Animal Crackers

SAEN's Budkie: Ignorant or Malicious?

Here's an interesting piece from The Daily, the University of Washington-Seattle's paper.

The long and the short of it is that an Animal Rights group — Stop Animal Exploitation Now (SAEN), which specializes in opposing the use of all animals in research — has alleged that University of Washington scientists have a long history of poorly justified research, are conducting cruel experiments, and are wasting money.

The way this article is written is telling indeed, for it begins with accusations made against a few scientists by SAEN's Mr. Michael Budkie who claims that they are conducting "the same projects over and over again," which, he contends is useless, wasteful and cruel (and I would add — if true would be frankly irrational).

By beginning this way, the article sets the reader up to believe there is some fire to the smoke Mr. Budkie has created.

And because the author of the article makes only passing reference to SAEN being an animal rights group, and leaves the reader ignorant of what that means (the core AR belief is that the life of an animal and that of a human are of equal value), those reading the article are ill-prepared to evaluate the motivations that drive Mr. Budkie, or how his extreme views might color his appraisal of the research he is criticizing.

In fact, Mr. Budkie confuses — either through ignorance or malice — the distinction between experimental methods and experimental design. And this is a fatal flaw that invalidates Mr. Budkie's entire "it's wasteful" case.

Now, the author does include that distinction, but he buries it in the final paragraph, where the casual reader is unlikely to grant it proper weight after having plowed through Mr. Budkie's ideologically-molded balderdash.

Let's walk through the article in question:

Nonprofit investigators have alleged that internal documents from the UW's Washington National Primate Research Center (WNPRC) shed light on a history of poorly justified research, cruel experiments and wasted federal money.

The very first word the author uses is "nonprofit." This sets the stage for viewing SAEN as the good guys, folks who operate for altruistic reasons, rather than for mean bucks, power or prestige (by implication, the scientists who are the object of Mr. Budkie's interest). The author has already conditioned you to think the way he wants you to.

"Even if you're not concerned about the pain and suffering these animals undergo, you have to wonder why we're spending taxpayer money on the same research projects over and over again," said Michael Budkie, executive director of Stop Animal Exploitation Now (SAEN).

In this paragraph, we see that the nonprofit group is Stop Animal Exploitation Now — but we still don't know that they are an Animal Rights group.

Budkie founded SAEN in 1996 to "force an end to the abuse of animals in laboratories," and has since requested thousands of pages of documents from labs across the country in order to uncover what he sees as cruel and unethical activity at the facilities. SAEN publishes reports on animal experimentation every year, and 2005's release focused on primate research labs, including the WNPRC.

Here we see Mr. Budkie conditioning the reader further . . . SAEN wants to "force an end to the abuse of animals in laboratories."

The damage is done: the casual reader doesn't know that Animal Rights people consider any use of animals in the laboratory is "abusive."

The reporter is evidently singularly uncurious, and doesn't ask Mr. Budkie the obvious question: is there any use of animals in laboratories that Mr. Budkie finds to be not abusive?

The entire tone of the story would have changed had the reporter asked that question and included the answer in his article.

While previous animal rights campaigns have focused on alleged cruelty at research facilities, SAEN's press release was aimed at showing a pattern of redundant and unnecessary research at the WNPRC and other labs that use primates as experimental subjects.

Here we learn, for the first time, that SAEN is an animal rights group.

But most readers don't have a clue what that means. They don't realize that to Animal Rights people, the life of an animal and that of a human are of equal moral value, that for a person to treat an animal differently (in a moral sense) from a human simply because the animal is not a human is "speciesism." And to an animal rights activist, "speciesism" is a form of discrimination that is every bit as much a moral transgression as is racism.

We also see the term "unnecessary" research. Again, we wonder at the lack of curiosity of the article's author: what animal experiments would Mr. Budkie approve of as "necessary," if any?

What would the readership think, how would their sympathy for Mr. Budkie's allegations change, if they were aware that, in Mr. Budkie's world, no animal experiments are justifiable — that if it is immoral or unethical to treat a human in some way, it is no less immoral or unethical to treat an animal in that way?

So here we have an extreme ideology being stealthily peddled to a largely naive public who, as a body, don't understand how Animal Rights and Animal Welfare differ from one another, by an unskeptical author.

Albert Fuchs, Chris Kaneko and Michael Shadlen, a trio of research professors in the University's psychology and physiology department, are among the most prominently featured scientists in Budkie's collection of documents. All study how the brain controls eye motion at the WNPRC, presiding over some of the center's longest-running research projects. Fuchs filed his first grant application for primate eye-tracking studies in 1971, Kaneko in 1986 and Shadlen in 1997.

"There are six muscles that control the movement of the eye, making it one of the simplest motor systems to study," Fuchs explained. "At the time I started looking at the control of eye movements, there was no data on how the brain deals with movement. Then, as I began to understand what motor neurons do, I began to work my way back to higher structures in the brain."

The three scientists perform similar experiments, but Kaneko said such a research model is necessary to investigate a system as complex as the brain. The basic procedure for primate eye-tracking experiments has remained largely unchanged since the 1970s: a monkey is strapped into a restraint chair, taught to visually track the movements of a light across a screen and given drops of water or fruit juice as a reward for successfully following the moving lights.

Mr. Budkie points to the fact that the same model has been in use for 30 years or so and claims redundancy, waste, cruelty ("you have to wonder why we're spending taxpayer money on the same research projects over and over again").

Mr. Budkie is falsly claiming that because there is a standardized way of creating the model, and there are standardized techniques for capturing and analyzing data, one can't learn anything meaningful from the studies!

This is as preposterous a suggestion as it would be to suggest that every frame house is identical, because all are constructed using standardized construction materials according to known mechanical principles using the same fundamental techniques!

Electrodes implanted in the primate's skull track the direction of its eyes and the electrical activity in its brain.

In SAEN's press release, Budkie points to the high degree of similarity between the three scientists' projects as well as the length of their grants to make a case that their research is duplicative and produces little new information.

"They might change a few variables or other minute things, but for the most part they're doing the same procedure again and again," Budkie said. "The usefulness of the data is extremely tenuous, and when you take into account the limited utility versus the very high level of expense, you have to wonder if there are other alternatives."

Here, Mr. Budkie immodestly places himself in the position of an authority on brain research ("Might change a few variables . . .The usefulness of the data is (sic) extremely tenuous . . . you have to wonder if there are other alternatives.").

Here, we see the arrogance of the ignorant: because Mr. Budkie's ideologically-contorted mind can't see the usefulness of the studies, how the pieces of data collected by these scientists fit into the larger scientific discussion of motor control and neural function, the studies aren't worth doing!

Pray, what qualifications does he, Mr. Budkie, possess that should command our respect for his opinions about this science?

Conventional wisdom not withstanding, all opinions are not of equal value, all opinions are not equally deserving of respect, and for Mr. Budkie's opinion on the merits of a scientific project to be considered seriously, he needs to do more than pronounce.

And again I ask: which laboratory studies would Mr. Budkie approve of?

Among documents collected by Budkie are applications submitted by primate researchers to the UW's Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC).

Whenever a professor begins or renews a research project at the WNPRC, he or she must submit a written summary of the procedure to the IACUC. The committee must review and approve all procedures performed at the lab to ensure animals are not treated cruelly or are otherwise misused.

There is little visible difference between procedures written by Fuchs, Kaneko and Shadlen. One of the main documents cited by Budkie as proof of redundant research at the WNPRC is the transcript of an e-mail conversation between Fuchs and an member of the IACUC that was found among the animal use proposal records. The committee member was concerned over the similarities between Fuchs's proposal and that of another professor at the primate center whose name was withheld.

In the letter, the committee member writes, "I'm a little nervous that your protocol is basically identical to [name redacted]'s protocol ... is it possible that the same person prepared both protocols and made some editing/inclusion errors?"

Fuchs replied that he had included elements of the other professor's experiments in his proposal because there was a chance he would want to use them in his own research.

"With regard to the similarity of Dr. [name redacted] and my proposals, we use essentially identical procedures in our experiments. Indeed, Dr. [name redacted] learned many of them from me when he was my postdoc," Fuchs wrote in a letter to the IACUC's committee member.

Dr. Fuchs is exactly right. If you have a model that works, you use it.

In fact, certain models become "gold standards" within the research community. Getting a good model is so important that scientists will travel to a colleague's lab to learn how to create the model, trouble shoot it and to learn how the model responds under known conditions.

Moreover, granting agencies will turn down a grant proposal if the reviewers of it believe the model to be unsuitable, or if the applicant hasn't demonstrated that he himself can use the model successfully in his own lab!

And when writing protocols for grant proposals or IACUC proposals (I was on my school's IACUC for 2 years) you copy, cut and paste protocols that you know work (a good protocol is just like a good recipe — why would you discard it if it does the job just the way you want it to, and why would you rewrite it when you've already perfected your wording?).

The last thing you want in an experiment is a flaky or unpredictable model. The best thing you can have is a stable model, one that has been investigated under many different conditions, one whose quirks are well-known. The integrity and predictability of the model are so important that scientists regularly include control animals in their studies to make sure the model is working as it should.

But I diverge . . .

To Budkie, the letter bespeaks a professional culture where the risks of innovative research are avoided in favor of known grant-winning topics.

Here, Mr. Budkie reveals he doesn't understand the difference between techniques used to generate and analyze data, and the concept of experimental design.

"Neurological research is, in my opinion, the most redundant research out there," Budkie said. "Scientists have to deal with the publish or perish mentality and they have to bring in research dollars for their schools, so what better way to do that than with a protocol that's already been approved?"

Again, Mr. Budkie is confusing the protocol to create a model with the purpose for which that model is used.

