Animal Crackers

Steven Best: Denied Entry to Great Britain — II

A week or so ago, Professor Steven Best was issued a letter banning him from entering Great Britain for having made inflammatory comments, the decision to ban him having been made about a week before that. The most complete summary (subscription required) of the developing story is to be found in the Chronicle of Higher Education in an article written by Mr. Scott Smallwood.

A University of Texas at El Paso professor who supports the Animal Liberation Front has been banned from traveling to Britain because the government there says he is fomenting acts of terrorism in the country.

The professor, Steven Best, teaches philosophy and is one of the founders of the North American Animal Liberation Press Office, which disseminates information about attacks on laboratories and farms by animal-rights activists. The Animal Liberation Front, which got its start in England in the 1970s, has been called one of the leading domestic terrorist threats by U.S. officials.

Mr. Best regularly travels to speak on animal rights. In July he spoke at the International Animal Rights Conference, in England. At that conference, he was quoted by a British newspaper as saying: "We are not terrorists, but we are a threat. We are a threat both economically and philosophically. Our power is not in the right to vote but the power to stop production. We will break the law and destroy property until we win."

According to the newspaper, The Daily Telegraph, he also said activists do not want to "reform" vivisectionists. Rather, he said, "we want to wipe them off the face of the earth." [My emphasis . . . ed]

In a letter informing him of the ban, an official with the Home Office -- a British agency that is similar to the U.S. Justice Department -- cited those statements and others made by Mr. Best in the past. "In expressing such views," the letter said, "it is considered that you are fomenting and justifying terrorist violence and seeking to provoke others to terrorist acts and fomenting other serious criminal activity and seeking to provoke others to serious criminal acts."

I would say the Home Office hit the nail squarely on the head.

The letter to Mr. Best is dated August 24, the same day the Home Office published a new list of behaviors that would lead to people's being barred from visiting the country. Under the list, people who write, speak, run a Web site, or use their positions as teachers to express views that "foment, justify, or glorify violence in furtherance of particular beliefs" will be kept out or deported. The British government described the list, which was announced about six weeks after the July 7 terrorist attacks in London, as part of "its ongoing work to tackle terrorism and extremism."

Mr. Best had planned on traveling to England again in September to speak at an event where animal-rights activists will celebrate the closure of a farm that breeds guinea pigs for medical research.

Mr. Best said he was not surprised by the ban. "It was only a matter of time, especially after July 7," he said. "The climate in Britain is totally unbelievable. It's very fascist. It's becoming a police state."

It's hard to know what's percolating in Professor Best's mind. It's almost as if he thinks he, and every violent thug intent on overthrowing western democracies by violent means, is being cheated out of his just due by the very governments he seeks to bring down!

How dare a government deny him his god-given right to threaten any of the citizenry he feels like with acts of vandalism! How dare a government deny him his god-given right to wipe certain of them "off the face of the earth" if they don't comply with his demands!

He said that he had argued with British officials that his statements at the conference this summer had been taken out of context. "I argued that I didn't mean anything violent," he said, "that we'll wipe these guys off the face of the earth through legal means, through boycotts."

And here we see why Professor Best is a mere shadow of Dr. Vlasak. The former — Professor Best — retreats with an implausible but conspicuous tale between his legs when called to task for telling his audience that he wants to wipe folks off the face of the earth. "Oh no!" he reacts! "How could you possibly think I was speaking of violence?" he puzzles. "I meant we should boycott them off the face of the earth. That should be obvious to any dolt familiar with the ALF and its history of 'direct actions'."

Dr. Vlasak, of course, is different — a cut above Professor Best, if you will.

Just as he, Dr. Vlasak, was threatening to sue the Observer (UK) for them having tagged him as a person who advocated assassination, he was recorded professing assassination to be "morally acceptable." And to leave no doubt at all as to his true meaning, a few months later he was to appear on Australian TV and actually advocate the practice of assassination itself! Think what you will of Dr. Vlasak, he is not without juice, poisonous though it may be.

Alas! In this instance, Professor Best comes off a poor second best.

British officials considered banning Mr. Best from the country in 2004, but relented after he wrote a letter saying that while he supported the Animal Liberation Front, he did not consider the group to be violent. At that time, Jerry Vlasak, another activist who founded the press office with Mr. Best, was banned from traveling to Britain. [My emphasis . . . ed]

Heh . . . Let me see if I have this straight . . . The British thought to ban Professor Best because of his affiliation with a group tagged by the FBI as a terrorist group, a group he represents as one of its self-appointed "Press Officers." But he — Professor Best — told the British Government that he didn't consider the ALF to be violent, and the British government took Professor Best's characterization of the ALF over the FBI's!

Heh . . . again . . .

Thanks to Erin O for bringing Mr. Smallwood's article to my attention, and to Lisa A and Joe W for pointin me towards other articles.

Brian

SHAC: Tactics Used Against Guinea Pig Farmers to be Used Against a Zoo

(Blogging will be light for the next week or so — a friend I haven't seen for a few years will be visiting.)

It was inevitable that when the Hall family announced that they would abandon raising guinea pigs for research on their Darley Oaks Farm, Animal Rights activists would see themselves as having won a huge symbolic victory and press their advantage. In their position, I'd do the same.

Now, they're planning to use the same tactics that proved so effective against the Halls against a zoo:

ANIMAL rights extremists have threatened to launch a terror campaign against staff at Edinburgh Zoo over plans to house polar bears in a new enclosure.

The Animal Liberation Front (ALF) has said it will use similar tactics to those which forced the closure of a Staffordshire guinea pig farm last week, including fire-raising and criminal damage. It has also threatened to target staff of contractors who work for the zoo. [My emphasis . . . ed].

Edinburgh is the only zoo in Britain which houses a polar bear, a 24-year-old female, named Mercedes. The zoo had said she would not be replaced after she died, but it has now decided to build a new enclosure to house several more of the mammals. It claims that the species faces extinction in the wild within 50 years and that zoos have a responsibility to ensure its survival.

However, militant animal rights campaigners believe the conditions in which the bears will be held amount to cruelty and have pledged to resist the plans using illegal tactics.

Animal Rights is premised on a couple of beliefs: first, that the life of an animal and that of a human are of equal value. Second, that any exercise of control by humans over animals is sinful. In short, if it is immoral or unethical to do something to a human, it is likewise unethical or immoral to do it to an animal.

These considerations trump the survival of a species, or the health of a habitat. For example, Animal Rights activists believe it is morally preferable to allow an entire habitat to be destroyed by deer overpopulation than for humans to cull deer by shooting some of them, even if by leaving the deer population alone many of them starve to death, and cause the deaths of other animals whose habitat the deer destroy.

In the case of the polar bears, Animal Rights activists define being kept in a zoo as cruel (animals and humans are of equal value, and if it's immoral to keep a human in a zoo, it is to keep an animal in a zoo . . .), and would prefer to see the bears released into the wild regardless of the consequences to the bears, the survival of their species, or the consequences to habitat they might be released into.

It's a matter of ideological purity . . .

Darnley Oaks Farm in Newchurch, which supplied laboratories with animals for scientific research, announced that it is to close following a six-year campaign of violence and intimidation by members of ALF.

