Animal Crackers

Peter Daniel Young: Accomplices in the Headlights

We're starting to learn a little more about how Peter Daniel Young eluded authorities for several years after having released thousands of mink: he had help! (Duh . . .)

MADISON, Wis. - Animal rights activists in northern California helped a Washington state man accused of releasing thousands of mink from Midwestern farms dodge authorities for the last few years, federal investigators believe.

Peter Daniel Young rented an apartment under a false name, used another activist's credit card and appears to have run a mail-order CD business over his computer while he was on the lam, according to search warrant applications recently unsealed in the U.S. District Court of Northern California.

"I have probable cause to believe that one or more individuals ... have in some manner assisted Young in remaining concealed from arrest," Scott Merriam, an agent in the FBI's San Francisco office, wrote in the applications.

Young, captured in March after seven years on the run, faces two federal counts of animal enterprise terrorism in Wisconsin. The decision on whether to bring more charges in his case rests with the U.S. attorney's office in San Francisco since Young and his friends apparently were living in that jurisdiction.

[ . . . ] Young's attorney in Madison, Chris Kelly, downplayed the documents.

"I'm not sure most of it has any real significance to the charges Peter is facing here (in Wisconsin). The information in the warrant is just a bunch of allegations. They haven't been proved," he said.

[ . . . ]

Of course, Mr. Young is less likely to worry about having received help than those who helped him should be for having given it . . . which is the point of the search warrant applications . . .

I doubt that the attorney for any of his alleged accomplices would be quite so cavalier about the warrants.

Federal prosecutors believe Young and Justin Samuel broke onto farms in Wisconsin, South Dakota and Iowa in 1997 and freed 7,000 mink on behalf of the Animal Liberation Front. ALF is an umbrella for groups of animal rights activists working against industries they feel injure animals.

They both were originally indicted in Madison in 1998 on four counts of interfering with interstate commerce by extortion and two counts of animal enterprise terrorism.

Federal prosecutors dropped the extortion counts against Young, 27, last week . . . Young, of Mercer Island, Wash., still faces trial this fall on the two animal enterprise terrorism counts.

Young and Samuel disappeared after the indictment came down. Police caught up with Samuel in Hasselt, Belgium, in 1999. He struck a deal with prosecutors and served two years in prison.

Young stayed a step ahead of the FBI, local police and foreign law enforcement agencies. He finally was arrested in San Jose, Calif., this past March after police said an officer caught him trying to shoplift CDs from a Starbucks.

According to the search warrant applications, Young had a Virginia identification card with a different name that he used to rent an apartment in Santa Cruz, Calif., starting in May 2003 until he was captured this spring.

He chose that area so he could get help from animal rights activists there, the applications said. His apartment was near the home of a fellow animal rights activist who was arrested with Young during a protest at the University of California, Davis in 1997.

Police who arrested Young also found a Visa card on him that belonged to a San Francisco woman known as an animal rights activist. The search warrant applications said the woman gets mail at Young's apartment.

How very interesting — of course, once the cops have their clutches on accomplices, they can start playing one against the other, a favor here, a threat of maximum sentencing there, especially if any alleged accomplice is hit with some form of felony conspiracy charge. This could be a real test for someone's ideological purity.

Just ask Mr. Samuel, who evidently sold Mr. Young out in return for a relatively light sentence.

The quid pro quo rules.

Officers also found postal delivery receipts on Young. Postal employees said Young brought in 20 to 50 media mail packages containing CDs, DVDs or books to mail to customers of his business, which he ran through his computer. Young was caught trying to steal eight copies of the same CD from Starbucks, the warrant applications said.

Customers of his business . . . boosting CDs, DVDs and books to serve his mail order customers . . . The free enterprise system at work, albeit sweetened with a little theft, perhaps as an attempt to legitimize its illegitimacy to egalitarian true believers.

That would be a nice touch, for Mr. Young to make his business at one time both a capitalistic venture, one designed to profit Mr. Young, and paradoxically, an anti-establishment enterprise, one that appeared to be a protest against the hated capitalists, whose goods were stolen, to satisfy egalitarians everywhere!

Who says you can't have your cake and eat it too?

Brian

New York Times Editorial Bashes CCF, Defends PeTA

On July 24, Verlyn Klinkenborg published an article in the New York Times entitled: "The Story Behind a New York Billboard and the Interests It Serves." The "story" begins by noting the "PetaKillsAnimals.com" Time's Square billboard was paid for by the CCF (Center for Consumer Freedom). Klinkenborg then uses the presence of this billboard to enlighten his audience about who founded the CCF, the source of some/most of their funding, what the CCF claims to be and stand for, but really aren't and don't — which is why Klinkenborg feels the need to enlighten us . . ..

All in all, it's not a very flattering portrayal, but neither is it very persuasive for anyone with half a brain. For example, pointing out that Mr. Richard Berman, CCF's founder and (presumably) driving force, is a lobbyist is, like skin color or union membership, neither here nor their — virtually every interest group participating in the American Cultural wars has one or more lobbyist, including, I'd be willing to bet, the HSUS, the Sierra Club, the NAACP, RainbowPush, and whatever union represents the special interests of journalists. And PeTA certainly does (or did) employ lobbyists as well (Darcy Kemnitz served in that capacity).

Being a lobbyist or employing one tells us nothing at all about the principles and honesty of the individual or the group he represents. But when a columnist takes pains to point it out in a way — almost as a stereotype — that implies corruption and untrustworthiness, he is engaging in pure demagoguery, and that tells us much about the columnist.

Slashing by innuendo may give Klinkenborg great personal satisfaction, but he would not accept this form of attack were it directed against a group he is sympathetic to, and, further, for him to engage in such tactics himself shows immense contempt for his audience.