Fuchs said it is by no means atypical for scientists to copy each others' protocols, and that experimental protocols used do not necessarily have any bearing on the content and relevance of the data produced by the experiments.

"Identical procedures are fine, but not identical experiments," Fuchs said. "The only duplication we do is of procedures that have been accepted by the scientific community. Some methods, like taking blood samples, are common to us all, and we wouldn't want to reinvent the wheel for every project. Duplication of protocols is a good thing because it means we're using the most tried-and-true methods."

And here, languishing at the end of the article, is the definitive response to Mr. Budkie's criticism that the same experiment is being done over and over, the response that renders his objections null and void: identical procedures are not the same as identical experiments.

But by this time, the reader has had to plow through Mr. Budkie's unsupported assertions and his confused understanding of science and the scientific process, and because of the prominence accorded Mr. Budkie's pronouncements and accusations, and because of how the article is organized, the article's author bestowed a certain credibility on Mr. Budkie and his opinions that neither deserve. The situation is made worse by the author downplaying the fact that SAEN is an Animal Rights organization (and all that implies), and that Mr. Budkie would find no use of animals in laboratory experiments to be justifiable.

The article's author created a "he said/she said" controversy, in which Mr. Budkie's opinions, ignorant as they are, have acquired the same weight as the opinions of Dr. Fuchs and his colleagues, as well-founded in logic and fact as they are.

Such are the times we live in.

Brian

NRA vs PeTA: First Report of Debate

"Should there be a worldwide ban on hunting?" Such was the question facing Mr. Wayne LaPierre, Executive Vice President of the NRA and Andrew Butler in their debate of October 18, a debate whose announcement I discussed here, entitled "The NRA Declares War on PeTA."

At the time, I was mightily impressed that Mr. LaPierre seemed to have picked out a great number of PeTA's vulnerabilities and was prepared to exploit them. As I wrote then:

[ . . . ]

I find several things interesting about the letter: first, he's [Mr. LaPierre] done his homework — and his take on PeTA is very much my own, and judging by the revelations they've made about PeTA, that of the people at the Center for Consumer Freedom as well.

In short, Mr. LaPierre is going on the attack, and from the sounds of things, he's going well armed.

Second, while Mr. LaPierre certainly emphasizes issues that are directly of interest to his constituency, viz., PeTA's threat to hunting and fishing, his letter goes far beyond championing those activities: he views as threats Animal Rights attacks on medical research; he is alarmed about PeTA's successful efforts to recruit kids to the AR cause by infiltrating schools and through their (PeTA's) websites and printed materials; he is concerned about PeTA's assaults on the food industry; he notes PeTA's hypocrisy at killing of animals in their shelter; he points to the arrests of two PeTA employees for illegally killing and dumping animals in dumpsters; and he stresses, particularly, PeTA's financial support of ALF and ELF.

Third, Mr. LaPierre notes that most people don't have a clue about what PeTA's agenda is. And he's right — how many people know of PeTA's financial connections to ALF and ELF?

Fourth, Mr. LaPierre wants the debate widely publicized, and he wants the results of the debate (audio and video recordings will be available) and transcripts (I believe) to be as widely distributed as possible.

[ . . . ]

I was unable to view the debate as it happened, and (to my discredit) am only now following through on my good intentions to obtain a copy of it, so I can't give my first-hand impressions of what actually transpired. Be that as it may, I've transcribed an article that appears in the December issue of the NRA magazine "America's 1^st Freedom" in which the NRA claims victory.

On the one hand, the story cannot be considered to have been written by a "disinterested third party," so the reader is forewarned about nuance and to keep in mind that the NRA will present Mr. LaPierra's case in its best light, and Butler's in a less-than-best light.

But having said that, there are two points I wish to make: first, Mr. LaPierre went on the attack, and did not limit his comments to defending hunting.

Second, I've been unable to find any mention of Mr. LaPierre or the debate on PeTA's website —searching PeTA using "NRA" I got 8 hits, several for the same article, none of which was related to the debate; searching PeTA using "LaPierre" returned only 4 hits, none for Wayne LaPierre. Nor can I find any reference to the debate on the NRA site.

In any event, here's my transcription of the article (any typos are mine):

[ . . . ]

The event was held as a pay-per-view special, with each side making an 8-minute opening statement and a 6-minute closing statement, with the interim given to a debate over questions from moderator Paul Lavers as well as several questions from audience members.

As head of the largest hunting representation group in America, LaPierre has led the National Rifle Association to prominence as the voice of America's hunters and gun owners; as spokesman for one of the largest anti-hunting groups in the world, Butler came prepared to regurgitate PETA's litany of animal "rights" ephemera based solely on emotion, while lacking any hint of scientific profundity.

Most are familiar with PETA's infamous publicity stunts—as was to be expected there were moments of sublime audacity on PETA's part that will be discussed later—but a funny thing happened during the debate that night: LaPierre deftly shifted the course of the proceedings from a debate on hunting to a debate on the true character of PETA.

. . . in his opening statement LaPierre quickly dispensed with any argument that hunting is detrimental to the wild world while PETA is somehow its savior:

"It is an undisputed fact that nobody invests more money in wildlife conservation than hunters; close to $30 billion to date," LaPierre said. In contrast, PETA has spent virtually nothing to buy land for wildlife, to sponsor wildlife restoration or wildlife research, habitat conservation, species protection, game law enforcement or anything else, he noted.

"But you can't discuss how PETA is bad for animals without disclosing how PETA is worse for mankind." Everywhere in the world PETA wants to shut down hunting seasons on animals, and shut down institutions that serve and protect humanity.

This is a good transition — Mr. LaPierre does, indeed, broaden the debate beyond hunting . . . and then proceeds to open PeTA's record up for examination, an examination that apparently followed the script Mr. LaPierre had outlined in the NRA letter announcing the debate (op cit).

LaPierre then stepped up pressure on the lunacy at the heart of PETA's agenda, which the group is forcing on the world's impressionable youth. He described how PETA wants much more than to take a fishing pole from every child's hand, take away cats and dogs, ban milk from breakfast, and shut down all circuses, zoos and aquariums.

PeTA isn't "forcing" their agenda on the world's impressionable youth. They are selling their agenda to the world's impressionable youth, using tried-and-true propaganda techniques.

There is no need for this sort of hyperbole when a more accurate description, one no less onerous, exists.

"PETA wants to stop all medical advancements that use animal research in any way. That would eliminate almost every major medical achievement in the 20th century," he said.

"If a loved one needs treatment for diabetes, heart disease, infection or chronic pain; if a loved one needs dialysis, chemotherapy, a bone marrow transplant, a pacemaker, bypass surgery, or a corneal implant; if you or your children ever need a heart, liver, lung or kidney transplant; PETA says 'tough.'

This is not exactly true . . . PeTA says "tough" for improving whatever treatments and diagnostic tools we have for those maladies, if it means using animals. The intention of PeTA, and other AR groups, is to freeze therapeutic and diagnostic tools in place — but the effect would be for the effectiveness of at least some of those tools to errode slowly (for example, bacteria evolve resistance to antibiotics, which means that we constantly need to find new ones if we are to maintain current levels of protection, much less discover newer and more effective antibiotics).

"If PETA had their way, there'd be no vaccine for polio, rabies, smallpox or a dozen other diseases. And if PETA has their way now, there may never be a cure for AIDS, Alzheimer's, cancer, cystic fibrosis, multiple sclerosis or any other human suffering.

Agreed. SHAC's Mr. Josh Harper and Ms Janet Tomlinson can each thank their luck stars that PeTA et al were not successful for stopping the research that they benefit from. (Mr. Harper's "Support Committee" did benefit from a $5,000 contribution from PeTA, however.)

"Just a couple of months ago the World Health Organization, for the first time in history, had a chance to avert a worldwide pandemic. The deadly H5N1 bird flu was about to bust out of Southeast Asia. If it did, they prredicted up to 50 million people would die. But just in time, modern science moved in to distribute powerful antiviral drugs and destroy countless flu-carrying birds. If PETA had their way, there would be no drug, those infected birds would've spread the disease and millions of people would be dead. Maybe some of us here tonight. This isn't theoretical stuff."

If the world operated the way PeTA says it should, the chickens wouldn't have been killed: let's not forget PeTA's Holocaust on Your Plate campaign. On the other hand, if PeTA were faced with millions of infected chickens, they might have killed them as easily as, and with similarly clear consciences as, they do dogs and cats at their Norfolk "shelter."

LaPierre then set Butler backpedaling by revealing the shadowy ties PETA has to two violent groups, the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) and the Earth Liberation Front (ELF). He noted that PETA tax filings reveal contributions to violent extremists who have reportedly committed firebomb attacks and caused $100 million in destruction.

"The eco-terrorism movement is so dangerous, the FBI has declared it America's No. 1 domestic terrorist threat. Eco-terrorists have upstaged al-Qaeda as the greatest terrorist threat on American soil.

"The tragedy is: it's working. Medical research didn't budget for security against terrorists. Our most promising labs shut down. Studies on the verge of medical breakthrough screech to a halt. We are losing our best minds to their madness.

I do wish Mr. LaPierre and the NRA would either specify which promising labs are shutting down, and which research is grinding to a halt, or quit with the hyperbole. It's not necessary. There are profoundly disturbing examples showing how radical AR groups do business, and how effective they are, without resorting to unsubstantiated exaggerations. The recent New York Stock Exchange fiasco is one such example, the attacks on University of Iowa researchers and their labs a second example, and the attacks on fox and mink farms yet two more. Other examples abound . . .

"And that madness is being carefully packaged and pitched to our kids." LaPierre then showed the audience several handouts PETA distributes to kids at elementary schols, telling children their mommy is an animal killer, encouraging kids to pet rats, and showing them ways that they themselves can be an "animal rights rebel."