Farm machinery was sabotaged, cars were daubed with paint stripper and the home windows of staff were smashed. One worker had his name spelt out in a field with shotgun cartridges, while an effigy of a colleague was left on a doorstep with a knife stuck in its face and pins in its chest.

The finance director of a brokers’ firm associated with the farm had his car firebombed and an incendiary device was found under the car of a truck driver. The final straw, which led to the closure of the farm, was the theft of the remains of the owner’s mother-in-law from a graveyard.

Robin Webb, a spokesman for ALF, said similar tactics would be used against Edinburgh Zoo. “The creation of a new enclosure for polar bears in Edinburgh would provoke deep anger throughout the animal rights and animal liberation movement,” he said.

“The zoo should think very, very carefully about going ahead with this as it and its contractors could find themselves becoming the target of a wide-ranging campaign.

“It would have to hire many service companies and outside contractors and all of these firms and individuals could be targeted to encourage them to pull out of this project. Targeting can cover anything that does not endanger life and would probably involve criminal damage and arson.”

Webb, a former member of the ruling council of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and who was filmed by an undercover reporter appearing to offer advice on how to make a bomb, added: “A place like Edinburgh Zoo relies on visitor numbers to survive and hopefully by putting the maximum pressure on them we can kill this deeply misguided and inhumane project stone dead.”

I think that's pretty clear, don't you?

Edinburgh Zoo plans to launch a public appeal later this year to raise money to fund the new polar bear enclosure.

“The population of polar bears is in decline and the report published by the Arctic Council highlights the fact that polar bears could be extinct in the wild within 50 years,” said Iain Valentine, head of animals, conservation and education.

“It is the responsibility of all of those involved in practical conservation efforts to ensure the long-term survival of this charismatic, important flagship species. The European Association of Zoos and Aquaria have stepped up their conservation efforts by managing polar bears already in captivity as part of a co-operative breeding programme.”

Lothian and Borders police said they would work closely with the zoo to ensure the safety of staff. “We support the right to peaceful protest but anyone engaging in criminal activity will be dealt with extremely robustly,” said a spokesman.

Kenny MacAskill, justice spokesman for the SNP, condemned the threats. “The position adopted by this organisation does a gross disservice to the cause of animal welfare and they should be subjected to the full force of the law,” he said.

And yet again . . . Mr. MacAskill's premise is incorrect. He assumes that Animal Rights activists are interested in "Animal Welfare." They are not — they are interested in Animal Rights and Animal Liberation. If you don't know the difference between AW and AR, you should.

The threat of extremism looks set to overshadow a protest organised by moderate campaigners. The welfare group Advocates for Animals plans to demonstrate outside the zoo tomorrow. [My emphasis . . . ed]

“Polar bears are especially vulnerable, capable of suffering terrible stress with zoo confinement limiting them to just one millionth of the space of their natural range,” said Lynda Korimboccus, a spokeswoman for Advocates for Animals.

“How sad it would be to see yet more of these magnificent animals condemned to life behind bars.”

Ahhh . . . no! Advocates for Animals is not a "moderate group." They are an Animal Rights group, which makes them extreme by definition. The fact that they aren't advocating violence doesn't mean that they are moderate by any stretch of the imagination. Once again, if you don't know the difference between Animal Rights and Animal Welfare, you need to read this (op cit).

The larger point, of course, is that the tactics that worked against the Darley Oaks guinea pig farm were hugely, if symbolically, effective, and we can expect to see them employed with greater frequency until they are shown not to be effective.

Brian

Guinea Pig Farm Closure: More Reaction

(Blogging will be light for the next week or so — a friend I haven't seen for a few years will be visiting.)

Last week, the Hall family announced that they would be abandoning the business of raising guinea pigs for research at their Darley Oaks Farm in Newchurch, at least partly because of a campaign of terror waged against them and their community by Animal Rights activists.

So what's the buzz in the aftermath?

This from the Independent:

[ . . . ]

Sprayed on a road sign just before Darley Oaks Farm in Newchurch are the words "Evil Hall Scum". The Hall family, which owns the farm, along with relatives, employees and suppliers, has been subjected to a six-year campaign of terror by animal rights activists objecting to the farming of guinea pigs for medical research. Hostilities culminated last year when the body of Chris Hall's mother-in-law, Gladys Hammond, was stolen from a graveyard.

This weekend, however, after the Hall finally announced that they would stop farming guinea pigs and return to traditional farming, the nightmare was set to continue. The Independent on Sunday can reveal that animal rights activists, as well as continuing to target the Halls, have already drawn up a new list of targets around the country as part of a new offensive in the increasingly bitter animal liberation war.

These include 50 companies that allegedly have "secret" links with Huntingdon Life Sciences, the Cambridgeshire-based pharmaceutical firm which has been a long-standing target for extremists. Many are seen as soft targets that are likely to buckle easily under pressure.

The names, numbers and email addresses of senior managers working for these firms, which include couriers and even a bakery, have been posted on the Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (Shac) website. This newspaper has learnt that, in the past week, at least three of those targeted terminated their contracts with HLS after being bombarded by letters and phone calls from Shac members.

Animal rights sources say the "victory" against Darley Oaks has fortified hardcore activists who are ready for a new high-profile cause. The Staffordshire guinea pig farm is the fifth in a long line of small businesses that have been forced to close after becoming targets of animal rights "terrorists". Other casualties have included Consort kennels, a beagle-breeding farm in Hereford which closed down in 1997, and Hillgrove cat farm in Witney, Oxfordshire.

[ . . . ]

Is there anyone who still believes that coercion, intimidation and thuggery aren't effective tactics?

Symbolism is hugely important to the AR game plan, and this is a far larger victory in terms of public relations and symbolism than it ever could be in terms of reducing the number of guinea pigs that will be used in research. The fact of the matter is that there will be no reduction in the number of animals used, but that is of lesser importance to the AR people than the fact that they have scored a hugely visible symbolic victory: the farm's closure increases their credibility as a force to be reckoned with, a group that you don't want to be targeted by, a group that will do anything necessary to win, including desecrating a grave.

And for the people of Happy Valley there is no guaranteed end to the harassment they face each day. The protesters are warning they will continue to target the Hall family if the guinea pigs are sold to another animal breeder rather than donated to an animal welfare group.

Greg Avery, a spokesman for Shac, warned: "If what the Halls are planning to do is sell them off over the next three months, if they do that, they will be making a severely bad mistake. People won't forget that there's still thousands of guinea pigs that they've cynically sold off."

This demand is a little "mop up" action to further the power of the symbolic moment . . . The authorities have proven their impotence in dealing with the terrorists, and private organizations, including big pharma, the NAPF and other supporters of biomedical research are reacting rather than acting.

Being reactive is not a winning strategy, and it's hard to know why so many organizations supporting research prefer it to a pro-active strategy . . .

Peter Clamp, a local parish councillor who has been fighting the protesters in court, once received a death threat on his mobile phone and described the activists as "worse than al-Qa'ida" for impeding medical research. "They are the same mentality as the terrorists who bombed London. They will destroy cultures to get what they want."