If there is evidence pointing to Mr. Berman and his CCF being corrupt or their statements and claims being untrustworthy, Klinkenborg should present it or shut up.

Who pays for CCF is certainly a matter of interest, but does not by definition relegate them to the "Pack of the Immoral" any more than a neighborhood animal shelter would be so relegated for receiving money for their spay and neuter program from terrorist-supporting PeTA.

If there is evidence that the money was illegally gotten, or that it has produced a misleading or deceptive message, Klinkenborg should present it — or shut up.

What counts is the accuracy of the facts CCF provides, whether they are honest about their agenda, and whether or not their philosophical views are broadly coherent. There is no excuse for willfully misrepresenting facts, and I haven't found CCF ever to have done that. They are right up front about their agenda, far less have they tried to hide it. And agree or disagree with their goals, they appear to be philosophically coherent.

There is a vast difference between advertising and promoting your case to an audience, and attempting to indoctrinate them. True, CCF employs aggressive tactics as part of their strategy — they attack — for which I applaud them. And they present their case in its best light (is there any interest group that does not?). But most importantly, the facts they present are verifiable, unlike those presented by PeTA, the group CCF criticized in their Time's Sqare Billboard.

If there is evidence that the facts CCF presents are fabricated, deliberately false or cunningly assembled partial truths intended to deceive and manipulate, present the evidence or shut up.

From my perspective, in the case of CCF vs PeTA, it is dispositive that the CCF is not afraid to present their evidence before the world in a forum where they can be challenged, and know they will be — you may recall that the CCF appeared to testify before the Senate, and to be cross-examined by Senators, when PeTA chickened out (pun intended).

What, I wonder, might Klinkenborg make of that?

But I'm not interested in taking more time defending CCF, though it's easy enough to do — you can judge them for yourselves by looking at their respective web sites (PeTA and CCF), and perhaps searching Animal Crackers to see what I have had to say about PeTA.

I would, however, like to return to Klinkenborg, who makes a feeble and contrived attempt to appear as if he's not in PeTA's pocket — which if true suggests to me he's been duped by their propaganda:

I hold no brief for PETA, which seems to me to be wrongheaded about as often as it is right-minded. But it has made common cause with more-thoughtful organizations in opposing the contemptible practice of raising animals like hogs and chickens - the source of most Americans' meat - in close confinement.

Klinkenborg can forgive PeTA, apparently, for their support of arsonists like Rodney Coronado and terrorist organizations like the ELF (Earth Liberation Front) because they (PeTA) have made common cause with more thoughtful groups whose agenda he approves of . . .

He can overlook the fact that PeTA is encouraging children to lie to further their (PeTA's) agenda — because PeTA makes common cause with more thoughtful groups whose agenda he approves of . . .

And he can overlook the fact that the PCRM (Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine) with its close ties to PeTA, once employed Dr. Jerry Vlasak as a spokesman, he who finds assassination to be "morally acceptable" in furthering the AR cause, and who openly advocates the practice itself — because PeTA makes common cause with more thoughtful groups whose agenda he approves of.

And then there is PeTA's careful use of a an obviously staged, horribly grotesque video on its PeTA2 (for kids) website, showing animals being skinned alive, irrelevant in the factual content of their campaign against Wet Seal, but carefully placed on a page to suggest that it depicts how Wet Seal's suppliers treat animals. Klinkenborg can overlook that, because PeTA makes common-cause with more thoughtful groups whose agenda he approves of.

I think that's clear enough.

And where, may I ask, did Klinkenborg ever get the idea that PeTA is any less thoughtful than the organizations they append themselves to, for purposes of publicity and expediency? You don't wake up one morning and find yourself having built an organization commanding a $25 — $29 million annual budget unless you're very thoughtful indeed . . . the size of budget alone attests to the brilliant minds behind PeTA's propaganda campaigns.

One can only conclude that Klinkenborg is deliberately trying to deceive his audience by striking up a moral equivalency between the CCF and PeTA, or that he was suckered into believing PeTA's propaganda, and wrote with stylistic authority about an organization he knew nothing about, other than what he learned from the propaganda he so unskeptically and enthusiastically consumed.

Which is worse?

Klinkenborg finishes his tope with a truly breathtaking flourish:

Is it hypocritical for C.C.F. to attack PETA? Since its basic rhetorical strategy is hypocritical, the answer is almost certainly yes. Is it hypocritical for PETA to euthanize dogs and cats, as C.C.F. claims it does? Only if you believe that the ethical treatment of animals never includes euthanasia. The obvious retort to PETA Kills Animals is PETA Saves Animals. But that doesn't make much of a billboard.g animals like hogs and chickens - the source of most Americans' meat - in close confinement. And it is probably capable of defending itself in a billboard war.

Here, Klinkenborg parades the full bloom of his ignorance before the world, with trumpets a-blaring and banners a-streaming. He clearly has no idea what distinguishes Animal Rights from Animal Welfare! PeTA, of course, is an Animal Rights group not an Animal Welfare group. Ooops.

Of course, the whole point of PeTA is that it is liberationist: Animals have "rights," which PeTA claims to be in the business of protecting! To deny animals their "rights" is to be a speciesist (and link); to an AR person, speciesism is a sin as morally indefensible as racism or sexism is. To put it another way, to an Animal Rights activist, a human life is of no greater value than a non-human life, and to believe otherwise is to be a "speciesist."

If you understand the prohibition against "speciesism" that figures so prominently in AR thinking — and Klinkenborg does not or is being willfully blind — then you understand this.

Though killing shelter animals is regrettable but consistent with the Animal Welfare position, when PeTA kills animals as a matter of course, PeTA is violating the core value of Animal Rights ideology. There are no "ifs", "ands" or "buts" about it. And when it turns out that PeTA kills a far higher percentage of animals than other shelters in its vicinity than their less affluent neighbors (op cit)), this is hypocrisy of biblical proportions.