Asked by moderator Paul Lavers, "If PETA funds terrorism and permits terrorism to support its ends, how can you stand here today and say you're not terrorists?" Butler attempted to deflect the question by responding, "PETA has never made a donation to either of the groups that Mr. LaPierre accuses us of. What we have done in the past is made a select few donations to individuals for their legal defense, and this was in cases where those individuals were being prevented from speaking up on behalf of animals." (Emphasis added.)

Mr. Butler made a tactical error, though I get the impression it wouldn't have mattered what he'd said — Mr. LaPierre had his evidentiary ducks well ordered, and he was going to parade them before the audience, come hell or high water.

And that is precisely the way you counter Animal Rights activists.

So Mr. LaPierre gets full marks plus extra credit for his relentless pursuit of PeTA's indiscretions:

La Pierre, however, had evidence—nothing short of IRS records—proving PETA had in fact made donations to the violent groups ALF and ELF, as well as their agents, and not just for legal defense.

"Just follow the money," LaPierre said.

"IRS records show PETA gave money to (ELF) just a month before it set a $5 million fire at the University of Washington's Urban Horticulture Center in 2001," LaPierre said. "That same year, ELF also firebombed a Vail, Colo., ski resprt, causing $12 million in damage. When reporters made the connection in 2002, Andrew Butler said that the funds were 'used for legal defense as support for caring individals who are entitled to their day in court.'"

LaPierre went on. "Rodney Coronado of (ALF) got almost 5 years in prison for a multi-million dollar firebombing at Michigan State University. But not before PETA gave $45,000 to his 'support committee' and another $25,000 to Coronado's father.

PeTA's Lisa Lange admitted to Fox News in 2003 that PETA gave money to ELF in 2003, the same year ELF set fire to condominiums under construction near San Diego," Lapierre said. "$50 million in damages.

"PETA gave $5,000 to defend an ALF activist convicted of assaulting a police officer in 2004." After reading off a litany of other ALF and ELF offenses, LaPierre then turned up the heat on PETA's top brass.

And this is masterful — going from "what PeTA did and who they support" to "what the PeTA leaders say and have said."

What Mr. LaPierre does here is to link words with actions — or rather, actions with words.

I think the sequence is important: the shock-value of the deeds themselves captures the audience's attention. Once they are attentive, then Mr. LaPierre links the deeds to the words of PeTA's Friedrich and Newkirk. It is impossible for the objective reader not to see effect-from-cause here, or something close to it:

"Let me quote PETA campaign coordinator Bruce Friedrich," LaPierre said. "Blowing stuff up and smashing windows' is 'a great way to bring about animal liberation. I think it would be great if all the fast food outlets, slaughterhouses, these laboratories and the banks that fund them exploded tomorrow. I think it's perfectly appropriate to take bricks and toss them through the windows. Hallelujah to the people who are willing to do it.'

"PETA President Ingrid Newkirk said, "I don't condemn them as long as no one gets hurt; I understand their frustration.' And she went on to say, 'You can't legally deface someone's property, but if you're somewhere and no one's looking, go ahead.' Newkirk told PETA members not to cooperative with FBI investigations."

Revealed as a group that funds radicals and is opposed to animal research that has found, and continues to find, cures for the most devastating diseases humanity has known, PETA spokesman Butler could muster only a few facile arguments as to why hunting should be outlawed.

Butler tried to argue that one, hunters only kill the largest and most healthy animals and put animal populations in peril; two, hunters use hollow-point ammo so they can make prey suffer; three, hunting is a throwback to Stone Age life and humans as a species would be more evolved; and four, animals deserve the same right that humans have.

LaPierre quickly proved PETA's total misunderstanding of the fundamentals of hunting. "Trophy hunting encourages taking only mature animals who've been through several breeding cycles," LaPierre responded to Butler's first assumption. "By defnintion that's the biggest, oldest most dominant male."

As to the use of hollow-point ammo, LaPierre noted that hunters use bullets—including hollow-points—that expand on impact, to help insure that they take game swiftly and with the least amount of suffering.

If Butler really said that hunters use expanding bullets "so they can make prey suffer" he's either deliberately lying, or so ignorant that he shouldn't be speaking on the topic.

If you check around on chat rooms for hunters, there can be no question that they are constantly fretting about the best bullet to make a quick kill. Flame wars get started over whether one bullet brand or type kills more quickly and humanely than another. This is not a well well-cloaked secret.

During the debate, PETA's Butler attempted to compare the act of hunting with the acts of serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer—through such vitriolic language as "slaughtering," "dismembering," and "keeping mementos"—and called it irresponsible for NRA to promote the teaching of hunting to children because, Butler said, "Every school shooting in recent years has been perpetrated by children who have been taken hunting."

The use of incendiary rhetoric is standard fare, designed to achieve by emotional response what cannot be achieved by reason (it is an appeal to emotion).

By likening hunters to human serial killers and cannibals, Mr. Butler assumes as correct the very premise that is in dispute: that humans and animals are morally equivalent, that the life of an animal and that of a human are of equal value.

And even if it is true that every recent school shooting has been perpetrated by kids who hunted, so what?

There are countless kids who hunt and don't kill humans, just as there are countless kids who drive without killing humans through carelessness or while deliberately driving drunk.

In response to Butler's attempts to equate hunting with deviant behavior, LaPierre said, "The idea that hunting is sadistic and tyrannical is preposterous. Hunting has ben a natural and normal activity for humans for eons."

Yet, in Butler's world, humanity has evolved far beyond the days when man had to hunt for subsistence (which occurs throughout much of the world today). "Wayne seems to think we still live in a Stone Age wilderness where it is still survival of the fittest in the most basic sense...It's time for us to evolve as a species. We have over the years come up with many laws to curb unsavory practices ..."

Mr. Butler's "humanity has evolved" assertion is a variation on the bogus "need" argument: we don't "need" to hunt, so we shouldn't. Well, we don't "need" to do anything, except die, if we're prepared to accept the consequences for not doing it. And the whole point of recreation is that it's done not because it's needed, but because it's enjoyed. In the case of hunting, enjoyment and habitat preservation happen to coincide. Why is that necessarily a bad thing?

In Butler's world, animals as well have evolved to the point to where they have rights just like humans. Asked one audience member, "Over and over I hear PETA's main theme of "We believe in the rights and complete liberation of all animals.' If that happens, will we have animals running rampant, committing nimal crimes? Would animals be fighting or raping or killing each other, or even us? Would we need animal police, animal courtrooms, with animal juries, animal lawyers and animal prisons?"

"I'm very glad we can dispense with the ridiculous tonight," Butler mused. "When we talk about animal rights, we're talking about extending basic consideration for their needs." he said. "Animals don't need the right to vote, nor is it useful for them."

Mr. Butler's lateral arabesque is noted: the issue isn't whether or not animals should have a "right to vote" (there is no such right . . .), but whether or not they have some right to the same sort of protections that we, in western society, generally accord human beings. If you believe that the life of an animal and that of a human are equally valuable, they you will agree with Mr. Butler. But that takes you into some very dark places.

For example, the logic flowing from the premise can be used to justify killing some few human beings to save a greater number of animals. This is why Dr. Vlasak believes it's morally acceptable (reaffirmed in testimony before the Senate's EPW Committee) to kill a small number of scientists to save a larger number of animals — each life is of equal value, and if you can kill "n" humans and save "n + 1" animals, you tip the moral scales towards virtue.

We see the same problem emerging when Professor Steven Best says he would save his dog from a burning house before he'd save a human stranger because his dog is more important to him than the human stranger is to him.

Professor Best is merely following the logic of his premise: since his dog's life and the human's life are equally valuable, the important thing is to save a life, not a particular one. And if his dog pleasures him, well, that's just tough nuts for the human — perhaps your child, spouse, parent, sib or friend! Dr. Best will have fulfilled his moral obligation by saving the life that makes his life more enjoyable. (That's Professor Best's "Me First!" ethic [op cit] in practice.)

This rhetorical question wasn't the only moment of levity that evening, as when an audience member and obvious PETA supporter mentioned a web site that features a study that links hunting with a bogus disorder known as "diminutive male genitalia disorder."

The quip brought laughter to the room, even from LaPierre himself, who pointed out the study was an April Fool's prank perpetrated by PETA. He then warned, "Don't be distracted by the bathroom jokes. PETA is a very real organization whose agenda spells dire consequences for humankind."

Several times throughout the debate, PETA's Butler attempted to malign hunting by comparing it to acts such as slavery that humanity has evolved past. And Wayne LaPierre pointed out a PETA ad campaign that equates eating meat with the Holocaust, during which Nazi Germany slaughtered over 6 million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals and other human beings.

"I've been called a 'radical' here today," Butler told the crowd gathered. "Well, I think the suffragettes were called radical. The abolitionists were called radicals. I think that animal 'rights' is an idea ahead of its time. But I don't mind standing here and being called a radical in that context."

Like most words in our language, however, "radical" can be defined several ways, and while undoubtedly Butler would like to align himself with such luminary figures as Susan B. Anthony and Abraham Lincoln, LaPierre was quick to note the sort of "radical" with which the majority of right-headed people place those who support criminal violence.

Indeed. Proclaiming one's pride in being a radical misses the point entirely: there have been good radicals and bad ones. Mr. Butler cannot claim virtue simply because his ideology is radical, and it's silly of him to try.

Is he so contemptuous of his followers that he expects them not to see his rhetorical ploy for what it is, and are his followers so shallow, so unskeptical, that they live down to his expectations?

In his closing argument, over a brief outburst by several PETA supporters, LaPierre drove home the future of a group of "radicals" who resort to violence in an attempt to reach their goals.