In 1999, balaclava-clad activists broke into the farm and stole 600 guinea pigs. Farm machinery was sabotaged; the Halls' cars were daubed with paint-stripper and explosives left on their land. The newsagent in Yoxall stopped supplying the family with papers after threatening letters were sent to other customers. The golf club where Chris Hall was a member had several greens dug up and he was asked to resign. The landlords of the Red Lion pub in Newborough, where the Halls drank, had their contract with the brewery terminated after they refused to stop serving them. The activists had threatened to poison the brewery's entire supply of beer.

For eight years May Hudson, a 67-year-old widow, cleaned the house of Chris and Margaret Hall, who live at the farm. For five of them she withstood the intimidation. But she resigned in January when three vehicles owned by her children were sprayed with paint-stripper. "I'm really upset," she said. "We need medical research. I think they are just terrorists. I don't think they're animal lovers at all. My dog's terrified now with all the fireworks we've had."

Mrs Hudson had endured bricks through her window, one of which hit her while in bed. Another almost hit her late husband while he was ill with cancer. A bomb was left outside her house, as was a life-size figure with a noose around its neck.

But the battle is not over. Janet Tomlinson, an animal rights supporter known locally as the Grave Robber following her arrest in connection with the disappearance of Mrs Hammond's body, still intends to protest at the farm until all the guinea pigs are removed.

Readers of AC will be well aware of Ms Tomlinson, who suffers from breast cancer and who has decided to accept treatment for it. As I've pointed out before, some of the profits made by the companies supplying the pharmaceuticals for her treatment are funneled right back in to support animal based research. In effect, she is supporting the very industry it is her mission in life to bring down.

Ms Tomlinson went on the record twice that I'm aware of, trying to reconcile her contradictory positions. You can read what I had to say about one of them here and the other of them here.

Ms Tomlinson has had the opportunity to back up her uncompromising moral standard by making a tough choice: she could throw herself on a metaphorical hand grenade and become a martyr to the fantasy utopia she would impose upon the world, or she could pull back and violate the core principle she claims to believe in.

In the event, Ms Tomlinson has abandoned the abstraction she would require others — yourself, your children, your spouse, sibs and friends — to live by once the real-world price of HER CAUSE (not your cause, not my cause . . .) became too high FOR HER.

Ms Tomlinson's position is simply her version of Dr. Steven Best's "Me First!" ethic (which is really not an ethic at all, but an attitude masquerading as one . . .).

Brian

Science and Scientists Slurred: A Boston Globe Hit Piece — Part 2

I wrote yesterday about a grotesque hit piece in the Boston Globe that trivialized the importance of animal based research for medical progress, and — outrageously — demonized scientists who do it.

I made several points about the piece: that scientists, whether they want to acknowledge it or not, are in a PR struggle with those who are unalterably opposed to using animals in research; that the Boston Globe article played neatly into negative stereotypes carefully crafted by Animal Rights activists about scientists; that the stereotypes were vicious and patently untrue; that for better or for worse, such hit-pieces mold public opinion about science and scientists; and that scientists and their supporters would be well advised to do more than play defense against such characterizations, viz. scientists cannot depend solely on pointing to past glories and their own authority if they hope to see the scientific enterprise flourish, when AR people have plausible, but false, answers to both responses that can sway public opinion away from science and towards their own extremist cause.

But I have more to say about the hit-piece, its author, the nature of satire and the Boston Globe.

The author of the piece, Martha Rosenberg (the reincarnation of Rita Skeeter), and perhaps the editors of the Boston Globe might well try to defend the piece on the grounds that it is merely satire — that politicians are often satirized, as are lawyers, college professors, doctors, etc. So why should scientists be exempt?

Fair question — scientists shouldn't be exempt. But satire should be responsible and illuminating, not irresponsible and dangerous. And I do mean dangerous.

This piece simply never should have seen the light of day, and for two reasons.

The less important reason — indeed the trivial reason — is this: as a work of satire it simply fails. It fails because it plays precisely into an Animal Rights stereotype that already exists, and has for decades. It is not creative, it is not new, it is not particularly well-written, it is not innovative, it is not insightful. In light of these deficiencies, it is nothing more than AR propaganda.

You can read exactly the same kind of stuff in any Animal Rights/Animal Liberation pamphlet, or by visiting any number of Animal Rights/Animal Liberation websites.

But that is, as I said, a trivial reason why it should not have been printed.

At this moment in history, scientists occupy a unique place, along with some other categories of people.

Unlike lawyers, professors, reporters, bureaucrats, cartoonists for Illinois Newspapers, editors of Op Ed pages, etc., scientists are targets of Animal Rights fanatics.

Those fanatics feel perfectly free to invade and vandalize the scientists' places of work and their private property; they post threatening and intimidating messages demonizing scientists and all who work with them; they threaten the friends and families of the scientists; and one group (SHAC) has posted a list of the top 20 terror tactics, and hints on how to avoid being caught.

And those threats are credible.

If you don't believe me, read my post on the ALF "direct action" made against researchers at the University of Iowa. The people at the U of I who were attacked had their offices and labs trashed, their records destroyed, their animals "liberated" (to who knows what fate?), their names, telephone numbers and addresses posted online. They were demonized and were threatened to the point where they were afraid to allow their kids to play in their own yards.

Now — add to the University of Iowa attack the person of Dr. Jerry Vlasak. Dr. Vlasak is a self-appointed "Press Officer" for the terrorist ALF (Animal Liberation Front), the loosely organized group that claimed credit for the University of Iowa attack.

Dr. Vlasak believes in achieving the Animal Liberation utopia by assassination: he begins with the assumption that the life of an animal and that of a human are of equal value. He then proceeds down a logical path that leads inevitably to the conclusion that if you can save "N + 1" animals by killing "N" scientists, you've come out ahead! (Dr. Vlasak claims you'd only have to kill 15 scientists to chill the rest into abandoning their work . . . but if that doesn't do it, logic dictates you kill another 15, and then another and another . . .)

You can listen yourself to Dr. Vlasak proclaiming that the assassination of scientists is "morally acceptable". Better, if you follow this link, you can watch him advocating the practice of assassinating scientists. (The fact that so far nobody has acted on Dr. Vlasak's recommendation is irrelevant . . . it's only a matter of time. There are lots of dots to be connected here . . ..)

Scientists have been targeted for assassination. They, their friends, colleagues and families have also been tagged as targets for intimidation, vandalism and thuggery, and the threats are very, very real.

The fact that scientists and those close to them are the specific targets of a campaign of violence, vandalism and intimidation, which campaign is based on exactly the same vicious stereotypes that are the core of Rosenberg's "satire," is what separates her effort from perfectly defensible satire that could be legitimately aimed at lawyers, politicians, doctors, reporters and almost all others.

It is the combination that is key: scientists are targets of violent people, and the reason they are targets is because of a vicious PR campaign based on exactly the same false stereotypes that Rosenberg chose to make the centerpiece of her "satire."

The Boston Globe should be ashamed of itself for having published such tripe and thereby making common cause with Animal Rights terrorists.

