Okie Doakie
Well, they couldn’t put it on the net if it weren’t true.
Here is a link that is discussing the same sort of public face/armed wing thing I mentioned.
http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/com74e.htm
Proof? Certainly not. Nonetheless, the two groups operate hand in hand to advance their mutual cause.
(I regret I cannot seem to edit my posts, so I am forced to ad new posts.)
Gee, i spent a few minutes Googling and have come up with lots of threats of violence from PETA people (if the sites cited are to be trusted), Try:
http://www.hounds.org.uk/links-anti-ar.htm
I know it is hard to prove a negative, but did some thinking person actually say things like:
Ingrid Newkirk, PeTA’s founder
“The bottom line is that people don’t have the right to manipulate or to breed dogs and cats … If people want toys they should buy inanimate objects. If they want companionship they should seek it with their own kind.”
“Animal liberationists do not separate out the human animal, so there is no rational basis for saying that a human being has special rights. A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy. They’re all mammals.”
(Vogue, September, 1989)
“I wish we all would get up and go into the labs and take the animals out or burn them down.”
( National Animal Rights Convention '97, June 27, 1997)
“Six million Jews died in concentration camps, but six billion broiler chickens will die this year in slaughterhouses.”
(Washington Post, 1983)
This is over-the-top stuff, calls for violent action.
And on an unrelated note Hazel-Rah, ignore me if you like, but please do not ignore the Shrine Hospitals for Children. please write the number down in case you ever need it.
I’m referring to the recent demonstration against Gisele about fur, the aforementioned throwing blood on fur coats, and negative mutilation of logos that is ever present on PeTA’s homepage. I don’t really know any other instances other than this that I find suspicious; in fact, this is why I put a factual question about the matter: So that I might learn if PeTA ever crosses the legal line. I must say that I can appreciate what PeTA has to say about general animal cruelty, but I am a little hassled and even amused at times by the “Go veggie/vegan” campaigns. However, don’t let my opinion sway my question, which has been stated.
Paul, I appreciate your input.
Respectfully,
Joe K
And everyone elses input, for that matter.
Paul: Those quotes might be radical but none of them call for violence.
By the way, “Single Issue Terrosism” was a strange article. The author states that “abortionists tend to be from the left,” but the only group that espouses violence are the anti-abortionists, who are right-wing. Note also the anti-abortion bias inherent in the terms “abortionists” and “pro-lifers.” I don’t think this guy’s allegation, which he even admits is merely an allegation, is credible.
P.S. You can’t edit posts on the board.
Joe K: I doubt that PeTA was involved in the actions you mention. As for the logos, satire is generally exempt from charges of trademark/copyright infringement. There’s First Amendment issues involved.
Well, the Gisele activists were holding PeTA signs, though I suppose those are easily printed…In any case, if PeTA did indeed have no part in this action, the activists sure wanted a part of PeTA…
IIRC, in regards to the above post.
I’ll learn to preview someday…
I checked out the Gisele protest, and none of the reports mention anything about throwing paint on people. All they did was shout and hold signs - nothing that could be the basis for a lawsuit where freedom of speech is protected.
“I wish we all would get up and go into the labs and take the animals out or burn them down.”
( National Animal Rights Convention '97, June 27, 1997)
This is a call to violence. Does this mean these guys should be rounded up? Certainly not. Does it mean theybear watcing? Sure does. (Although I understand that just about everyone in the US bears watching nowadays according to the papers.)
The thing is this, I agree with many AR positions, but it seems that by joining even a legal/moderate/popular front group like PETA, you are supporting (Politically and monitarily) nutters who use violence to support the cause.
Those who join PETA to promote animal welfare are (mostly, I suppose) being duped. If you want to back ALF and Earth First! go right ahead, but don’t think that by going the PETA route you are being a moderate.
No it isn’t. It expresses a wish to free animals. It does not “call” anybody to do violence, and it implies no wish for violence against human beings.
If that’s the best you can do, that’s pretty pathetic.
And comparing PETA to terrorists is completely beyond the pale. Can you cite one instance of PETA (or ALF, for that matter) ever killing or committing an act of violence against other human beings? (and throwing paint on someone does not count. I want something akin to blowing up an abortion clinic or shooting a doctor)
Yeah, those guys are worse than PETA ever thought of being, although I have no love for PETA either.
Check this link: http://www.snopes.com/critters/crusader/minks.htm
Nice trollbait.
Well, I must admit breathtaking ignorance of the topic. Hazel-rah’s taunt got me Googling. I am certainly no expert in the specifics of PETA. From what I have read over the past few days is that PETA provides money to people who do violent things.
As for crimes against property not counting, well it is a theory. Sort of like say drug convictions don’t count or juvinile crime doesn’t count. If you make up the rules as to what counts than the total count is whatever you want it to be.
Certainly PETA’s activiities are broadly legal. (Of course some trespass, some assualt with paint, but broadly legal.) More important is that they act as a legal spearhead of a movment that uses force to get its way.
I don’t know of any particular cases, but I can’t believe it doesn’t happen. If somebody assaulted a friend of mine in my presence (and I consider any physical attack, even throwing stuff, potentially dangerous) I would take them down quickly, especially if my friend was a lady - I consider my protective feelings towards women illogical but I still have them. I doubt I’m that unusual. The only way I could see them consistently getting away with this would be if they were very discriminate and cowardly in choosing their targets, i.e. elderly or weak-appearing people.
BTW, are they still throwing paint on people in these days of increasing awareness of how terrorists might make biological and chemical attacks? If I saw some whacko throwing fluids on people in public I’d think it would be prudent for law enforcement to shoot first, ask questions later.
Sorry for the triple post, but PETA makes my head spin.
One of the things I find most illogical about PETA is one of the things that I find baffling about anti-abortion groups. If you honestly believe that the enslavement and killing of animals is the same as killing human beings, why the hell do you tolerate it? If these statements reflect the member’s true feelings, why aren’t more of them violently opposing this slaughter? I’d expect bombings of slaughterhouses to be commonplace, armed guards in every pet store, and people hiding the fact that they kept pets. One flaw in the analogy between PETA and anti-abortion groups is that members of PETA don’t have the option to get away from the practices they consider abhorrent. I know that if I believed that abortion was murder, I would seek asylum in a country where it was illegal (there are still a few) and actively campaign against my former country, if I found myself unable to do something about it personally. If I thought of animals as equal to humans, I wouldn’t just be depressed at the thought of thousands of animals being gassed yearly at the local pound, I would be doing whatever I could to stop it, up to and including criminal acts.
I don’t think the vast majority of them really believe the slogans they throw around, they express extreme versions of their views to get more attention, which works, but it ends up being the wrong kind of attention, it alienates people like me who honestly love animals and would love to minimize their suffering (the only charity I’ve actually contributed to has been the Humane Society), but do not consider animals the moral equivalent of a human being.
Well said, Badtz.
Yes, a well-written statement. Thank you for it.
Thank you for your insight, Badtz Maru.