"In poll after poll, people rreject the bizarre beliefs you want to impose upon us. Andevery time a bomb goes off or a business burns or a scientists gets mugged, you lose even more," LaPierre said. "That's why I came here. To expose PETA for what it truly represents. If people learn the truth about this movement, they will never, ever carry the day."

I think Mr. LaPierre is almost entirely correct — the trick is to educate the public about exactly what the AR people believe, and to expose the ties of organizations like PeTA to ALF, ELF and SHAC. And the best way to do this is to play a little offense: if your company is threatened by PeTA, launch a counter campaign, complete with counter demonstrators.

Picket PeTA! Reveal PeTA for who they are, what they stand for, and what they do with their money. Use handbills, signs, radio and TV spots — hells bells — hand out t-shirts, coffee mugs and bumper stickers!

Give (especially) PeTA the publicity they crave!

UPDATE — 12/5/05: I've looked at a few AR chat rooms, and those AR supporters who saw the debate are disappointed in how ill-prepared Mr. Butler appeared to be. The fact is that Mr. Butler was helpless when confronted by the facts. Mr. LaPierre nailed him, and with him, PeTA.

Brian

Moving the Middle Revisited

With all the recent flap about Dr. Jerry Vlasak - his testimony before a Senate Committee and his interview on 60 minutes, in which he reaffirmed his believe that killing a few scientists was morally acceptable if it would save many animal lives, and the wedge that testimony drove into the violent wing of the AR movement - it might be easy to lose sight of the fact that in many respects, the violent AR wing isn't the only source of . . . what . . . an AR threat. Not by any means.

An astute reader who really "gets it" sent me this:

This line in your post of Novemebr 24 struck me:

"The sick soap opera that is coming more and more to define Animal Rights in general and the violent wing of it in particular continues."

And thinking of this, the huge problem I see is that by having ALF etc "define animal rights" one makes HSUS far far more dangerous in actuality. (Peta is another story, but PETA only exists to make HSUS, AHA, Farm Sanctuary, etc etc etc seem mainstream -- and to give some people their jollies and fifteen minutes of fame. ALF does an even better job of this.)

This is completely correct - even to the phrase, which might seem a bit hyperbolic to the casual reader but isn't very - ". . . PETA only exists to make HSUS, AHA, Farm Sanctuary, etc etc etc seem mainstream --". The tactic is called "Moving the Middle," and as I wrote in an earlier post:

Here's how Patti and Rod Strand brilliantly put it in their book: The Hijacking of the Humane Movement:

Another radical flank effect tactic frequently used is that of animal rights advocates offering their own extreme view as opposition to the consensus position of the mainstream, while characterizing the mainstream as an opposite extreme. This establishes a playing field that assumes that two extremes are opposing one another, when in fact, the mainstream is already a midpoint consensus of public or professional opinion. The effect of being able to characterize the center as the other end of the teeter totter moves the entire issue into the extremists' territory. Hence, any movement that takes place is from the real mainstream center towards the extremist position. The mainstream, under these circumstances, has only the options of standing pat or allowing concessions. There is no opportunity to move further away from radical demands. [Emphasis added - Ed]

The continuum grows more populous as differences of opinion create splinter groups to provide a voice for specific concerns and to obliterate and replace the mainstream. In this manner, animal rights groups are following principles tested earlier (by) English animal rights and environmental movements as they spawn more and more spin off-groups, thereby legitimizing the influence that causes radical flank effect. Former Sierra Club executive David Brower describes this technique: "I founded Friends of the Earth to make the Sierra Club look reasonable. Then I founded Earth Island Institute to make Friends of the Earth look more reasonable. Earth First! now makes us look reasonable. We're still waiting for someone to come along and make Earth First! look reasonable." (pages 59 - 60)

"Moving the Middle" can be either a deliberate tactic, as in the case outlined above, or it can happen serendipitously, as in the case of Dr. Vlasak and his creepy thought proccess have shown. HSUS seems positively mainstream - but only by comparison to ALF - when in reality their ideology and goals are no less radical than those animating the ALF.

The point is that defeating the ALF, or bringing PeTA down, though both are necessary, aren't sufficient to defeat AR as a whole.

What must inevitably be defeated is the AR ideology - the loopy and incoherent premise that holds that the life of an animal and that of a human are of equal value, a belief that clearly distinguishes the Animal Rights activist, whether violent or not, from the Animal Welfare activist. It is this belief, fradulently packaged and sold cloaked in a faux veil of "compassion," that draws people to the cause and motivates them once within it. AR ideology is the main threat, a threat that is no less real merely because it's marketed by lawyers and clean-shaven executives who speak softly. (If you don't know the difference between AR and AW, you should read this. And if you want to understand the "moral logic" of AR, read this. For an overview of one person's take on the HSUS, an example of a "quiet talking radical AR organization, read this, and for an indepth description of their connections, agenda and modus operandi, read this.)

My correspondent continues:

It's incredibly hard to convince people that HSUS and their ilk are "animal rights" groups. They think - the "animal rights" people are the ones trying to blow up buildings and assasinate research scientists: the other groups are "helping animals." I rather imagine that Wayne Pacelle and his buddies are thrilled that Vlasak has taken center stage, since this just helps them appear benevolent, when, in fact, it is the mainstream AR groups that pose incredible danger to our way of life. ALF/ELF are never going to get anywhere as far as changing society, but it sure is helping HSUS and the others promote their vision and societal change.

I think this is a very important point, and I don't think I've emphasized it enough in my prior posts. But here it is right straight up: all Animal Rights activists share a common ideology and a common goal.

But there is a wide variety of viewpoints within the AR communityas to how the AR fantasy can be achieved: there are violent thugs, some of whom, like Dr. Vlasak, have openly advocated murder; there are some organizations, like the HSUS who have not openly advocated violence; there are a great many people who consider themselves to be AR activists who profess to be non-violent, but remain surprisingly silent and unwilling to criticize their violent bretheren, or the tactics of organizations they feel do not represent them (like PeTA), except from the safety of their on-line chat-rooms.

So we shouldn't focus too closely at the few thugs.

We must not lose sight of the fact that much, if not most, of the power of the AR movement lies with those who employ lawyers to further their AR agenda. And you aren't going to beat back the AR threat by focussing strictly on anti-terrorist methods.

To beat AR, you have to beat the ideology.

Thanks to my reader for the comments.

Brian

Jerry Vlasak: Un-useful Idiot Splits Violent Wing of AR Extremists, Panics Others

Jerry Vlasak, MD, former spokesman for the PCRM (Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, which is closely tied toPeTA), he who finds assassination morally acceptable and he who openly advocated on TV(!) that some scientists be killed to save a greater number of animal lives, has created a schism in the violent arm of Animal Extremists. Thus, Dr. Vlasak - and Professor Steven Best - have been dissed by the ALF. Dr. Vlasak has also been criticized by Skipper Paul Watson, head of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society and Dr. Vlasak's former friend, for his (Dr. Vlasak's) testimony before a Senate Committee in which he, Dr. Vlasak, reaffirmed his belief that murder was a useful tool to advance the AR cause (op cit). Former allies are now publicly at each each other's throats, all because of Dr. Vlasak's public statements.

In short, Dr. Vlasak drove a wedge into the violent wing of the Animal Rights movement, separating them into one group - a kinder, gentler group - one that confines its "direct actions" to arson, threats, tire slashing, posting personal information (addresses, phone numbers, childrens' names, childrens' schools) on the internet, using paint stripper on cars and other techniques to terrorize targets into compliance on the one hand, and a second arm, a new one, one that would take their cues from Dr. Vlasak who professes his interest in upping the ante to include murder.

The sick soap opera that is coming more and more to define Animal Rights in general and the violent wing of it in particular continues, with this bizarre note, presumably authored by Dr. Vlasak's wife Pamelyn Ferdin, who herself is the new President of SHAC-USA.

The below is my personal opinion, only. I feel it necessary to post this, because only selected individuals chosen by certain people have been privy to some of this information--and I believe that if our movement is going to continue to get stronger, we must allow everyone in the animal liberation community to understand what a selected few are putting out there.

A Press Release was sent out to the media a week ago by Sea Shepherd Conservation Society (SSCS) and Paul Watson, denouncing Dr. Vlasak's support of violence such as that used in other sociopolitical struggles--from the fight against Apartheid to that against slavery.

The SSCS press release talks about Watson's "crew," who went out on the ice floes to confront the seal killers-- but never once mentioned that is was Dr. Vlasak who took one of the blows to his face to preserve the footage of the hunt thugs clubbing seals to death.

Nor did the press release mention that it was Dr. Vlasak who acted as the defense attorney for the five SSCS crew members who appeared before the Magistrate and convinced the latter to allow the crew to be released from custody. But it did discuss how Dr. Vlasak was removed as a board director by SSCS for his views..

This is a non-sequitur - the fact that Dr. Vlasak received blows to his face or spoke in defense of the SSCS crew is irrelevant to his support of murder. Not to put too fine a point of it, but Adolph Hitler built some very good roadways . . .

This is a feeble attempt to present Dr. Vlasak as a victim . . .

I understand the SSCS and Paul Watson's desire to distance themselves as much as possible from the views of Dr. Vlasak, but to do so in such a public way by sending out a press release to the media plays right into the hands of those in government who have destroyed other movements by "divide and conquer" tactics.

And yet . . . Dr. Vlasak was the very one whose outspoken ideas about murder forced a debate within the violent wing of the Animal Rights movement that they had long been able to avoid, and, I'd wager, near panic in AR/Eco industry giants like PeTA and the SSCS because of their close ties with Dr. Vlasak.