For perspective — can you imagine the Boston Globe publishing a similar Op Ed in which the two conversants are abortion clinic doctors, and the "good guys" — the equivalent of those standing up for the animals in Rosenberg's piece — were Christian fundamentalists whose tactics include firebombing clinics and calling for the assassination of clinic doctors?

I cannot.

The Boston Globe should retract Rosenberg's piece, apologize to scientists, and get down on their knees and beg forgiveness from the scientific community.

Yeah . . . right . . .

Brian

Science and Scientists Slurred: A Boston Globe Hit Piece

Yesterday, I made the point that the struggle between those who support animal based research and the Animal Rights activists who wish to ban the use of animals entirely is essentially one for public understanding and public perceptions.

I argued that as things now stand, the supporters of research are playing defense, exclusively and ineffectually, while Animal Rights people are attacking with a very highly effective propaganda machine. The result of that is that the public is caught between two viewpoints, the Animal Rights one vibrant, passionate and compelling, offering a fantasy of a new, kinder, cruelty-free world, and the scientific community relying on its past glory and the authority of itself . . . neither tack being at all persuasive in light of AR responses to them.

You cannot win the day only by playing defense, especially when you're faced with a public who reads, on the Op Ed page of The Boston Globe no less, a distortion of science and scientists that is as bizarre, grotesque and vicious as is this hit piece, which nevertheless exemplifies my point in biblical proportions:

RESEARCHER 1: So, did the technician check out?

Researcher 2: I hope so.

Researcher 1: No PETA affiliation? No hidden videotape?

Researcher 2: Very funny! I don't know where they get applicants anyway. Imagine the job description: ''Decapitate cute mammals and prepare their brains for histologic studies. Put 'em in the incinerator while they're still twitching."

Researcher 1: Once that happened; once!

Researcher 2: ''Section animals over 50 lbs. Keep in fume hoods to prevent ethafume explosions. Must like animals-- but not get too attached to them."

Researcher 1: You forgot, ''Speak to press and go to jail."

Researcher 2: No wonder people volunteer to go to Iraq.

Researcher 1: Yeah. Better air; less security!

Researcher 2: Speaking of security, they installed a video surveillance camera at my home. I don't know if I should feel more secure or less. Joan's terrified every time the doorbell rings. She has Maria opening the mail.

Researcher 1: Wait until they put your name and address on the Internet.

Researcher 2: I worry about the kids.

Researcher 1: Or throw paint stripper on your car.

Researcher 2: Their friends have said things.

Researcher 1: Or tell your neighbors you're a puppy killer!

Researcher 2: How did we become the bad guys, dammit? You spend half your professional life chasing mice, finally get to primates or dogs or even cats and suddenly you're a murderer!

Researcher 1: No kidding!

Researcher 2: Changing ''animal" to ''animal model" fooled no one; they know it's not a computer model. We might as well say animal martyr. [My emphasis . . . ed]

Translation: Scientists will lie to further their ends — don't trust anything they say.

The author has "poisoned the well" in textbook fashion. Once the well is poisoned, every sip of water drawn from it is poisoned too.

Here, no defense a scientist can offer can overcome the accusation that he's a lier, because whatever form that defense takes can't be trusted to be true and accurate.

Researcher 1: Or ''your pet."

Researcher 2: Replacing dogs with pigs didn't help either. Look what happened to Webster at the University of Wisconsin-Madison for trying to study whether Tasers can electrocute pigs' hearts. All they see is Babe.

Researcher 1: In my day it was Wilbur.

Researcher 2: It's not like the pig's going to live out his natural life on a tropical isle. He's going to be killed for food anyway.

Researcher 1: They don't believe in killing animals for food.

Researcher 2: It's not like the cats in the pound are going to live out their natural lives.

Researcher 1: They believe in no-kill shelters.

Researcher 2: And you can't even debate these nuts because you'd have to reveal what you're doing and who you are.

Researcher 1: ''Chino come and get me too."

Researcher 2: So we end up saying most of the work is with rodents and rabbits and we are tapering down which agrees with their premise that it's wrong.

Researcher 1: Like bad food and such small portions?

Researcher 2: Or we fall back on the lives that are saved which is hard to prove with wrinkle creme studies or when an investigator repeats something over and over for the money.

Researcher 1: The public can't judge our work anyway.

Researcher 2: Or we say it is in the interests of the researcher to treat the animal well which flies in the face of the head injury, pain, toxicity, and burn studies.

Researcher 1: No pun intended.

Researcher 2: Or we assure the public we are abiding by government regulations which stipulate the room must be 72 degrees and the cage 18 inches while we exsanguinate a beagle.

Researcher 1: Or the drowned animal had drinking water.

Researcher 2: Or we set up the your-dog-or-your-daughter conjunction and then a Vioxx comes along and it is their daughter.

Researcher 1: Now that really ticked me off! Big pharma doesn't want to lose a year's revenue just waiting for clinical trials so they go to patent prematurely and we all look bad.

Technician: Hello, I'm the new lab technician.

Researcher 1:Yes, we were just talking about you.

So now we know where Rita Skeeter, the erstwhile yellow journalist for the Daily Prophet ends up: masquerading as someone called Martha Rosenberg, a cartoonist for the Evanston Roundtable whose talents were obviously appreciated by the editors of the Boston Globe.

We should all keep in mind that the public forms opinions partly on the basis of unanswerable slurs like this (the well was poisoned . . .).

This is a game of PR — the scientific community and its supporters can remain indifferent, or proclaim past glory as a defense, or resort to appeals to the authority scientists to support their case. But the animal rights people are way ahead of such flacid "defenses." As I said yesterday (op cit):

Mr. Festing and the Nobel laureates are correct [that animal based research is necessary . . . ed] — but that is irrelevant. This approach [to the opinion of Nobel laureates] is in isolation simply an appeal to authority, which lacks intellectual clout. Why should I support science? Because Dr. Smith, who does things I don't understand and couldn't care less about, said I should . . .

In fact, the AR activists can and do parry his point with ease: they can claim — and have — that the discoveries for which the Nobel laureates won their prizes might have been achieved sooner had non-animal alternative methods been used in place of misleading and wasteful animal studies; or that while animal research might have been useful "back then" it is no longer useful today; and they claim that scientists and the institutions they serve are greedy, power hungry yahoos who want only to enhance their own reputations and pocketbooks, even at the expense of helpless animals — so it's natural that they'd try to defend their respective turfs against the enlightened and pioneering AR suggestions for improving both the conditions of animals and the quality of research in one fell swoop.

And they wrap all that malarky in loaded words like "torture," "abuse," "cruelty," and "poisoned bodies."

It is preposterous, of course, but it works, which is why the RDS exists, the Hall family is out of business and why I'm writing this blog.

The AR people use these tactics constantly, catching the public in a colossal game of "he said she said." As things now stand, scientists and their supporters are left trying to defend themselves and their mysterious enterprise against a constant barrage of false accusations, misinformation and outright lies. Inevitably, like water drip-drip-dripping on granite, the defense will be worn away incrementally.