What may even be worse is this: PeTA justifies its killing ways by claiming that most (but not all!) of the animals they killed are not adoptable, many having been abused ("damaged") by human owners. Here's what I wrote before:

PeTA has tried to claim that they killed only those that aren't easily adopted out: but their kill rate exceeds that of some genuine shelters in the area by a factor of 2-3, and killing animals whose only sin is that they were "damaged" by human abuse violates a fundamental AR principle, and raises a devastating question: why are unadoptable animals, especially those made so by human abuse, less deserving of PeTA's protection than cute, adoptable animals? Have the unadoptable animals lost their right to life simply because they are unadoptable? After all, PeTA has the bucks to run a non-kill shelter — they just prefer to spend their money on other things (op cit), including terrorist organizations and arsonists.

Klinkenborg certainly has a right to his opinion, and he may well continue (at the peril of his credibility) in his belief that PeTA doesn't deserve the label "hypocrite" when they so easily abandon the core value of their raison d'être and segue smoothly behind the protective values embraced by Animal Welfarists — values they specifically reject when it serves their interests to do so.

But such intransigency would be self-discrediting.

My thanks to Orac, who brought this to my attention.

Brian

PeTA: The Foundation for Biomedical Research Launches an Ad

Blogging is probably going to be light for the next few days, because my DSL modem is on the fritz, which hampers my ability to track down URLs and check sources — punishment, no doubt, for my many, varied and significant sins . . .

But I do think you should know that the Foundation for Biomedical Research has joined the fray by launching an ad against PeTA, one that is directed towards the Hollywood celebs. who seem so impervious to an objective reality. Here's what the FBR press release has to say:

Contact: George Goodno of the Foundation for Biomedical Research,
202-457-0654

LOS ANGELES, July 25 /U.S. Newswire/ -- A provocative ad campaign launched today in Weekly Variety advises Hollywood celebrities who support People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA) to "fire their publicist" in light of the 62 felony animal cruelty charges that have been brought by police against two PeTA employees.

The ad appears on pages 1 and A7 in the "Annual Philanthropy Issue" of the fabled trade magazine. It lists the names of 50 celebrities serving on the Honorary Committee for PeTA's 25th Anniversary celebration, including Pamela Anderson, Christina Applegate, Alicia Silverstone and Victoria Principal, and suggests: "If your name is on this list, fire your publicist."

"Some people say there is no such thing as bad publicity," cautions the Foundation for Biomedical Research, and refers readers to the recent gruesome discovery of dead dogs and puppies in North Carolina, allegedly killed in the back of a van, stuffed in trash bags, and tossed into a dumpster by PeTA employees.

Said FBR President Frankie L. Trull: "We believe that many of the stars on PeTA's Honorary Committee simply don't know what they're supporting. Chances are, they lent their names to this ubiquitous animal rights organization out of genuine compassion for animals, but would be shocked and appalled by the indiscriminate killings of homeless pets.

"The implications of the PeTA Death Van Scandal are dark and disturbing. And the fact that PeTA has neither condemned nor denied the charges casts grave doubt on the credibility of this organization," added Ms. Trull.

View the ad at: http://www.fbresearch.org/deathvan.

Though it is a fact of life, I continue to be puzzled that there are people among us who can be influenced into supporting a bizarre cause simply because some Hollywood luminary attaches his/her name to it. The skills necessary to be a fantastic actor, one of which is the talent to create a fantasy world, then to enter it and — well — act as if it were real, don't necessarily have much to do with political or social wisdom.

I'm very pleased that the FBR has seized the moment as they have. I hope their ad will change the minds of some of the glitzeratti who have staked out such a huge piece of self-discrediting turf — or at the least will provide them sufficient motivation to distance themselves from PeTA.

But if nothing else, the ad will probably cause others of them to pause, and some who might otherewise have lent their name or donated funds to PeTA may not now do so.

This is all to the good — sunlight is the best disinfectant, and the FBR's ad is a bright ray indeed, and it's well-focussed to boot.

Still, I can't help but think of how FBR could improve on their fine beginning . . .

For example, they might want to consider taking out one or two additional ads, the better to target more diverse audiences. Why not place an ad in PeTA's own "Animal Times"? Or possibly in "Bite Back"? The former ostentaciously promotes a "cruelty-free" world, the latter is uncompromising in its views about what should happen to animal abusers . . .

Brian

PeTA — Avoiding Speciesism

Readers of AC will know that I simply swooned when I came across poster Lupis's cartoon here, and just had to share it with my readers. Lupis's effort is, of course, a parody of an odious PeTA propaganda flyer in which PeTA demonizes mothers who wear fur (you can see PeTA's original here and download a larger pdf of it here if you are of a mind to).

With deep and continuing gratitude to "Lupis", a relative and I have been inspired by his powerful cartoon to create our own, one in which we link PeTA's advocacy of spaying and neutering to PeTA's contention that "speciesism" (discriminating on the basis of species membership) is morally unjustifiable. We hope you are shocked by its implications.

You can read more on "speciesism" here, here, and here.

Thank you again, Lupis.

Brian

More Dots . . .

Yesterday, I posted ("Dots") on a raid conducted by law enforcement in New Jersey. Now, details are emerging on the raid and about related events, and AR activists Janice Angelillo and Nick Cooney are identified as those busted. Both are Animal Rights activists who have had scrapes with the law before — Brian Carnell's site has a little history on Angelillo here. Mr. Cooney is no stranger to the law either. (Readers of AC might remember Mr. Cooney from my post on his recent OpEd in the Philadelphia Inquirer.)