Dr. Vlasak's logic is just fine, if you accept the AR premise that the life of an animal and that of a human are of equal value. If you buy into this, what is the argument against killing a small number of scientists in order to intimidate other scientists into abandoning animal-based research?

All Dr. Vlasak did was to confront the violent AR people with the fact that their failure to consider assassination was an arbitrary decision, one that could easily be logic-ed around.

Dr. Vlasak has spent his adult life saving the lives of humans involved in horrific auto accidents; immigrants severely injured by farm equipment; and those involved in shootings and stabbings, most having no medical insurance. He simply believes that not only the ALF, but also other more militant underground animal groups are needed to win animal liberation. These more "militant tactics" are the same tactics espoused by Nelson Mandela, Emily Davison, Malcolm X, Caesar Chavez, and others--but it seems that SSCS and Paul Watson can't distance themselves fast enough from someone who states his support of the same tactics on behalf of animals!

The parallel to champions of human rights presumes that the life of an animal and that of a human are of equal value. It also ignores the fact that virtually every tyrant history has spawned has justified his actions in terms of one lofty ideology or another. My point is simply this: tactics that might be acceptable for one cause may not be for another. And it certainly seems to be a case of getting the cart before the horse to claim that because I, like (enter name of virtuous model) use violence, my cause is as worthy as his . . .

Instead of simply refraining from commenting, like other leaders of the animal rights movement have done, SSCS has chosen to imply to the media that they are the "good guys" and Dr. Vlasak is the "bad guy." Well, it doesn't change what Dr. Vlasak believes or supports. What it does do, however, is feed into the opposition's lust for division in our movement--which hurts no one more than ourselves and the animals we are fighting to liberate.

Moving on to Alex Hershaft's denunciation of Dr. Vlasak and requesting that 60 Minutes print a retraction regarding Dr. Vlasak's comments, I would like to state that in both Senate hearings and the 60 Minutes piece, Dr.Vlasak was not representing the ALF. In these two unique circumstances, they wanted to speak to Dr. Vlasak directly regarding beliefs held by many in our movement today. These people believe that non-human animals have the same moral standing as humans. The Senators and the 60 Minutes producers simply couldn't believe that Dr. Vlasak--not just a physician, but also a surgeon--supports the same methods used in other struggles to fight against human genocide. Such strategies are indeed deemed morally justified when fighting against human torture and genocide. Neither could they believe that such a point of view was not coming from a young activist with piercings who works at Virgin Records, but rather an older professional. (Alex Hershaft is head of the International Vegetarian Union . . . ed)

Dr. Vlasak is a self-appointed Press Officer of the ALF. If he doesn't speak for them, who does he speak for, absent any disclaimer such as: "I don't speak for the ALF. This is my personal opinion only"?

The fact is that Dr. Vlasak wouldn't have been invited to testify before the Senate or to be interviewed by 60 Minutes had he not placed himself in the position of being a self-appointed ALF spokesman.

Beyond this, Dr. Vlasak may well not be speaking for ALF for one to discern what he's up to: He's interested in recruiting useful idiots to his brand of "direct action," one that includes murder. So one might regard Dr. Vlasak to have launched a competetive venture, one designed to pressure the ALF to become even more radical than it presently is.

First assassination, then bombs to take out train stations or pizza parlors! Hey - if everyone's a target ("There are no innocent lives"), and it works, and it's done for the animals . . .

When Dr. Vlasak agreed to speak before the Senate, some in the movement criticized him for doing so. Dr. Steven Best had the opportunity to speak in front of the same Senate committee three months earlier regarding the ALF, but he declined to do so. No one criticized Dr. Best's decision NOT to speak to the Senate about the animals and the ALF; yet some are quick to criticize Dr. Vlasak's decision to do so. Dr. Vlasak felt that an opportunity to get the message out about the horrors going on in laboratories was worth being put on the "hot seat" and ridiculed for his beliefs and opinions. It took courage to do so and, whether or not others agreed with this decision or what he said, he did this with the best of intentions and answered their questions honestly.

No one questioned Prof. Best's good judgement not to testify because it was good judgement: he couldn't have answered the questions posed to Dr. Vlasak without either abandoing his hard-line position or bringing the wrath of the AR community down upon his philosophical shoulders by being as explicit as Dr. Vlasak was.

Prof. Best saw the trap. Dr. Vlasak did not, or did and was prepared to force the issue. I suspect he wanted to force a debate, force people to take sides, force people who said one thing in private and another in public to "put up or shut up". He succeeded.

In passing, nobody is ridiculing Dr. Vlasak for his words . . . most of us are recoiling in horror at their implications. And that includes the AR people who are now faced with having to defend their associations with the expressive Dr. Vlasak and his murderous bent of mind, and those of us who find the basic AR premise - that the life of an animal and that of a human are equally valuable - to be repugnant, and the thought of people who hold such beliefs openly advocating murder to be terrifying.

It was truly a momentous occasion to have someone in this country speak in front of the Senate EPW committee, with HLS executives in the audience and right next to Dr. Vlasak; to listen to him describe some of the most vile and horrific animal experiments; and to hear him tell them that animal experimentation does nothing to solve human health problems. This was groundbreaking!

Unfortunately, because of Dr. Vlasak's statements to the Senate and then on 60 Minutes, a few (not many, thank goodness) inside the movement began to criticize him. A couple of people even began to launch personal attacks against him and the North American Animal Liberation Press Office (www.animalliberationpressoffice.org).

Groundbreaking it was - it accomplished its purpose, too! It drove that wedge into the violent wing of the AR movement, and it set Dr. Vlasak up as the spiritual leader of the "murder wing."

This has led Dr. Best to resign from the Press Office, leaving him free to concentrate on things like CALA and writing books, at which he is so talented. We must all endeavor to do what we are best at and feel most comfortable with, and I wish Dr. Best luck with all his future endeavors.

Now, this is big news! Even Professor Best has abandoned Dr. Vlasak, and Ms Ferdin is quite happy with his departure.

Notice the disconnect . . . "a few, (not many, thank goodness)" "personal attacks". . . were sufficient to drive Professor Best from his position as a self-appointed ALF Press Officer . . .

The proverbial rats are abandoning the ship, on the transparently flimsy excuse that they were driven out by a few personal attacks . . .

Heh.

As NAALPO Press Officers, Dr. Vlasak, Camille Hankins, and Angie Metler speak to the media about ALF actions--as well as more militant underground animal liberation actions. I believe they do so with professionalism and dignity. Each and every time the Press Officers are interviewed, they educate journalists about the ALF and its guidelines (if it concerns an ALF action) and answer questions about other groups' actions (i.e.. the bombing at Chiron and the stave attack on Brian Cass). Because the Press Officers are older and certainly don't fit the image of animal rights activists held by many in this country, the Press Office has been able to fill an important niche that is very necessary for a movement such as ours.

Since the new North American Animal Liberation Press Office was formed almost exactly a year ago, the Press Officers have done hundreds of interviews with a mainstream media thirsty to get the other side of the story regarding the philosophy and history behind underground animal liberation actions. We ought to be thankful that Dr. Vlasak, Camille Hankins, and Angi Metler are willing to take the heat and give their time and energy serving as such acritical "spoke" in the animal liberation "wheel.".

". . . take the heat . . ." unlike Professor Best . . .

Heh.

This is an extremely important time in our movement; the bench mark has been moved once again, just as it was moved when the first arson took place on behalf of animal liberation in this country. When Rod Coronado had the courage to move an earlier "bench mark" by engaging in arson on behalf of our animal brothers and sisters, many in the movement--including some leaders at the time--said that he was hurting the movement and denounced the actions. With Dr. Vlasak stating publicly what many in the animal rights movement have said privately (even those who are now critical of Dr. Vlasak) that political violence would be morally justified on behalf of animal liberation, the "bench mark" has been moved again. This makes not only the opposition, but apparently also a few so-called "leaders" within our movement quite nervous.

And here we have it verified: Dr. Vlasak says in public what many in the cause have said privately.

How very revealing!

And you bet your life that the leaders of the AR movement are now quite nervous about Dr. Vlasak and his mouth. PeTA, for example, received $29 million in contributions in 2004, and Dr. Vlasak is closely tied to them through the PCRM (op cit).

How ready would animal lovers be to contribute to PeTA's ever increasing wealth and influence were they to learn that, in addition to killing animals they take into their shelter willy-nilly, they also are closely tied to the likes of Dr. Vlasak, as well as to other nefarious characters? (And lets not forget that Dr. Vlasak's wife, the author of the present open letter and president of SHAC-USA, carries PCRM business cards . . .).

Ooooops . . .

In closing, I believe that at this time our movement should be especially vigilant and not allow anyone within or outside to use "divide and conquer" techniques, which will simply end up hurting our struggle for animal liberation. Our forefathers fought and died for us to be able to have freedom of speech, and the biggest slap in the face to those who are free speech advocates is to denounce or criticize Dr. Vlasak's right to state his own opinion when asked directly by those interviewing him. I believe that those critics are frantically trying to protect their own interests--i.e., donor dollars.

Of course, by saying publicly what was common discourse within the AR community, Dr. Vlasak is the one who forced the issue. If there is anyone who is divisive, it is he.

And I would argue that he did so intentionally, to bring things to a head.

I would agree with Ms Ferdin that much of the hue and cry against Dr. Vlasak from within the AR community is directly related to the threat of losing contributions. After all, Animal Rights is an industry, quite a profitable one at that, in addition to a loopy philosophy . . .

And the industry, in the form of PeTA and HSUS, for example, wields tremendous coercive power.