The solution is to stop the water dripping, in addition to thickening the rock. It is beyond me why this is a difficult point to understand, but difficult to understand it clearly is . . ..

Though Ms Skeeter, aka Ms Rosenberg, didn't actually use the words "torture," "abuse," "cruelty," and "poisoned bodies," it would be difficult for the reader not to conclude from Ms Skeeter's screed that such descriptors aren't properly applied to what scientists do to animals.

The bad news is that hit pieces like this are going to continue to happen.

The good news is there really are things that can and should be done to counter them. First and foremost, it is necessary for the supporters of science to take the offense, and make Animal Rights people play defense. It's not that hard to do, and it's wonderfully effective, as the Center for Consumer Freedom is demonstrating.

The alternative is to leave the initiative with the Animal Rights activists, to let the public fill in the gaps from sources that may or may not be friendly to science, but will almost certainly not understand it well, and to leave to chance the success and viability of much of the scientific enterprise.

No scientist would approve a grant proposal in which the PI leaves half the study to variables he could otherwise control, and it's just preposterous that scientists and the supporters of science are choosing to do just that here, in the arena of public opinion, when it would be so easy for them not to.

Brian

AR Violence and Thuggery: An OpEd

Opinion continues to be expressed in the aftermath of the announcement of the Hall family that they would be closing their Guinea Pig farm, at least partly because of a 6 year long campaign of intimidation, coercion and vandalism launched against them and their neighbors by Animal Rights activists. In this piece, the author links the AR campaign of cruelty, violence and intimidation to broader social issues:

What's the difference between an activist and a terrorist? Britain has a proud and rather noble tradition of people agitating for causes they strongly believe in (Catholic emancipation, votes for women) and against things they can't abide (nuclear weapons, foxhunting), and there has always been a comprehensive disparity between those who want to blow up the Houses of Parliament and those who would settle for chaining themselves to its railings or petitioning its members.

Yet nowadays every outraged minority seems inexorably to be heading towards the formation of its own militia. Why is this? Why has fear and mortal threat become the new currency of negotiation in this country? When people speak of fundamentalism, they ought now to look beyond the fear of young, "home-grown", brown-skinned men carrying backpacks: there is another brand of intolerant Britons whose aim is to get their own way come hell or high water, and most of them would have no trouble whatsoever passing Norman Tebbit's obnoxious "cricket test". [My emphasis . . . ed.]

Of course, we're seeing the same thing on this side of the pond . . . and we have for some time.

These people have "English values" to burn, and they will burn them in bonfires the size of St Paul's if people don't obey their ferocious command to free the nation's guinea pigs.

The new-style animal rights nutter is as English as cream teas, and he or she is willing to engage in every sort of intimidation, issuing death threats, carrying out fire-bomb attacks, and basically indulging in a species of barbarity different only in degree from the "foreign" terrorists whose actions they find so incomprehensible.

Barbarity is a key word for these nutters: they think it is barbaric to sacrifice the life of small animals for the benefit of scientific research, but think it's OK to dig up the corpse of 82-year-old Gladys Hammond, as they did last October and then boast about where the parts of her body are hidden. [My emphasis . . . ed]

Yes — it is incomprehensible for most of us that others of us would act this way . . . It is a chilling reminder of how uncivilized people can be in the pursuit of a fantasy utopia.

But I still suspect that there is much more going on than just adherence to a wacky ideology — I think every population has it's share of misfits who are fascinated by violence, get off on power trips and feel compelled to show in particularly egregious ways that they aren't going to be constrained by traditional mores.

The AR ideology is a license that provides them with an excuse to act out in behalf of their barbarous instincts, and to do so with a clear conscience.

While the rest of society sees them as thugs, misfits and malcontents, they see themselves as crusaders — as Holy Warriors who are acting out of noble motives in behalf of a glowingly pure AR ideology.

The nation's leaders are fond of saying that intimidation, criminal behaviour and terrorism will never work, but it has worked very nicely for the guinea pig lovers: the late Mrs Hammond's relatives, John and Christopher Hall, who have farmed animals for more than 30 years, will close their business at the end of this year due to the sheer extremity of the "protests" mounted against them.

Yes, it has worked. And this will only embolden the AR activists to redouble their efforts . . . is there anyone, anywhere, who doubts that?

Simon Festing of the Research Defence Society pointed out that work on the bodies of guinea pigs had led to 23 Nobel prizes in medicine. I'm not in love with the idea of inessential testing on animals to produce make-up, but, through the years, the Hall brothers have run a business more ethical to my mind than Gap or Starbucks, providing the means by which human life can be improved and scientific knowledge enhanced.

Mr. Festing and the Nobel laureates are correct — but that is irrelevant. This approach is in isolation simply an appeal to authority, which lacks intellectual clout. Why should I support science? Because Dr. Smith, who does things I don't understand and couldn't care less about, said I should . . .

In fact, the AR activists can and do parry his point with ease: they can claim — and have — that the discoveries for which the Nobel laureates won their prizes might have been achieved sooner had non-animal alternative methods been used in place of misleading and wasteful animal studies; or that while animal research might have been useful "back then" it is no longer useful today; and they claim that scientists and the institutions they serve are greedy, power hungry yahoos who want only to enhance their own reputations and pocketbooks, even at the expense of helpless animals — so it's natural that they'd try to defend their respective turfs against the enlightened and pioneering AR suggestions for improving both the conditions of animals and the quality of research in one fell swoop.

And they wrap all that malarky in loaded words like "torture," "abuse," "cruelty," and "poisoned bodies."

It is preposterous, of course, but it works, which is why the RDS exists, the Hall family is out of business and why I'm writing this blog.

The AR people use these tactics constantly, catching the public in a colossal game of "he said she said." As things now stand, scientists and their supporters are left trying to defend themselves and their mysterious enterprise against a constant barrage of false accusations, misinformation and outright lies. Inevitably, like water drip-drip-dripping on granite, the defense will be worn away incrementally.

The solution is to stop the water dripping, in addition to thickening the rock. It is beyond me why this is a difficult point to understand, but difficult to understand it clearly is . . ..

In whose great name and with what body of wisdom do the animal campaigners speak? Not the Bible's, for a start, where the general advocacy of sacrificing lambs would surely have caused the woolly-jumpered brigade to organise the burning down of Nazareth. And not with what is sometimes called the democratic will of the British people either, because most people will advocate the decent necessities of science if they result in findings that will alleviate the suffering of human beings from, say, osteoporosis or from cancer. To prioritise the feelings of the guinea pigs is to assert a quite spectacular failure of the human imagination.

Yet that is what it often comes down to with the animal nutters.

And yet . . . a quiescent public is the oxygen that sustains the nutters. And the tragedy is that the public need not be quiescent, need not be confused, need not be indifferent, need not be ignorant.

The public really can learn — and there's much to be learned by a close examination of what AR really is and a thorough exploration the fantasy future AR activists are hankering for.

For reasons that might better be understood by a good analyst, these people find their sympathies more in keeping with the interests of non-speaking, furry beings. In many cases, it is not that they have an overwhelming, cuddly appreciation of the creatures themselves, but that they possess a cynical and undervaluing feeling for the existence and progress of other human beings.