In any event, here's today's story:

Borough resident and animal activist Janice Angelillo remains at the Essex County Jail on $15,000 bail after she and a companion were arrested about 4 a.m. Thursday for giving a police officer fake identities after they were stopped on foot outside the Hoffman-LaRoche facility in Nutley, police said.

Angelillo's Highland Park home was raided Saturday night by more than a dozen state and local police, some armed with assault rifles and clad in bulletproof vests and helmets.

Just before the Thursday arrest, police had been alerted to an incident in nearby Bloomfield in which derogatory slogans toward Hoffman-LaRoche were spray-painted on a white fence in the same color paint found on the hands and clothing of Angelillo and Philadelphia resident Nicholas Cooney, said Capt. Steve Serrao, assistant director for operations of the state Office of Counter Terrorism.

Interesting. A decade or so ago, derogatory graffiti spray painted on a fence wouldn't have raised an eyebrow, let alone prompted a raid by heavily armed cops, even if the suspects were known to be hard-core Animal Rights activists. Things have changed, partly due to external events (9/11), domestic events (there has been an increase in AR/Eco violence in the last decade), and partly because of incendiary rhetoric and the maturing of the internet as a way to communicate it.

Law enforcement agencies are connecting the dots, as well they should be.

After the pair were arrested, police obtained a search warrant to examine their black Subaru that was parked near Hoffman-LaRoche.

Serrao said Angelillo and Cooney are also being investigated in connection with another criminal mischief incident in Long Beach Township that occurred within 24 hours of the two being apprehended in Nutley early Thursday morning.

"We recovered evidence from the (Subaru) and the residence that directly links Cooney and Angelillo to that (Long Beach Township) incident," he said.

State Police also filed three charges against the two in the North Jersey incidents: criminal mischief, criminal trespassing, and conspiracy to commit criminal mischief, said Serrao, also counter-terrorism bureau chief for the State Police.

Angelillo and Cooney are affiliated with the animal-activist group Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty. Huntingdon Life Sciences, a British company, has a facility in Franklin Township, where SHAC has held protests on numerous occasions because the company conducts laboratory testing on animals, Serrao said. [My emphasis . . . Ed]

But of course.

Early Saturday morning after the arrests, police began surveilling Angelillo's Parker Road home, where she lives with her husband, Ted Nebus. That night at 7:15, police descended on the home after observing what they considered suspicious behavior.

"What happened at 7:15 was that members of the New Jersey State Police observed (five) white males carrying boxes out of the residence that we were surveilling in anticipation of obtaining and executing a search warrant," Serrao said.

The men were loading the boxes into a vehicle, according to Serrao.

"When we observed that activity, we communicated that information to the Prosecutor's Office that was preparing a warrant for us and they authorized us to detain those suspects and secure those boxes because they may in fact be the evidence we were seeking," said Serrao.

Nebus was one of the five men detained, but he was not charged with any criminal activity, Serrao said.

Approximately 15 officers were on the scene. Between eight and 10 were wearing full tactical SWAT gear, some detectives were in plain clothes, and other officers were in uniform, he said.

Tom Howard, one of the men detained at the scene, said Sunday that he was part of a group heading out to a barbecue and was carrying a grill and other items for the outing.

Serrao confirmed that some of the boxed items examined may have been for a barbecue but other evidence in the vehicle was considered to be possibly linked to related criminal activity. He declined to identify those items because of the ongoing investigation.

Let there be no mistake — it would be a vegan barbecue.

Howard had said Sunday that police entered the residence about four hours before a search warrant was signed and ransacked the home.

"The home was secured by our tactical troopers," Serrao said. "We certainly never ransacked any home."

Serrao said the investigators didn't enter the home but the SWAT team did, to secure it.

In my post on Mr. Cooney's OpEd Philly Inquirer OpEd (op cit), I quoted a section in which Mr. Cooney takes refuge behind his false claim that nobody's been hurt by AR protestors:

In our post-9/11, Patriot Act era, a wide range of activities have been branded with the "terrorist" label, including political activism - particularly activism on behalf of animal rights. At a congressional hearing in May, animal and environmental activists were declared the nation's top domestic terrorist organizations, despite the fact that neither group has harmed a single person in their decades-long histories.

But even if Mr. Cooney's claim were correct, there are still those troublesome dots: we have AR and radical Eco people claiming that the destruction of property is fully justifiable to further their cause, and in the last 15 years or so, we've seen an increase in the number of such acts, an increase in the scale of damage, and radical AR and Eco "direct actions" emerging as the most significant domestic terror threat. Additionally, there seems to be no prohibition on the methods by which property destruction should occur: so we see arson being a weapon of choice, irrespective of the fact that fiery conflagrations are intrinsically dangerous to responders and passersby alike.

And we have the likes of Dr. Jerry Vlasak, telling anyone listening that assassination is morally justifiable for the AR cause, and even openly advocating the practice of assassination itself. (After all, a human life is no more valuable than an animal life, and to discriminate against an animal simply because it is not a human is to commit the morally-indefensible act of "speciesism" . . .)

Given the obvious concern that some useful idiot will combine the destruction of property (whether by fire or bomb is irrelevant) while acting in accord with Dr. Vlasak's belief that taking a few human lives is morally justifiable if it saves a greater number of animal lives, what was unthinkable a decade ago — an act of massive property destruction intended as well to take human life — is now looming as a credible threat, one rational people cannot afford to ignore.

I'm glad our law enforcement people are connecting the dots that the Animal Rights and radical Eco people have spent 2 decades scattering about — and you should be glad too.

Brian

Dots

It appears the feds are taking domestic terrorism seriously:

HIGHLAND PARK — Heavily armed members of the New Jersey State Police Counter-Terrorism Bureau in bulletproof vests and helmets secured a house on Parker Road last night, as authorities sought a search warrant in an ongoing domestic-terrorism investigation.