Whether or not you agree with the views held by Dr. Vlasak (as well as many others in this movement who are simply too afraid to state them publicly), it's important NOT to resort to publicly denouncing others who are fighting in their own way for animal liberation. I will always remember reading about how, during the fight for women's suffrage, it was other WOMEN who spit in the faces of protesting suffragettes. It's enough for the opposition to be beating up on us--let's not beat up on each other! This is especially salient with resepct to the mainstream media.

Right - don't criticize poor Dr. Vlasak publicly, even when what he does threatens your multimillion dollar industry and your power.

Heh . . .

Thanks for listening...

Pamelyn

You're welcome, Pamelyn! Thanks for sharing!

And a happy Thanksgiving to all!

UPDATE: Corrected for clarity 11/25/05. Edited for style 11/27/05

Brian

Peter Daniel Young's Statement After Sentencing

I'd meant to get to this sooner, but here it is now: Peter Daniel Young has issued a post-sentencing statement.

Mr. Young was busted some time ago for boosting CD's from a Starbuck's. After his arrest, he was identified as an AR activist, one who'd released mink from a farm in 1998, who'd been on the lam for several years before being apprehended for the CD caper. It was initially thought he'd face charges that, if convicted, could send him away for life to the Big House.

But then he got very lucky, and the four extortion charges he faced, for which he could have served 20 years each, were dropped. On November 8, Mr. Young was sentenced to the maximum sentence for which he was eligible: 2 years.

Here's what Mr. Young had to say on the day of his sentencing:

The following is Peter Young's statement to the court at his sentencing on November 8th, 2005. As Peter did a large amount of improvisation, the below text is not a verbatim record, but an approximate account based on his notes and the memory of supporters in the courtroom.

This is the customary time when the defendant expresses regret for the crimes they committed, so let me do that because I am not without my regrets. I am here today to be sentenced for my participation in releasing mink from 6 fur farms. I regret it was only 6. I'm also here today to be sentenced for my participation in the freeing of 8,000 mink from those farms. I regret it was only 8,000. It is my understanding of those 6 farms, only 2 of them have since shut down. I regret it was only 2.

I called this one completely wrong: I thought he'd flip on those who aided and abetted him in his flight from the law. At the time I made my prediction, I figured he was facing life, not a paltry 2 years, and I stupidly thought him to be less an ideologue than he obviously is.

I just wasn't cynical enough. My bad.

In reading Mr. Young's present statement, I suspect Mr. Young wouldn't flip no matter what sentence he's faced with. He's as convinced of the righteousness of his cause as any religious zealot.

More than anything, I regret my restraint, because whatever damage we did to those businesses, if those farms were left standing, and if one animal was left behind, then it wasn't enough.

I don't wish to validate this proceeding by begging for mercy or appealing to the conscience of the court, because I know if this system had a conscience I would not be here, and in my place would be all the butchers, vivisectors, and fur farmers of the world.

Well, Mr. Young is nothing if not a true believer. I suspect that Mr. Young, and those of his ilk who burn with similar ideological fervor, would have made grand missionaries in some other age.

Just as I will remain unbowed before this court- who would see me imprisoned for an act of conscience- I will also deny the fur farmers in the room the pleasure of seeing me bow down before them. To those people here whose sheds I may have visited in 1997, let me tell you directly for the first time, it was a please (sic) to raid your farms, and to free those animals you held captive. It is to those animals I answer to, not you or this court. I will forever mark those nights on your property as the most rewarding experience of my life.

And to those farmers or other savages who may read my words in the future and smile at my fate, just remember: We have put more of you in bankruptcy than you have put liberators in prison. Don't forget that.

Let me thank everyone in the courtroom who came to support me today. It is my last wish before prison that each of you drive to a nearby fur farm tonight, tear down its fence and open every cage.

That's all.

Mr. Young has persuaded himself that he's fighting the good fight: he truly believes that the life of an animal and that of a human are of equal value, and both his action in releasing the mink and this statement are logically consistent with that premise.

The Peter Daniel Youngs of the world are not going to alter their views through discussion and negotiation, and it's as useless to try reasoning him out of his position as it is to try to reason any other true-believer out of his.

I think all true believers have a couple of things in common: the certainty that their conscience is infallible; the certainty that the cause they have committed themselves to is righteous; a belief that there is virtue in the depth of their commitment that exists separately from the nature of that commitment; a total clarity of vision which sees only blacks and whites, but no greys; and - often if not invariably - an inability to recognize other people, who hold beliefs diametrically opposed to their own, can be as honestly committed to those beliefs as they are to theirs (AR people often seem to believe that their opponents are well aware that they are doing immoral things to animals, but do so, for example, out of love of profit or a delight in torture, rather than out of principle).

In any event, I don't have much doubt that we'll see Mr. Young surface again in a few years, pursuing his Animal Liberationist agenda.

What is not clear is whether he'll follow Dr. Jerry Vlasak's lead and find assassination to be "morally acceptable."

Brian

Killing and Suffering: Not as Morally Relevant as Motivation

(Blogging will be very light until early next week — Thanksgiving's a-coming, and I'm going to enjoy my family!)

There's an interesting article in Equestrian Today that includes a rebuttal to the frequent AR refrain that "animals kill only for food." Though the article is mainly about fox hunting with dogs in the UK and is well worth reading in total:

The new hunting season has started and in its wake is a spate of for and against letters as a paper chase of opinion is laid.

"Hunting is nature's way," says one author. "Animals only kill for food," says another. "Accept the days of chasing foxes are over," says the top spokesman for the League Against Cruel Sports, all in the Letters to the Editor page of the Yorkshire Post.

Are both sides implacable? Perhaps. When I whipped in, I met a complete cross section of antis. Some of them held a deep-seated, and, I believe, honest, abhorrence to hunting. How could man control hounds to chase one of God's creatures to possible destruction?

I think the term "antis" refers to people who are anti-hunting. That would be a category that includes Animal Rights activists, but includes others as well.

Others had their opinions conditioned by propaganda without actually seeing what went on. Most of those held the view that they didn't have to see bear-baiting to know it was wrong.

Yet some of them marvelled at hounds strong on a scent and not a few of them changed sides.

Others just came out for the day to take the mickey out of the toffs. And a menacing section of antis seemed to have the ruin of the State on their agenda, moving from the hunting fields to protest against anything they could get a gang together to jeer at.

"Mickey out of the toffs" is slang that means in this case, roughly, laughing at the pretensions of the upper class.

I have to be honest to say that many horse people hunt to ride, so they would be happy with a drag line. They may eventually discover that it costs much more to insure a horse for drag hunting than even for eventing, though that skirts the moral issue. Do animals only hunt for food? Tell that to the pigeon loft owner when a mink gets in, kills everything and takes one bird. Or the keeper seeing a Sparrow Hawk kill poult after poult and then take just one away.

Or the fascinating and beautiful owl family, many of whom will kill young pheasant apparently for the fun of it, leaving their carcasses behind.

And Charlie? Keep a few chickens for free range eggs and you may lose them one by one to a fox. That seems natural enough, he is hungry, you provide a fast food outlet. Natural until the night he kills all the survivors and takes but one.

And take the biggest, and most efficient killer in Britain, the humble house cat. Does it really need that song bird to enhance a diet of Cattomeat ?

Clearly, animals don't kill only for food: all you need to do is watch a house cat play with a helpless mouse, vole or sparrow to know that the felid finds something pleasurable about the activity, an activity that would be characterized as "ruthless" were a human to do it.

Nature is replete with examples of such things. For example, in a pack of African wild dogs, the dominant male and female breed, and if a subordinate female gives birth, the dominant male may kill the offspring. Similar not-for-food killing occurs in some non-human primate species: "According to Scott and Lockard (1999), female transfer decisions [of Mountain Gorillas] depend on the quality of the dominant silverback since they provide protection against infanticide by other males. Other silverback males will kill offspring known not to be theirs in order to eliminate competition."

So non-humans kill for several reasons, one of which is to eat, another is evidently for pleasure (or something else, but not for food), and a third is to protect their individual contribution to the gene pool.

All of which are excused by the fact that it is the nature of the bird or beast.

Well, yeah . . . that's true of some antis, those who acknowledge that animals do kill for reasons other than to eat.

But there are still those who contend that non-humans "only kill for food," even though such a claim is demonstrably false and widely known to be so.

So what's going on with these people?

I think most of them know that some animals kill for reasons other than food, but I don't think those people are lying when they assert otherwise.

I think they've taken the fact of animals killing for reasons other than food, and placed it somewhere in their memory banks where it continues to exist but is subconsciously ignored when it comes to arguing for their cause. I think this may well be an example of ideological blindness rather than a deliberate attempt to deceive. I believe that such blindness is an example of what Anthony Pratkanis was getting at in his seminal article on persuasion and self-persuasion when he wrote:

2. Set a Rationalization Trap

The rationalization trap is based on the premise: Get the person committed to the cause as soon as possible. Once a commitment is made, the nature of thought changes. The committed heart is not so much interested in a careful evaluation of the merits of a course of action but in proving that he or she is right. . . .

I think for people who are strongly committed to any cause, including anti-hunting and Animal Rights, there is a very strong tendency to misplace in one's mind facts that are not consistent with the beliefs underlying the commitment.

Back to the equestrian article.

Many believe that man's nature is a hunter. Sublimated to merchant banking, aggressive politics, making that first million, getting that promotion, feeling that collar. Exhaulted by riding to hounds across some beautiful country.

There is no question about that "hunter" is a part of H. sapiens' nature. We have only to look at the fossil record to prove that hunting has existed for hundreds of thousands of years if not a few million; to look at modern hunter-gatherer peoples to appreciate how high a value they place on meat eating; and to look at 40 years of observations that Chimpanzees, human-kind's closest living relatives, will hunt and eat meat (they show predatory behavior).

One can claim, mistakenly in my mind, that hunting is always and inevitably wrong, but one cannot claim that it is not a part man's nature.