There are people, of course, who just love animals and feel concerned about their welfare, but the RSPCA will often find its officers turning up at the house of elderly "animal lovers", only to discover the beloved beasts living in a state of squalor and hunger.

Animal rights activists saddle animals with a warped version of the feelings they cannot express towards humans, and their overactive conscience on behalf of animals' rights is often no more than a needy over-compensation for their basic lack of humanitarian values.

Yes — but every society has its misfits, malcontents and religious zealots. You will not be able to change their minds — you cannot logic a person out of a position he didn't logic herself into. The goal of any anti-AR effort must be to change public perceptions from confusion, indifference, tolerance, ignorance — or any combination you'd like to select — to one of enlightenment.

The public really is smart enough to understand the issues — who's telling the truth, who's not, what the stakes are, what each side's core values are, where inconsistencies lie, etc. — and can be trusted to make intelligent decisions if given a chance.

As things sit, the research community is ducking and weaving, defending itself as best it can by absorbing punches on it's arms and body, but choosing not to throw any punches itself.

What sort of silly, self-destructive attitude is that?

[ . . . ]

These people are white and middle-class and living in a rustic idyll near you. Many of them will find it easy to speak about the inhuman behaviour of fundamentalist zealots, and they will be right to do so, as long as they can recognise their own over-zealous madness in relation to these creatures, dumb animals whom they use only to express some deeper dissatisfaction with themselves and a wider society that does not conform to their views. We all like animals. I don't know anyone who hates them, or who wants to hurt them for no reason, but it takes a fanatic to like them more than the long-term attempt to diminish human suffering.

"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject" — Winston Churchill.

In the case of Animal Rights activists, the fanatical mind-set is that the life of an animal and that of a human is of equal worth, and to discriminate on the basis of a creature's species ("speciesism") is every bit as much a sin, every bit as immoral, as to commit racism. You can't negotiate with these people: you can't logic them out of a position they didn't logic themselves into. You can only try to change the environment they depend on for survival: public perception.

And the point that these are middle-class and upper middle-class people has long fascinated me: AR is a profound indulgence — a boutique attitude masquerading as an ethic in the fantasy world of a comfortably well-off group of warm and well-fed people, or people who could be warm and well-fed if they wished. Or so I would argue.

Those of them who have read this far will already be writing their threatening letters. They pretend to detest the spirit of the age, but these people are among its nastiest embodiments: people who would sooner militate against their opposition and threaten them with violence than make better and more convincing arguments.

I have heard from them before, a dozen years ago, when I described the culture of easy violence that surrounded the childhoods of the two boys guilty of murdering the Liverpool toddler James Bulger.

The animal protesters wrote in their droves to express neither sorrow nor care for the ruined lives of those children, but simply to express in heated terms their horror at the alleged killing of a cat. Two-year-old James Bulger didn't get a look-in.

That for me is the mentality of these home-grown vigilantes: they aim to target cruelty, while a much more serious form of cruelty plays itself out in the darkness of their own minds.

Well, yeah. Not much more to be said! Except thanks to Lisa A. for the heads up.

UPDATE 8/26/05, 2:35 PDT for clarity and consistency.

Brian

Guinea Pig Farm Closure: Some Pathetic Fallout

As might be expected, the announcement yesterday that the Hall farm, an enterprise that raised guinea pigs for research purposes, would be closing at least in part because of an Animal Rights campaign of intimidation, vandalism and thuggery lasting several years, has prompted some fall-out.

Medical researchers have urged companies involved in animal testing to "hang in there" until legislation introduced last month to tackle campaigns of intimidation and harassment begins to take effect.

The Research Defence Society (RDS) said the Government had shown a strong commitment to dealing with offenders and said it was confident the "tide would turn" against extremists.

Admonishments to "hang in there" and plaintive declarations that the "tide would turn" don't exactly overflow with optimism for the future.

The failure of the British government and the legal system to protect the Hall guinea pig farm from AR thugs is apparent to anyone with half a brain, and unless the government — and the private sector — take this seriously, it's going to happen again.

More than 500 leading UK scientists and doctors have signed a declaration published today by the RDS in which they pledge their support for animal testing for medical research.

Three Nobel laureates - Sir Paul Nurse, Dr Tim Hunt and Sir John Sulston - are among the signatories, as well as 190 Fellows of the Royal Society and the Medical Royal Colleges, and more than 250 academic professors.

Which, of course, is meaningless. Support for the enterprise of animal-based research is a necessary condition for it to continue, but it is not by itself sufficient. It is also necessary for scientists, industry and the government to go on the offensive — to reveal the Animal Rights movement for what it is.

That's not hard to do . . . the Center for Consumer Freedom is pioneering how one attacks the attacker, which requires nothing more than an effective PR campaign focussing on the weaknesses of the Animal Rights movement, in essence countering ideological drivel with facts about Animal Rights — its ideology, logic and goals (see below).

The Declaration on Animals in Medical Research was made the day after the owners of a guinea pig breeding farm in Newchurch, Staffordshire, announced plans to close at the end of the year.

The timing of the statement, which was signed over the last month, is not linked to the decision by David Hall and Partners to cease breeding operations at Darley Oaks Farm.

The Hall family was subjected to a six-year hate campaign by fanatics and hopes its decision will prompt grave-robbers to return the body of 82-year-old Gladys Hammond.

As I said yesterday:

I doubt Mrs. Hammond's remains will be returned. It'd be too much trouble, and it would be risky to do so.

Plus, in the perverted thinking of the extremists, the Halls had it coming, and not returning the remains will serve as an object lesson to others the extremists wish to intimidate into compliance . . .

And her remains are just another dead thing . . .

It would take a person of monumental stupidity to keep Mrs. Hammond's remains, if there is any chance at all of being caught with them. There is no reason whatsoever for a person to keep the remains, and every reason to put as much distance between him/herself and Mrs. Hammond's remains as possible, as soon as possible.

Back to the report:

Mrs Hammond was the mother-in-law of Christopher Hall, who co-owns Darley Oaks Farm. Her body was stolen from a grave at St Peter's Church in nearby Yoxall last October.

Dr Simon Festing, executive director of the RDS, said: "Our message to other companies involved is 'Please hang in there'."

Dr Festing predicted that new legislation designed to prevent the harassment of people at home and to stop "economic damage" through campaigns of intimidation would have an effect.

"There's a clear commitment from Government to sort out the problem of animal rights extremism," he said.

"There is new legislation which has only just come into force and we hope the Government will provide resources so that police can enforce the law.

New laws are great, but if the government isn't willing to commit resources to enforcing them, they are worthless.

Parenthetically, the National Association of Pension Funds could have played a very important and even pivotal role in this battle, with little inconvenience or expense to themselves, had they but followed through on the commitment they originally made to fight AR terrorisms, but then broke.

I had this to say about fighting AR terrorism here:

And so I come to this: why on earth should the pharmaceutical companies look to government for the lion's share of their protection? Why are they not actively engaged in protecting themselves?