Capt. Steve Serrao of the counter-terrorism bureau said at the scene last night that police were unable to release details of the investigation.



But the owner of the house at 1625 Parker Road said he was assured by authorities the incident was related to the arrest of a second-floor resident on criminal-mischief charges in Essex County on Friday night and not to any international incidents or threats.



Residents of the second-floor apartment are members of the animal-rights group Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC), said Dan O'Donnell, the building's owner.



O'Donnell said he has seen people with protest signs entering and leaving the house, but there's never been any trouble with the residents.



Police were holding about a dozen people on the home's rear deck last night as authorities awaited a judge's OK to search the premises.



In a separate case, six members of SHAC are facing trial on charges of conspiring to threaten and terrorize employees and customers of Huntingdon Life Sciences, a Britain-based drug-testing firm that uses animals in its laboratories in Franklin.



The Highland Park Police Department assisted the state police in last night's operation. A K-9 unit also was on the scene.

A decade and a half ago, a raid like this would have me wondering if maybe the feds weren't making too much out of not much. But today I find myself being much more sympathetic, much more understanding, much more supportive of such raids than I ever would have imagined possible back then.

Some of my change of heart, and a great deal of law enforcement's interest, of course, is due to 9/11 — our law enforcement agencies were roundly criticized for not having "connected the dots" before that catastrophe, and they must be highly motivated now to "connect the dots" of the gathering threat of domestic terrorism before it erupts into something even worse than it already is (ELF's torching of Vail alone is said to have cost $12 million, and ALF and ELF together have damaged some $43 million worth of property since 1996 ). (UPDATE: 7/26/05. Alert reader Sue C. reminds me that the cost of ELF's 2003 torching of condominiums in San Diego is estimated to have been $50 million by itself — so, since 1996, ALF/ELF are responsible for damages approaching a cost of $100 million. Thank you Sue.)

Like, what dots?

First, there is the "ideology dot" — the core AR belief that the life of an animal and a human are of equal value, and therefore if it is immoral to do something to humans, it is equally immoral to do it to animals (link, link).

The ideology has spawned its own unique vocabulary, in which the word "speciesism" is a prominent feature. The AR true believer will inform you that just as it is morally indefensible to discriminate on the basis of race, it is also morally indefensible to discriminate on the basis of one's species.

A life is a life, they will tell us, and no life should be privileged above another simply because the one happens to be that of a human, the other that of a dog, cat or rat. To the AR true believer, "non-human persons" are as deserving of "rights" as "human persons."

Second, there is the "propaganda dot." The AR people, especially PeTA, operate a highly sophisticated system and it does several things. The propaganda recruits mainly (but not exclusively) kids to the incoherent AR ideology; it cements in true believers the righteousness of their cause; it incites to action some who are already true believers, and of those incited, it further incites a small percentage to violent action; it masks the radical liberationist goals of AR behind a facade of Animal Welfare appearing causes (link, link); and it raises money from a naive but well-meaning public who haven't a clue that some of their contributions may be used to support terrorist organizations like the Earth Liberation Front, or ALF/ELF operatives like arsonist Rodney Coronado; and finally, it publicizes, rationalizes and glorifies the "direct actions" of its violent acolytes (link, link).

Third, there is the "firebrand dot." If you believe that a human life and an animal life are equally worthy, then the ethics of social justice become easy, a mere matter of arithmetic, and you can find it, as Dr. Jerry Vlasak has, to be morally acceptable to sacrifice a few (human) lives if it would save more (animal) lives. You can go further, as Dr. Jerry Vlasak has done, and openly advocate assassinating a few scientists to intimidate others into stopping animal based research. This, he believes, would probably save thousands of animal lives, each such life as valuable as a human life.

The logic is irrefutable, if you buy the article of faith that is the very basis of the Animal Rights movement — that a human and an animal life are equally valuable. The life of Dr. Best's dog is as valuable as your child, parent, sib or spouse, but to him, his dog is actually the more valuable of the two because his dog brings him pleasure, and your relative does not. This is why he would save his dog from a burning house before he would save a human stranger, and is a classic example of the "Me First!" ethic.

Of course, if you believe that scientists kill millions of animals to begin with, you could justify killing any lesser number of scientists than the millions of animals you believe they kill, and still have performed a noble moral act. So if killing only fifteen scientists doesn't accomplish your goal, why not kill a hundred, a thousand, ten thousand or several hundred thousand? Hells Bells: kill every scientist who uses animals, and stop the practice altogether!

Fourth, there is the "stealth dot." It is partly the product of an exceptionally slick propaganda campaign, but it is also dependent on an indifferent and lazy press that for whatever reason hasn't informed itself about the history, methods, ideology, goals and connections of Animal Rights itself and AR luminaries, and which therefore is unable to inform the public of what is easily verifiable.

But I've painted the "stealth dot" with too broad a brush. In fact, there are some in the media who do shine cleansing sunlight on the AR and Eco thugs and their loopy ideology, and when this happens, mountains move (the best example of this was Peter Gullage's remarkable series on Dr. Jerry Vlasak and his relationship with the Sea Shepherd Conservation society (link, link link), a relationship that ended abruptly once Dr. Vlasak became a liability for the SSCS. Mr. Gullage's effort was investigative journalism at its very best.

But by and large, other than some very good OpEd pieces, correspondents who report on AR demonstrations, "direct actions" or scandals really don't spend much time asking tough questions, and the public remains naive about such fundamental issues as the difference between Animal Rights and Animal Welfare (op cit).

When you look at this witches brew — a movement with an ideology; propaganda to make a loopy ideology look plausible, recruit acolytes, incite people to vandalism, to threaten, intimidate and coerce targets and their family members and to fund the movement; firebrands willing to preach assassination and defend vandalism, intimidation and other acts of thuggery, even as they glorify the cause — you see dots within, and it's just not all that hard to connect them.