And when a former head of the RSPCA says that foxes will be worse off now because shooting them does not always kill cleanly and that, like it or not, hounds do not wound, they either kill the fox or it escapes, the moral maze twists on.

It is no time for those against our rural pursuits to crow. They may eat crow in a pie in the future when the new law is found unworkable.

Most of the anti-hunting people, and all Animal Rights extremists (violent or not), share the idea that the pleasure hunters derive from hunting, an activity in which the quarry's death is a goal if not an inevitability, is what makes hunting immoral enough to advocate its ban.

So it's not the killing per se that's immoral. Indeed, in the US, PeTA justifies killing most of the animals that they take into their shelter on the grounds that euthanasia is a compassionate solution to the problem of animal overpopulation. (Note: All AR groups, including PeTA, are based squarely on the premise that the life of an animal and that of a human are of equal value. For PeTA to kill animals is therefore a major breach of their ideology unless they are willing to kill humans for the same reasons they do animals. I discuss the implications of the AR point of view here.)

But killing that reduces suffering isn't enough to satisfy the antis, either. As the former RSPCA official pointed out, controlling the fox population by hunters with dogs produces less suffering than controlling them by shooting alone. And in the US, deer hunters prevent a great deal of suffering by keeping deer herd numbers in check. In both instances, humans deliberately killing animals reduces suffering.

So what does determine whether killing is moral or immoral, and what determines whether reducing suffering is moral or immoral? The answer is simple: the ideology, the motivation and the inner emotions of the one doing the killing.

So to most anti-hunters, and to all Animal Rights activists, the thoughts and emotions of the one doing the killing are of greater moral relevance than whether or not killing happens, or whether or not the killing reduces suffering.

Brian

Bogus E-mail

Animal Rights have all sorts of nasty ways to besmirch reputations and cause trouble. Here's another, this one in the form of an email that has been circulating far and wide. It falsely indicates it is from an HLS scientist looking to acquire rescued animals from "the Hurricane," with the obvious implication that the animals would be used for research. The email has been debunked by Snopes.

Here's the bogus email:

We will pay for rescued Cats and Dogs

Hello well intentioned people,
My company has an immediate need for 300 small dogs and 500 cats. De-clawed cats are fine! The animals need to be fairly healthy animals. They need to be alive for at least 30 days after our intake.

The price for these animals are as follows:

If we pickup in Arkansas or Mississippi $5 = cats, $9 = dogs

If animal is shipped to our home office in New Jersey (address to follow) $25 = cats, $29 = dogs

In addition to this, we are providing an incentive to the person who rescues the most animals for us. At the end of December, we will tally up the rescue efforts. The person who we conclude to be the greatest asset will win an all inclusive trip to Las Vegas, Nevada for two people for 5 days. This will include air transportation from Louisiana, hotel stay at 3 star or better resort, meal tickets for 2 meals per person a day, entertainment coupons including 1 fully paid entertainment concert, and $300 in casino comps spending monies.

We are really concerned about the well being of the cats and dogs after the Hurricane and want to do our part to insure the animals welfare.

For more information please contact:

Myself, Carol Auletta Sr. Toxicologist for HLS
732-873-2550, ext. 2960
[email protected]

Our website is http://www.huntingdon.com
And our address is Mettlers RoadEast Millstone, NJ 08875-2360

LET US GET TO WORK!

Carol

This is what Snopes has to say:

Origins:   The

Huntingdon Life Sciences (HLS) company has long been a focus of protests by animal rights groups over HLS's use of live animals in its product testing. The e-mail reproduced above is evidently someone's attempt to stir up the issue by distributing a message purportedly written by an HLS scientist and offering to pay cash for New Orleans-area cats and dogs rescued from New Orleans after being separated from their owners by Hurricane Katrina, with a free trip to Las Vegas to be awarded to the person sending HLS the largest number of "rescued" animals. (The point of the message being that recipients would read it as a transparent attempt by HLS to obtain animals for experimentation purposes under the guise of being "concerned about the well being of the cats and dogs.")

We sent an inquiry to the scientist named in the above-quoted message and received a response from Huntingdon Life Sciences' general manager:

I am writing in response to your email to Huntingdon Life Sciences, and particularly about the email, alleged to have been written by Carol Auletta, that is making the rounds among several animal rescue list servers, indicating that Huntingdon Life Sciences is attempting to purchase rescued dogs and cats.

Allow me to state categorically that this is a complete hoax. We have no idea who engineered this farce, but it is typical of the type of misinformation disseminated by animal rights extremist to try and discredit our business.

Sadly, it is typical.

Thanks to Liz Ditz for the tip, and check out her blog I Speak of Dreams.

Brian

Agri-Business Worried About AR

I'd been meaning to get to this sooner, but time didn't permit.

Science and economics won't defeat activists, a Dordt College professor says.

Don't underestimate the power of the Professor's assertion: science, economics and facts are poor proof against a True Believer's ideology.

For the True Believers who are Animal Rights extremists, both those supporting violence and those "not condoning" violence, facts and logic are viewed through the prism of the core Animal Rights premise: that the life of a human and that of an animal are of equal value.

And nobody is a more convincing salesman, be it of cars, lawn mowers, bread or ideology, than someone who truly believes in his product.

Wes Jamison, an associate agriculture professor at the Sioux Center, Iowa, college, said the animal rights activism movement seeks to end animal agriculture as it's known.

Professor Jamison is correct — to the AR True Believer, to treat an animal differently from a human simply because the animal is not human, is to practice "speciesism." And speciesism is a moral transgression which is every bit as reprehensible as racism. (That's a perfectly reasonable moral position to take IF you begin with the core premise upon which AR ideology rests: that the life of a human and that of an animal are morally equal.)

When Professor Steven Best says he'd save his dog from a burning house before he'd save a human stranger, because his dog is more valuable to him than the human stranger (your child, spouse, parent . . .) is to him, he is merely following the logic of the AR premise to it's conclusion: both lives, the dog's and the human's, are equally valuable, so it's only important that one be saved first. Once he's logic-ed his way here, what's the argument against Dr. Best saving the the life that is important to him?

And when Jerry Vlasak, MD, finds it morally acceptable to assassinate a few scientists to save more animals, and openly advocates the practice itself, he, too, is merely following the logic dictated by the AR premise: if by killing "n" scientists you can save "n+1" animals, your moral scale points towards virtue.

The movement is winning, Jamison said, and will continue to do so unless agriculture establishes the moral and scientific high ground.

Of course, one of the reasons the AR movement is winning is because the core premise of its ideology hasn't been challenged often or consistently. When the human/animal moral equivalence premise is challenged, or at least exposed, Animal Rights is found to be incoherent and/or chillingly tyrannical.

For example, the same people who claim that the life of an animal and that of a human are of equal value — people like Dr. Vlasak's ADL-LA ("No Kill Solutions", left sidebar) and organizations like PeTA — also advocate that animals be forcibly spayed and neutered, a practice that deprives creatures that are, supposedly, "morally equal" to humans of their right to reproduce, the pleasures of the sexual act and the delights of rearing offspring. Spaying and neutering, because of the hormonal shifts accompanying the removal of ovaries and testicles, also alters the animals' behavior, making them more compliant, more dependent on humans, less like "nature intended them."

If speciesism is as great a sin as racism, it's reasonable to ask the AR side how they can reconcile spaying and neutering of animals with their anti-speciesism credo, other than by advocating that humans be forcibly sterilized for the same reasons that animals are.

And the same argument can be made for killing animals "as a kindness", a practice that PeTA engages in regularly and as a matter of course, killing a far higher percentage of animals they take into their "shelter" than the impoverished local shelters operating in their vicinity (PeTA is very wealthy, having collected donations amounting to about $29 million in in 2004, and according to PeTA President Ingrid Newkirk could become a no-kill shelter over-night. It's very disturbing that PeTA employees allegedly lied when asked what the fate of animals given them by shelters would, telling those who surrendered the animals that the majority would be put up for adoption when that was not the case at all.)

Would PeTA, the flagship AR organization, advocate killing humans for the same compassionate reasons they kill animals? If not, aren't they practicing "speciesism" when the kill?

Jamison spoke at last week's Agri-Growth Council meeting in St. Paul.

When the animal rights movement emerged in the 1980s, it was out for headlines, he said. Fur coats were spray painted red. People ran naked through the Macy's Thanksgiving Day parade. Their formula for success was to exploit the vacuum between the perception and the use of animals. In modern society, there is a vacuum between animal use and public knowledge, he said.

I think that gap — that vacuum — exists and is as important as Jamison believes it to be. I'm sure there are a whole variety of reasons why there might be this vacuum, but the end result is that people are anthropomorphize animals now in a way they did not do a century ago, and some well-meaning, compassionate folks find it easy to blur the distinction between humans and animals.

Other folks understand such motivations, and cynically exploit them.

In the 1990s, the movement tested language to see what elicited a negative response. It learned to win locally by getting on local zoning boards and constant editorializing. It divided animal use groups with single-issue activism.

Their power is greatest at the local level where the power of animal agriculture is diffuse, Jamison said. They have more members, more civic support and are more organized and more intense.

For now, the movement is thwarted, but persistent at the federal level. Animal use groups are sensitized, but unfocused, he said. The goal of the animal rights movement is passage of the Federal Animal Welfare Act.

His view of AR strategy is spot on. The AR groups use language very effectively, and it's no surprise that AR people use such charged words as torture, neglect, cruel and abuse to characterize their targets and what they do, while using words such as pro-animal, anti-cruelty, compassionate and kind to characterize themselves and actions they approve of. Of course, they broaden and restrict definitions in order to sell their ideological bill-of-goods.