Perhaps there's something here I fail to appreciate, but it seems to me that the NAPF and the pharmaceutical companies could with relative ease mount a large and effective public relations campaign, a campaign that might well damage the solvency of the AR industry by changing public opinion and discouraging well-meaning but naive people from contributing to the AR coffers.

From a tactical point of view, it seems to me the campaign should have two goals: the first would be to attack the Animal Rights movement head on. Publicly and repeatedly reveal the incoherence of AR "philosophy," the logical consequences of following its precepts and abandoning animal based research, and the tactics of the movement (what AR propaganda is and how it works, the abundant hypocrisy of AR luminaries, and the tactics of intimidation, coercion and violence).

How hard or expensive could it be to create spot TV and radio commercials, place adds in newspapers, and plaster posters in the cars of the underground?

The second goal would be to defend animal-based research. Surely the citizenry of the UK is well enough educated to be able to understand how drugs are developed and brought to market, the difference between basic and clinical science, and how and why animals are irreplaceable in modern health care.

Don't just tell the citizenry that animal based research and testing are necessary for modern medicine, tell them how science works, and why there are no substitutes. And don't be shy — assume the best of the citizenry — that they are smart, interested and willing to listen to what research really is and how it works (as opposed to research as distorted by AR ideologues).

Again, there is no earthly reason why newspaper adds, radio and TV commercials and posters wouldn't be an extremely effective way of getting the message out.

Up until now, the pharmaceutical companies have been playing defense: the AR people have been allowed to frame the questions to their advantage, and the forces supporting research have reacted to questions of the "do you still beat your wife" variety.

Were the supporters of research to go on offense, they could frame questions the way they want them framed, and make the AR people play a little defense.

Back to the article:

"We have strong support from the scientific community and we have had had some prosecutions of animal rights extremists this year.

"I believe the tide will turn and we can get on top of this problem."

Dr Festing said the last time there had been such a drive to deal with the issue was in 2001 when the Government stepped in to provide banking services for Huntingdon Life Sciences (HLS).

The pharmaceutical testing company has been at the centre of a long-running campaign.

Aside from the Darley Oaks and HLS campaigns, the third major protest of concern to the RDS is that directed against the University of Oxford.

Dr Festing said animal rights activists had already halted building work on an £18 million University of Oxford research centre after intimidating the construction company.

Today's declaration aimed to highlight the medical and scientific benefits that animal experiments could provide.

It also stated that scientists should make every effort to safeguard animal welfare and minimise suffering. [My emphasis . . . ed]

These people haven't a clue what they're up against! They don't have a clue about the difference between animal welfare and Animal Rights!

They really think that they can counter Animal Rights propaganda by playing defense! As if they could appease AR activists by adopting additional animal welfare policies!

Those supporting the use of animals in biomedical research haven't figured out that nothing they can do or say, short of abandoning animal-based research altogether, will silence their Animal Rights critics, who are well adept at inventing newer and more effective ways to demonize the research community regardless of what promises and procedures are adopted by scientists, industry, academia and the government, what concessions are made.

The research community hasn't learned that it cannot negotiate with AR people, who begin with the premise that the life of an animal and a life of a human are equally valuable, a premise that rejects the very concept of animal welfare in favor of animal liberation.

People who believe that the life of a human and that of an animal are of equal value aren't going to be appeased by reducing the number of animals used in research, or by providing animals with larger cages or an enriched environment. The only way you can appease these people is by abandoning Animal Based research altogether.

Why is it so difficult to accept that not everyone views the world through the same lens, a lens which views a human life as being of greater value than an animal life?

Brian

SHAC: Guniea Pig Farm to Close

Readers of AC will know the campaign of intimidation, vandalism and cruelty the Hall family, and the community they live in, have been subjected to over the past several years by AR people who wish to force them to abandon raising guinea pigs for research. Sadly but not unexpectedly, the Halls are doing just that:

Targeted guinea pig farm closes

A farm is to stop breeding guinea pigs for medical research after years of intimidation by animal rights activists.

The family-run Darley Oaks Farm in Newchurch, Staffordshire, has been at the centre of a campaign of abuse.

Owners and staff have received death threats during the six-year onslaught.
The family said they hoped the decision would prompt the return of the body of their relative Gladys Hammond, whose remains were stolen from a churchyard.

The remains were taken from her grave in nearby Yoxall in October.

Mrs Hammond, who was buried in St Peter's churchyard seven years ago, was the mother-in-law of Christopher Hall, part-owner of the farm.

In a statement a close relative of Gladys Hammond, who declined to be named, said there was now no reason why her body could not be returned.

"Gladys was a relative of the Halls by marriage only and had no involvement in guinea pig breeding.

"She was a kind, gentle country lady who loved animals. She was also friendly, generous and loving and always put her family first."

I doubt Mrs. Hammond's remains will be returned. It'd be too much trouble, and it would be risky to do so.

Plus, in the perverted thinking of the extremists, the Halls had it coming, and not returning the remains will serve as an object lesson to others the extremists wish to intimidate into compliance . . .

And her remains are just another dead thing . . .

The Hall family have been subjected to hate mail, malicious phone calls, hoax bombs and arson attacks.

A spokeswoman for the business, David Hall and Partners, confirmed the site was to stop breeding the animals.

In a statement, the Association of British Pharmaceutical Industry (ABPI ) expressed its best wishes to the Hall family and said their decision was "regrettable but understandable".

Director of the ABPI Philip Wright said guinea pigs had been essential in research into respiratory disease resulting in breakthroughs in the development of new medicines.

"The activities of a few animal rights extremists have placed impossible pressure on those going about their legitimate business," he said.

"While animal rights extremists are likely to be only one factor in the final decision, it does underline the need for greater protection of those individuals and companies targeted." [You can read the entire statement here . . . ed.]

David Bird, from Staffordshire Police, told BBC Radio 4 it had been impossible to give complete protection because the campaign had been so widespread.

" We have had some success in dealing with those responsible. What I would say is that this closure is not a victory for anybody," he said.

"This campaign has done absolutely nothing to further the cause of animal rights."

Of course it has! Let's be honest! It's shown that intimidation, vandalism and thuggery can prevail, even against the best efforts of the government and the courage of a brave family and community. It demonstrates that a diffusely organized attack, conducted over several years by fanatics, can succeed when focussed on a small target.

The government did give it their best effort, right?

Rod Harvey supplied fuel to the farm and endured four years of abuse from activists before he was forced to cease trading with the farm.

The 63-year-old businessman said he received threatening letters, including one accusing him of being a paedophile which was then sent to a number of people he knew.

"In December 2003 a brick came through the window of my front door, hitting my foot and cutting my hand," he said.

"In view of what they (the Hall family) and their staff have had to put up with I'm not surprised that they have stopped breeding guinea pigs.

"I just feel so angry that these animal rights activists have won."

It remains to be seen what happens now, but if I were the SHAC/Speak crew, or any other radical group, AR or other, I'd be pretty happy with myself and already back at the drawing board, planning direct actions in the name of my cause.

Thanks to David S and others for the heads up.