And I, for one, am glad our law enforcement agencies apparently see the dots for what they are, and are making an effort to connect them.

Brian

SPCA-TX: Interesting Developments

You may recall I wrote a piece on John Stoessel's ABC exposé of the SPCA, Texas, and a follow-up one on the SPCA's rebuttal of the exposé and ABC's answer to SPCA's rebuttal (whew!).

The central character of the Stossel story was a Texas SPCA official by the name of Dave Garcia. Mr. Garcia has been the driving force behind his chapter's dubious "success," and was not an altogether praiseworthy soul in Mr. Stossel's report.

Now, there's been a very interesting development, having to do with Mr. Garcia's background and the trial of someone who is facing animal cruelty charges brought through the good offices of the SPCA-Tx's Mr. Garcia:

New information in a Smith County animal cruelty case may allow the defendant to walk free.

The information came about in some anonymous faxes to the judge and defense attorney. Julia McMurrey was in court yesterday, but the judge reset her trial for next month because of the new information.

McMurrey founded PAWS Around the Planet, where the SPCA of Texas seized close to 200 sick and malnourished dogs two years ago. She's already been convicted on one count of animal cruelty, but is charged with two more counts.

Right now, the McMurrey case hinges on more than a dozen pieces of paper. The anonymous faxes include documents detailing the criminal record of the state's key witness, Dave Garcia.

He's the VP of Operations at the SPCA of Texas in Dallas and the one who seized the dogs from McMurrey in 2003. Garcia has been convicted on multiple felony and misdemeanor DWI's in several states, and has a warrant for his arrest in Arizona. [My emphasis . . . ed]

A source whose anonymity I wish to protect tells me Mr. Garcia has 2 misdemeanor DWI convictions and 1 felony DWI conviction in Missouri, and the warrant for his arrest in Arizona is for failing to appear to answer yet another charge of DWI.

All of this comes as a surprise to District Attorney Matt Bingham, who never received the faxes. The judge gave them to him.

It has Bingham reconsidering his case against McMurrey and whether he should use Garcia as a witness.

"The fact that he has a felony DWI, in and of itself, does not cause me to automatically disbelieve him," Bingham said. "The prosecutor did ask him. And the fact that, if this is him, he did not mention this, concerns me."

Indeed . . . Mr. Garcia's failure to disclose his past when asked to do so should be a concern — a big one.

McMurrey's attorney, Joel Baker, says the DA's office should have checked Garcia's criminal background.

"If I had been made aware of that before that trial, we may have used that information to impeach his credibility," Baker said.

My source adds this to the mix: ". . . he (Garcia), or someone with his name and date of birth, has a 1976 conviction for an extremely serious felony from Arizona that involved a 9 to 12 year sentence in prison." Whether or not the two are one and the same is still an open question, but should they be, I would think it would bear on the present case.

But Bingham says the defense would not be able to impeach Garcia as a witness.

"A DWI is not a crime of moral turpitude," Bingham said. "The law says you can have a DWI and still be an honest person."

This is thin indeed. The convictions are not the issue, the failure to disclose is. It amounts to a lie through omission. Mr. Garcia did not tell the whole truth, but merely part of it.

Mr. Garcia was not entirely forthcoming when asked by the DA, nor apparently was he willing to abide by the law and appear at a court hearing, the result of his failure to appear being that he evidently has an active warrant out for his arrest.

Both his failure to disclose and his failure to appear (if true) are concerns that go straight to his credibility. And if he really is the person who served time for the "extremely serious felony", that too would be important for me to know if I were on a jury and had to evaluate his credibility.

Bingham says, if he decides to continue with the trial, he hopes the jury will not be tainted by this new information.

However, Baker says he may try to reverse McMurrey's conviction.

If Bingham decides to proceed with the case, the trial is set for August 17.

We contacted the SPCA of Texas. The president says he also received the information about Garcia from the United Game Fowl Breeders Association. The SPCA says it was already aware of Garcia's criminal background and says that does not change his credibility as an animal welfare investigator.

The United Game Fowl Breeders Association is a cockfighting association, an activity that is outlawed in at least 48 states, and an association that undoubtedly is probably highly motivated to discredit Mr. Garcia and the SPCA. But that doesn't invalidate the information they provided.

I think Mr. Garcia's criminal history does bear on his credibility, and if I were a juror, I'd want to know a lot more about him than he's apparently willing to admit.

There's more to be found here, which includes a description of the conditions the animals were said to be living in, and the corrective actions Mr. Garcia allegedly required the defendant to take before charges were brought.

I certainly don't know enough to assess the merits of the case brought against the defendant, but I am mindful of Mr. Stossel's report and Mr. Garcia's lack of candor, and if I were the prosecutor, I'd find both disturbing.

Thanks to Mike E. for the heads up, and to my anonymous source for the inside information.

Brian

Peter Daniel Young: Very Lucky

Peter Daniel Young, the accused ALF operative who allegedly released mink from a midwestern farm and who successfully evaded capture for several years before being busted for boosting CDs at a Starbucks (!), is an exceptionally lucky fellow, according to this report:

MADISON, Wis. - Federal prosecutors have dropped four extortion charges against an animal rights activist who was accused of freeing thousands of mink from farms around the Midwest.

Prosecutors said they were forced to act because a Supreme Court decision changed the legal definition of extortion while Peter Daniel Young was on the run. The ruling found someone must actually take something from another person, authorities said.

The surprise move shocked the owner of a farm where authorities said Young helped free 300 mink in 1997.

"You've got to be kidding. Unbelievable. Unbelievable," said Alex Ott, owner of Ott's Mink Ranch in Tomahawk.

