea of comparing the victims of the September 11 attacks to animals killed
    for food, but United Poultry Concerns\’ Karen Davis vigorously denounced Singer
    for this. According to Davis, \”For 35 million chickens in the United States
    alone, every single night is a terrorist attack.\” Davis went on to suggest
    that since most of those who died in the terrorist attacks were likely meat
    eaters, the attacks may have actually resulted in a net reduction in suffering.

  • Finally, just a few days ago Farm USA announced the schedule for its upcoming
    Animal Rights 2002 National Conference. Describing the goal of this year\’s
    conference, Farm USA\’s press release said, \”Animal Rights 2002 is our movement\’s
    first national conference since the terrible tragedy of September 11 and its
    aftermath. It is dedicated to exposing and challenging the terror perpetrated
    every single day against billions of innocent, sentient nonhuman animals.\”

Despite the frequent claims that animal rights activist do not care more about
animals than they do about human beings, in each of these cases human suffering
from the Sept. 11 attacks is minimized, ignored, and even celebrated. At best
human suffering is used simply as a segue to talk about the real issue, which
is always the alleged suffering of animals.

Do animal rights activists care more about animals than they do about human
beings? Of course they do.

Share

Alex Hershaft: Farmers Worse than bin Laden

Posted on by
Reply

After holding their tongues for a few days, the usual suspects in the animal rights movement are falling all over themselves to see who can make the most absurd comment comparing the victims of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack on the United States to the alleged suffering of animals.

Today\’s exhibit is Alex Hershaft, who recently distributed a press release urging animal rights activist to march in Washington, DC on September 29 and 30 at two peace rallies. Hershaft discusses possible sign slogans (\”Stop Human and Animal Terror!\”) and then offers what he calls \”the thoughts that moved us to\” join the peace protests, which actually maintain that animal agriculture is much worse than the Al Queda terrorist network believed to be behind the terrorist attacks. According to Hershaft,

Worldwide, every day, 125 million innocent, sentient animals are dreadfully abused and butchered for food.

These tragedies are perpetrated by a worldwide animal agricultural terrorist network that is much more threatening to planetary survival than the Al Queda network, because it kills more people and animals, because it kills them unrelentingly every day, because it is pervasive and accepted.

For every human being who dies of warfare, crime, or terrorism, 10,000 innocent, sentient animals die a violent death. A march/rally advocating nonviolence without an animal contingent would be greatly diminished.

A worldwide animal agricultural terrorist network? Is this the same Alex Hershaft who was complaining that the Washington Post was portraying animal rights activists at AR 2001 as extremist nuts?

Source:

WFAD and Peace rallies in nation\’s capital. Alex Hershaft, press release, September 23, 2001.

Share

Americans for Medical Progress on Animal Rights 2001

Posted on by
Reply

Americans for Medical Progress recently circulated a lengthy summary of the Animal Rights 2001 conference which contained a lot of interesting information that wasn\’t in other media accounts.

According to AMP, while \”a few speakers advocated violence… these sessions predominantly emphasized non-violent tactics.\” Apparently many of the activists in attendance were concerned at how the violent tactics are playing out in the media, especially as many national media outlets have done extensive coverage of the growing violence perpetrated by animal rights and environmental extremists.

Interestingly, AMP reports that one of those explicitly advocated violent acts was People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals\’ Bruce Friedrich. AMP wrote,

While disclaiming involvement in violent activities himself, Friedrich devoted an entire presentation to the case for violence, starting with people\’s natural inhibitions against violence to justification for it \”to end animal suffering.\” \”If we really believe that animals have the same right to be free from pain and suffering at our hands,\” Friedrich said, \”then, of course we\’re going to be blowing things up and smashing windows. For the record, I don\’t do this stuff, but I advocate it. I think it\’s a great way to bring about animal liberation, considering the level of suffering, the atrocities.\”

\”I think it would be great if all of the fast-food outlets, slaughterhouses, these laboratories, and the banks who (sic) fund them exploded tomorrow,\” he continued to loud applause. \”I think it\’s perfectly appropriate for people to take bricks and toss them through windows.\”

Meanwhile, AMP reported that Kevin Jonas of Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty also discussed violence,

\”Closing HLS is my life and this campaign will remain my life until HLS is closed,\” he said. The SHAC campaign, Jonas said, \”targets the pillars of HLS\’ financial support,\” and has been so successful that HLS is \”on its last leg. All that\’s needed is just one more kick.\”

\”There\’s not stopping this campaign,\” declared Jonas. \”There\’s no end to what we can do to HLS. We\’ll take out their customers, their workers. There are a lot of options.\” Jonas, who acknowledged that he\’s been visited by representatives of the FBI and the Joint Terrorism Task Force, also predicted, \”There will be windows broken and cars flipped [as the campaign continues].\”

PETA co-founder Alex Pacheco who apparently showed up at AR 2001 largely in order to promote a multi-level marketing scheme, American Communications Network. On a bulletin board set up at |VegSource|, one individual complained of Pacheco\’s huckster-like tactics. Apparently at a rap session, a conference participant walked in and conveniently asked Pacheco for details about the scheme, at which point Pacheco launched into his pitch. The VegSource poster likened it to a fraudulent revival meeting where people are planted to ask all the rights questions at the right moments (of course other activists quickly chimed in with \”we should never disparage other activists\” group think).

Finally, last week I mentioned that Alex Hershaft had written a letter to The Washington Post accusing the Post of bias because it ran a photo of PETA\’s protest at Wendy\’s along with its story about the AR 2001 conference. Hershaft whined that the two things were completely separate and unrelated. Apparently some attendees of AR 2001 didn\’t get that memo because several of them were on the VegSource.Com posting about how wonderful the protest was in conjunction with the conference, one even going so far as to suggest that this was such a wonderful thing that perhaps next year an entire day of AR 2002 could be set aside for such protests.

Source:

At the Animal Rights 2001 Conference. Americans for Medical Progress, special report, July 7, 2001.

Share