If you haven't yet marveled at how Animal Rights groups can waft above their own moral absolutes, consider this story.
In Portland, Australia, AR extremists fed shredded ham to sheep that were scheduled for export to the Middle East.
Their tactical goal was to render the sheep unacceptable for human consumption on two counts: first, out of concern for mad cow disease, Australian law forbids domestic consumption of animals that have been fed animal products. Second, by feeding ham to the sheep, the extremists hoped to take advantage of the Muslim prohibition against eating pork, and cause the shipment to be rejected.
Their strategic goal was to cripple the Australian meat industry. The weapons they used were Australian secular law and Muslim religious law.
It was initially unclear how many of the 70,000-plus sheep in Portland holding pens might have eaten the contaminated feed, but after a 2 week investigation that cost, by some estimates, $50,000 per day, officials concluded that "only" 1800 animals had eaten contaminated food.
Predictably, the 1800 contaminated sheep were destroyed while the remainder was finally shipped to the Middle East.
This is a typical example of AR extremists preaching a morality they do not practice. They roundly condemn humans for exercising dominion over animals, and they expand the definition of cruelty to include any human act that violates an animals natural right not to be exploited. The gold standard for their ideology is that if you wouldn't do it to another human being, you shouldn't do it to another sentient creature. Or at least, that's what they argue and would have us believe.
But in this case, the AR folks exempted themselves from their own moral absolutes: the Portland extremists exercised human domination over sheep, taking actions that insured that many were to die not for food, but for a greater ideological good (the destruction of the Australian meat industry).
I wonder - where is it written that the ideological "greater good" championed by AR zealots should trump an economic or gastronomic "greater good?" Which impartial agent would the AR folks recommend to arbitrate this question? And why should we look for moral guidance to people who so easily cast aside one of the pillars of their ideology out of expediency?
Beyond this, the actions of the Animal Liberationists made them parties to a killing of animals eerily similar to what Ingrid Newkirk of PeTA and other AR luminaries have previously condemned outright when done by their ideological opponents. But don't expect AR people to see the parallel.
If AR groups say anything about the complicity of AR extremists in the killing of the sheep, it will not be to condemn the perpetrators or their methods. At best, the AR apologists will simply "not condone" the methods, while "understanding" the motivations of the perps, virtuous as they would have us believe they are.