Young, 27, of Mercer Island, Wash., still faces two counts of animal enterprise terrorism — misdemeanors that each carry up to a year in prison. The four counts of interference with commerce by extortion each carried up to 20 years.

"I'm pretty pleased, as is Peter," said Young's attorney, Chris Kelly. "We're in a much better position."

Prosecutors believe Young is part of the Animal Liberation Front, a group that aims to destroy animal-related industries. He and alleged accomplice Justin Samuel were indicted in 1998 on the six charges. Prosecutors say the pair broke onto five farms in Iowa, South Dakota and Wisconsin in 1997 and freed around 7,000 mink.

Samuel cooperated with authorities and got two years in prison. Young had vanished until this past March, when he was arrested in San Jose, Calif., for shoplifting CDs from a Starbucks.

I've commented before about the ecological unfriendliness of releasing a bunch of mink into the wild, loosing them upon the local fauna and flora that are unprepared for them (or did the ALF operatives file an Environmental Impact statement before proceeding with this particular direct action?) and noted that there are some particularly nasty ways for mink to die if released like this.

I continue to believe that when it comes to releasing animals being raised for fur, symbolism and pure motives are of much greater importance than the welfare of the animals themselves, or the preservation of the habitat they are released into.

And, when ALF steals animals from research labs, what assurances do we have that they are being properly cared for? None — other than the assurrances they, criminals that they are, and their apologists, offer.

Regardless, it is as I say: Mr. Young is an exceptionally lucky fellow.

Thanks to Joe W for the heads up.

Brian

AVMA on Foie Gras Production

You may recall from a past AC post that Animal Rights activists have actively and successfully campaigned against the production of foie gras in the US, most recently in California, on the grounds that it is cruel to the birds. The NAIA allied itself with foie gras farmer Guillermo Gonzalez in trying to block legislation which would ban foie gras, but lost.

Now, the American Veterinary Medical Association has issued a press release on the issue of forced feeding of ducks and geese to produce foie gras. It's well worth reading.

MINNEAPOLIS, July 16 /PRNewswire/ -- In a unanimous decision, the American Veterinary Medical Association's House of Delegates (HOD) has defeated a resolution opposing the practice of force-feeding ducks and geese to produce foie gras.

In their discussion, the HOD considered their obligations to animals, society, and veterinary medicine. However, because limited peer-reviewed, scientific information dealing with the animal welfare concerns associated with foie gras production is available, and because the observations and practical experience of HOD members indicate a minimum of adverse effects on the birds involved, the HOD did not support the resolution opposing force feeding used to produce foie gras. [My emphasis . . . ed]

"We've looked at the science and current production practices, and have found it is not necessary for the AVMA to take a position either for or against foie gras production at this time," said Dr. Bonnie Beaver, AVMA President.

The AVMA's HOD examined the issue and had a chance to speak out strongly against forced feeding, but did not. Their decision not to oppose such feeding trumps, in spades, the HOD's unwillingness to endorse the practice. I would argue that they made exactly the correct decision: their first and overriding priority should be to condemn a practice if it is cruel by Animal Welfare standards, not Animal Rights attitudes. In this case, "not taking a position" is exactly the correct thing to do, and is highly significant because the position they were considering was whether or not the feeding is cruel. They decided it was not.

The burden of proof rests with the claimant to support his case of cruelty with evidence, not for those opposing the claim to falsify his unproved assertion.

The AVMA, founded in 1863, is one of the oldest and largest veterinary medical organizations in the world. More than 71,000 member veterinarians are engaged in a wide variety of professional activities. AVMA members are dedicated to advancing the science and art of veterinary medicine including its relationship to public health and agriculture. Visit the AVMA Web site at http://www.avma.org to learn more about veterinary medicine, animal care and access up-to-date information on the association's issues, policies and activities.

In the world of Animal Rights, esthetics often masquerades as ethics, and emotion often trumps evidence. Its a powerful brew, well able to sway a naive, disinterested or passive public who don't see themselves having a stake in an outcome, which, I suspect, is what happened in California.

Brian

ALF Claims Credit for Oxford Arson

Animal Rights extremists have launched another arson attack in the UK, the target this time being a boathouse at Oxford University. The goal of the arsonists is to stop construction of a primate research center.

University targeted in arson campaign to halt construction of primate research centre

Animal rights extremists are claiming responsibility for an arson attack on an Oxford University boathouse which caused an estimated £500,000 worth of damage.

The attack comes after the Guardian revealed last month that activists have unleashed a campaign of arson in a return to tactics of the 80s in response to the government's attempts to clamp down on their activities.

In the latest assault 24 rowing boats were destroyed and much of the interior of the Hertford College boathouse at Oxford University was damaged after arsonists broke into the riverside building and poured about 11 litres (2.42 gallons) of petrol over the property inside.

A source close to the inquiry said an estimated £500,000 worth of damage had been caused. Boats belonging to Hertford and four other colleges, St Catherine's, Mansfield, St Hilda's and Templeton were destroyed.

In a posting yesterday on the Bite Back magazine website, the Animal Liberation Front claimed responsibility for the raid.

You'd think such a noble group as the ALF would find time to revenge the 12,000 plus animals killed by PeTA in the last 5.5 years, perhaps by mounting a "direct action" against PeTA UK.

It's awfully difficult to claim the moral high ground when you apply your standard so selectively.

Animal Rights isn't an ethic, it's an attitude, and it is the attitude of tyrants. There is but one rule that you are required to obey if you hope not to be on the list of AR targets: support us, recognize us as your masters.

That's a much different demand than "do not exploit, torture or kill animals for convenience." If that really were the gold standard, PeTA would be at the top of the ALF list, given PeTA's cold-blooded policy to kill animals simply because they are unadoptable.