Brian

CCF: Taking on AR Distortions of Religion

I blush to admit that my knowledge of religion — other than the bizarre form of animal worship practiced by Animal Rights activists — is woefully inadequate. At the same time, one of several spearheads of animal rights argument seeks to convince believers of many faiths that Animal Rights is endorsed, if not mandated, by the world's great religions.

Despite my shallow understanding of any traditional religion, I tend to dismiss such claims out of hand on the grounds that it's highly unlikely that Animal Rights activists might have stumbled across a truer meaning of scripture than the most learned scholars who lived during the past couple of thousand years have been able to: each of the religions evolved from different cultures, values and assumptions, yet all, the AR zealots would have us believe, now have been found to point towards AR, though none had previously. Such a thing would indeed be a miracle . . .

So here's a press release from the Center of Consumer Freedom on a study they've just completed on religion and Animal Rights. You can download a pdf file of it here if you're of a mind (I did, and I'm looking forward to perusing it).

WASHINGTON, Aug. 22 /PRNewswire/ -- Americans are accustomed to the outrageous tactics of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), but the group's in-your-face advocacy is increasingly calculated to offend, provoke, and otherwise show contempt for America's religious faithful. In a new report released today, the nonprofit Center for Consumer Freedom documents how this animal rights group hijacks religious rituals and institutions in an attempt to impose its stated philosophy of "total animal liberation."

The eye-opening new report -- "Holy Cows: How PETA twists religion to push animal 'rights'" -- chronicles PETA's controversial assaults on the sacred scriptures and traditions of Roman Catholics, Protestant Christians, Jews, Mormons, and Muslims. The report also includes an inventory of scripture contradicting PETA's assertion that only vegetarians can claim to be observant Christians, Jews, Mormons, and Muslims.

"The world's great religions are under attack by disrespectful PETA activists who twist scripture and history to suit their goals," said David Martosko, director of research at the Center for Consumer Freedom. "The animal rights movement has never shied away from offending people, but PETA should leave churches, synagogues, and mosques out of its vegan Holy War."

They should, but they won't. The problem is that traditional religion undermines the premise of their own AR religion: AR people believe that the life of a human and that of an animal are of equal worth. That point of view is irreconcilable with the view of the worlds great religions, all of which accord humans privilege of place.

AR advocates have no alternative but to ignore religion, or try to reconcile the irreconcilable (traditional religion with AR religion), and if they'll use distortion, misrepresentation and outright lies in their campaigns against science (as but one of many examples I could select), why would they not use the same techniques to shoehorn AR into being endorsed by traditional religions?

I view this aspect of their propaganda to be nothing less than religious warfare: their AR religion against the worlds great ones.

To spread the gospel of vegetarianism, PETA's full-time "faith-based campaigners" work under the direction of a campaign coordinator who has publicly advocated "blowing stuff up and smashing windows" as "a great way to bring about animal liberation."

Ouch!

PETA has recently begun holding protests at houses of worship, even suing one church that tried to protect its congregation from Sunday-morning harassment. PETA's billboards and other advertisements taunt Christians with the message that livestock "died for your sins," misrepresent the teachings of the Mormon faith, and even make the false claim that Jesus was a vegetarian. PETA even paraded a statue of a cow dressed as the Pope in front of Catholic churches.

Yes — what stunning contempt from a group that claims to be compassionate.

PETA claims, contrary to a wealth of rabbinical teaching, that ritual kosher slaughter is inherently cruel. It directs Jews to abstain from eating lamb during the Passover seder. PETA's infamous "Holocaust on Your Plate" campaign crassly compared the victims of Nazi genocide with farm animals. And it buys Internet advertisements falsely warning Muslims that meat labeled "Halal" is typically unfit to eat.

"Holy Cows: How PETA twists religion to push animal 'rights'" can be downloaded at http://www.ConsumerFreedom.com. Bound, printed copies are available to religious leaders and credentialed journalists.

Well! I've long believed that the best way to defeat AR loopiness is to attack them by revealing the inadequacies of their own anti-speciesist "philosophy", the problems of carrying the anti-specieisism logic through to its logical conclusion and the way in which they (AR people) distort the record, be it scientific, animal husbandry, pet keeping and care, hunting or "other."

In short, the best way to debunk AR is make them play some defense . . . make them defend their own philosophy, values, statements and acts.

It looks like the CCF has done us all a service — the Animal Rights people are going to have to play a little defense over here on the religious front. (I can't wait to see if the CCF included PeTA's distortion of the Dalai Lama's position!)

Kudos to CCF for the brilliant idea, thanks to them for the effort, and thanks to Joe W. for pointing me towards CCF's Press Release.

Brian

SHAC Declared Bankrupt — Part of the Plan

There was a short story in some UK papers reporting that SHAC has been made bankrupt.

Of greater significance than the fact that "bankruptcy occurred" is the fact that SHAC's leaders had long anticipated that judgments would be made against them, and took steps to render any judgments irrelevant even before specific cases entered the courts:

THREE animal rights campaigners who have been targeting Huntingdon Life Sciences have been made bankrupt over nearly £300,000 owed to the firm in court costs.

HLS, which has been the subject of massed protests over its use of animals in tests, successfully applied to have Greg Avery, his wife Natasha and former wife Heather James, made bankrupt at Worcester County Court.

The three are leading members of Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC) which has been campaigning to close down the laboratory.

But Mr Avery, a spokesman for SHAC, said: "It is actually a positive thing.

"Something we always say to people taking part in protests is to make themselves asset free. HLS say we owe them £300,000 and they will not be getting a penny."

Mr Avery said he had been involved in the campaign since leaving school and had no assets.
He said bankruptcy had positive aspects, including preventing suppliers of HLS being able to take out costs' orders against them.

The £300,000 comes from court costs run up by HLS in its fight against the campaign.

I think taking SHAC to court for restraining orders etc. is the kind of thing you have to do if you're HLS, even if it costs you £300,000. But you do so without any expectation that you'll be able to recover your costs, even if there is a judgment awarding them to you.

You take SHAC to court because, really, you have to undertake some legal action, and what else is there to do, other than to get as much legal clout on your side as you can?

If you're HLS, the most you can get from winning court cases is the satisfaction of knowing that the law is on your side — restraining orders won't restrain anonymous people who don't want to be restrained, and who can pick and choose their time and manner of taking a "direct action."

Of course, you'll also get a little publicity that the law is on your side, and you will add incrementally to the already substantial trail of SHAC's nasty campaign.

But that's cold comfort. You will not be able to stop SHAC's campaign, nor will you be able to collect from SHAC any costs that the court might award to you.

SHAC, of course, has the satisfaction of seeing their strategy work — by preemptively shedding themselves of any assets, not only are they free to continue their campaign of harassment, intimidation and vandalism against HLS, but they can stick HLS with the court costs of obtaining restraining orders and attempting other legal maneuvers, which so far have cost HLS £300,000. And SHAC, too, has the satisfaction of seeing their campaign against HLS live on in the pages of the newspapers, and they can take satisfaction that they are, at least in one legal venue, immune from the consequences of their anti-HLS campaign.

If you're SHAC, that's not a bad deal.

So — if SHAC doesn't have assets, what resources are available to them that enable them to carry out such an effective campaign? Here's part of the story.

Brian