If the life of a human and that of an animal are of equal value, as PeTA and ALF spokesmen claim (link, link), why is being unadoptable of moral relevance? How can it be that an animal loses its "rights" simply on the basis that some wretched human has abused the animal to the point where it is unadoptable? Why is the victim of such abuse not more worthy of PeTA's concern than adoptable animals, and why does ALF turn a blind eye to such hypocrisy?

Oxford University is being targeted in a campaign to stop the building of a new primate laboratory on the university site. Work was halted last year when the main contractors Montpellier pulled out after receiving threats from animal extremists.

It is understood a new contractor has been found but work has yet to restart on the site in South Parks Road.

Oxford University, working with the government, has drawn up plans to reduce the chances that the new builders will be identified and targeted when they start work again.

In its claim on the website the ALF said: "On July 4 an Animal Liberation Front cell travelled to Oxford armed with incendiary devices containing approximately 11 litres of petrol. At approximately 11pm they broke into Oxford University's Hertford College boathouse and deployed the devices among the boats. Before leaving they re-padlocked the door and glued all the locks to avoid the possibility of people entering before the devices ignited.

"The reason for the attack was as follows: Oxford University's holdings now own the contract to build the South Parks lab. As far as the ALF are concerned this means that Oxford University as a whole must accept the consequences. From here on nothing you own, rent or have dealings with is off limits until the project is scrapped. To warn builders and suppliers that they are going to get some, even if their involvement comes to light years later, we will not let you off the hook!"

But they will let PeTA off the hook . . . The AR "ideology" isn't one. It is instead a shifting attitude that is applied selectively by thugs who harbor a strong desire to be violent, but who have consciences that they have to live with.

The loopy AR "ideology" provides them with a rationale and a target that satisfies their desire to vandalize, intimidate, harass and terrorize, and a means to convince their conscience that they are noble, and they are doing Gods work.

After all, their conscience is infallible . . .

(The selection of targets, publicized on websites and by other means [demonstrations, flyers, posters, etc.] seems to be all important, and PeTA is conspicuously absent from the demonizing PR.)

The posting went on to say that the arson attack was dedicated to a number of animal rights activists who are in prison, including Dave Blenkinsop, who is serving 10 years for attacking the managing director of Huntingdon Life Sciences, the Cambridgeshire-based animal laboratory; Sarah Gisbourne, who was sentenced to six and a half years for conspiracy to cause criminal damage after attacking vehicles linked to HLS; and Keith Mann, a leading member of the ALF who was given a one year jail sentence earlier this month for breaking into a Hampshire laboratory and freeing 600 mice, after the attorney general appealed against the community service order he had been given on the grounds that it was too lenient. Mann recently praised arson as a direct action tactic in the Bite Back magazine in an issue which highlighted the success of firebomb attacks over the last 30 years.

Thames Valley police said they were aware that a claim of responsibility had been made by the ALF and were including that in their inquiry.

"This information will form part of our investigation but we will be keeping an open mind as to who may be responsible," it said.

It is always a possibility that someone else did the deed and wanted to throw suspicion onto ALF, but I doubt the facts will bear that out, given the BiteBack post.

Speak, the campaign to stop the building of the laboratory, ran an article on its website yesterday celebrating the first anniversary of the moment Montpellier pulled out of the contract.

"Twelve months down the line, the skeleton of the laboratory stands abandoned - a monument to greed and academic curiosity, rather than a monument to real science. But like every monument, slowly and surely, it will disintegrate," it said.

"The question is not whether science is a necessary evil, but whether a science based on the suffering of countless sentient beings can ever be justified. The price for all of us is simply too high."

And yet, PeTA and its killing ways go unnoticed by the violent AR community, with not even a whisper of their wrong-doing surfacing.

I stand by my analyses.

1) Those who acted did not do so exclusively to further the cause of Animal Rights, but mainly to satisfy their own need for violence. The AR "ideology" provided them with the salve their conscience needs, and has been carefully written and promoted by AR worthys to do just that — to convince some anonymous useful idiots that acting violently is fine if done "for the animals," and to provide the useful idiots with targets and techniques to . . . express themselves . . .

The foot soldiers get the thrill of acting out, the people who recruit them and provide the rationale for them to act gain power and influence, not to mention money.

2) PeTA is above attack by those justifying and supporting overt AR violence because PeTA's propaganda is extremely useful for recruiting and indoctrinating people to be violent in behalf of the AR cause (I've argued this here and here.

For people like Professor Steven Best and Dr. Jerry Vlasak, both self-appointed "press officers" for the terrorist ALF, and/or other luminaries like them, the publicity, the excitement of being "special," the need to commit themselves to a spiritual anchor, perhaps the allure of vicarious violence, the notoriety, the bad-boy image, are oxygen itself, and are far more important than ideological or tactical consistency or coherence. Or so I would argue.

They will not criticize PeTA because they need what PeTA provides: a steady stream of anonymous useful idiots whose violent actions they, the luminaries, can apologize for, explain and defend in front of a wide-eyed world.

In short, it's an ego trip, one embarked on by people whose conscience is infallible and clear.

Mel Broughton, spokesman for the Speak campaign, said the arson was not carried out by anyone within the group.

"It certainly wasn't done on behalf of Speak," he said.

"We are a legal campaign. We don't involve ourselves in illegal actions."

Right — all you and your fellow travelers do, Mr. Broughton, is to provide the conscience-salving rationale, the targets, the encouragement and helpful suggestions for techniques that could be employed, if someone wanted to do so . . .

Finally, it's going to be interesting to watch things in the UK over the next few months. I suspect that in light of the recent bombings in the London underground, our friends the Brits will be much more agreeable to police crackdowns on violent AR groups than they have heretofore been. But we'll see.

Thanks to David S. for the tip.

Brian