It's an effective technique: Once branded as an animal abuser, a person, an institution or an entire industry is in the impossible position of proving that they are not . . . And if an institution, like PeTA, is allowed to define itself consistently and without opposition as a compassionate organization, one wishing only to rid the world of cruelty, they can get away with any number of cruel things for the sake of compassion. (By "opposition," I don't mean just defence against PeTA and PeTA-equivalent attacks; I mean attacking the false image PeTA et. al. have been able to create for themselves.)

That's animal agriculture's Alamo, Jamison said. If it passes, confinement agriculture will cease.

The classical response of agriculture to convene a panel and pour money on the problem won't work to fix this one. They're winning in the court of public opinion because of pre-existing social conditions. Agriculture is an island in an urban sea, Jamison said.

Urban residents view animals as companions and increasingly as members of the family. No longer are animals experienced in an agrarian way.

Humans are projecting human qualities onto animals, he said, showing a photograph of a dog dressed in human clothes. Parents who've read Babe or Bambi to their children have infected their offspring with the virus of animal rights, he said.

Yup. As I mentioned above, the term is anthropomorphism

Stepping away from agriculture for a minute and looking at science and scientists, I can well remember Saturday morning TV cartoons in which evil scientists were out to dominate the world, and the world was saved by superheros and their magic.

That's a pretty powerful negative message about scientists to be sending very young kids.

And the point made by Jamison about the anthropomorphism is a no less-powerful message to folks whose only significant first-hand experience with actual animals is with their pet dogs and cats.

I'm not suggesting, by any stretch, a nefarious conspiracy in either instance. It's just the way things are, and "that" they are as they are is more important than "why" they are as they are.

Animal agriculture can't eliminate the vacuum, nor can it change the social forces, Jamison said. If animal agriculture hopes to win it must establish the moral high ground and tell people about it relentlessly. "Why should you be allowed by society to do what you do?" Jamison asked. "If you can't answer, society will increasingly seek to limit what you do."

I believe that animal agriculture should do more than defend itself. It should aggressively attack the ideology of Animal Rights: after all, ideology is the force that drives the AR movement, the common bond that unites peaceful and violent extremists alike, and one crucial key to combatting Animal Rights. It is the concept, the idea, that people rally to or against.

If the core "animal-life-is-as-valuable-as-human-life" premise of the AR ideology is clearly defined, and if the ideological logic that flows from it clearly traced, the concept of Animal Rights will be far less attractive than it presently is, there will be fewer people who find it philosophically appealing, and that will have an inevitable effect on contributions to above ground organizations like PeTA.

Secondly, it's important to show the links between above-ground radical organizations — like PeTA — with terrorists and terrorist organizations. It's necessary but not sufficient for those ties to be made public (indeed, they already are).

What's important is making them common knowledge, in the sense that whenever people think of (for example) PeTA, they think of PeTA's terrorist connections, not loopy people dressed as carrots.

Brian

ALF Sadism, Self-Imposed Legal Impotence

There's cruelty, and then there is sadism. I'll leave it to you to decide for yourself how best to characterize this, but to me it is downright sadistic:

Animal rights extremists have boasted of blowing up a car belonging to the widow of a pharmaceuticals firm director, even though he had died months before.

The Animal Liberation Front said on its website that it knew that Alexander Grant, the managing director of Roche, had died from a heart attack . . .

[ . . . ]

The website, Biteback, has been used to claim responsibility for attacks across the world. The statement said: "We have been keeping many senior personnel from HLS's customers and suppliers under intense surveillance.

"One was Alexander Grant, a senior director of Roche, who are a major customer of Huntingdon Life Sciences. We were planning an attack on Grant a few months ago but then realised that he had just died of a heart attack.

"In October we carried out the operation at Grant's address, planting two incendiary devices under an expensive four-wheel-drive, totally destroying it. People who sign contracts with or deal with Huntingdon need to realise that your decisions will come back to haunt you for ever - even when you have gone." "

How sick is this? How ruthless and sadistic?

Arson is bad enough — it sends a message that you have been targeted, and you have reason to fear for your life and the lives of your family. But when you target a family that is itself without the power to effect change . . . you terrorize them purely to send a message to others about how far you're prepared to go . . . wow . . .

And then, Jerry Vlasak, former PCRM spokesman, has upped the ante exponentially by justifying both the morality of assassination and advocating the practice of murder, a position he defended on Oct. 26, 2005 in testimony before a Senate committee and which he repeated most recently when interviewed by Ed Bradley for 60 Minutes.

Dr. Vlasak's advocacy of assassination means that ALF defenders can no longer argue that the threat of being deliberately killed, maimed or burned to a crisp won't happen because they're careful and such outcomes don't fit the ALF credo.

Such actions fit Dr. Vlasak's philosophy, and that's all that counts.

It is inevitable that some anonymous useful idiot will identify himself as an avenging angel, take courage and inspiration from Dr. Vlasak's words, and go about putting into practice what Dr. Vlasak advocates. (Actually, someone — allegedly fugitive Daniel Andreas San Diego — has already, though unsuccessfully, attempted as much.)

Those who find themselves targets of ALF actions can't be sure that they will be attacked by the kinder, gentler ALF operatives, those who draw a bright line between (prohibited) murder and such (permissible) "direct actions" as false accusations of paedophilia, bricks through windows, tire slashing, threats against one's family and children, "black faxes," paint stripper on cars, arson, and spray-paint graffiti. (All of these non-lethal "direct actions" and others were once explicitly included on a SHAC webpage under the heading Top 20 Terror Tactics.

Now, the target must live in fear that some anonymous ALF clunk will find his personal urge to commit murder legitimized in Dr. Vlasak's words, and put into practice the next logical step in the escalation of what is an ALF-permissible "direct action."

The chill doesn't stop here. No, not by any means.

The fact that the ALF heros of this story would continue to torment people who can in no earthly way correct what the odd ALF operative considers to be the transgression of someone who cannot redeem himself (he is, after all, dead . . .) makes it obvious that once having dealt with an ALF-proscribed target, even death won't bring relief to the family and friends of the hated "abuser."

And yet, that very tactic of perpetual, irredeemable personal guilt and guilt by association works against the goal ALF terrorists say they wish to achieve: if it is true that once having sinned you are beyond absolution ("your decisions will come back to haunt you for ever"), what is the incentive for abandoning the activity that has made you a target?

Is it just me, or is there a strongly religious flavor of "original sin" in this?

In any event, my sense is that these people are delighting in the raw, god-like power they can exercise over the lives of people who cannot fight back. And it is my fear . . . and my prediction . . . that it won't be too long before some annonymous thug will commit a murder that Dr. Vlasak would find "morally acceptable."

In an equally disturbing parallel story, we have this which announces the recent release of Keith Mann from 6 months in the slammer:

The early release from jail of an animal rights activist once described as a "ruthless fanatic" was today attacked by his victims and the science community.

Keith Mann was jailed for 18 months in April this year for breaking into an animal laboratory and threatening its head in court.

Wellllll . . . there's a little more to Mr. Mann's sentencing than that . . . As I wrote previously, the judge (Richard Price) passing sentence on him for this "conspiracy to burgle" charge had full knowledge of Mr. Mann's criminal background "which included a conviction in 1994 for 21 offenses, including arson, possessing explosives, and escaping from custody (for which he received a 14 year sentence, later reduced). If that weren't enough, Mr. Mann was convicted in 2003 for defrauding the government."

In spite of this, Mr. Mann was initially sentenced to 230 hours of community service on the "conspiracy to burgle" charge.

But that changed when: "On his way out of the court, his wrists already fully recovered from the slap, Mr. Mann proceeded to threaten Mr. Chris Bishop of Wickham Laboratories with the words: 'Your trouble is only just beginning. You need to look under your bed,' whereupon Judge Price reconvened court and sentenced Mr. Mann to 6 months in jail for contempt of court."

Judge Price's court had been insulted by Mr. Mann's threat . . . ("Judge Richard Price at Portsmouth Crown Court said: 'I will not have people leaving my court saying that sort of thing. This was a serious threat and a serious contempt of court'.")

Judge Price then gave Mr. Mann a slightly harder slap-on-the-wrist jail sentence for Mr Mann's contempt of Judge Price's court, which was to the judge a greater faux pas than the "conspiracy to burgle" conviction of the chronically criminal Mr. Mann.

The current article continues:

Mann, who was freed on October 31 after serving six months of his sentence, has been electronically tagged, and is now thought to be living with his girlfriend in Poole, Dorset.

The chairman of the Commons Science and Technology Committee, Phil Willis, said: "The scientific community will be worried by this.

"This is somebody who has got a very serious history of animal terrorism and terrorism against scientific laboratories and those carrying out that element of science and here we have somebody who has been let out for serious offences very early.

"Admittedly he is going to be tagged for a while, but we don't know the conditions of his tagging at all." He added: "That's my concern. It's the message that goes out that even hard core terrorists are treated relatively leniently."

The 39-year-old was originally given a 230-hour community punishment order, increased to 12 months in prison on appeal, for organising a raid on Wickham Laboratories in Hampshire and stealing 695 mice in December 2003.

As the activist walked free, he passed the public gallery and threatened the lab's technical director, Chris Bishop, saying: "Your trouble has only just started - you will need to look under your bed."

He was subsequently imprisoned for six months.

. . . of a twelve month sentence . . . which was precisely what he'd originally been sentenced to . . .

You have to wonder how much of the original 6 month sentence Mr. Mann would have served if it hadn't been increased to 12 months . . .

Mr Bishop said today security has been increased at the lab and added.

The early release of Mann, a ringleader of the Animal Liberation Front, comes in the wake of increased violence by animal rights militants.

"Early release . . . in the wake of increased violence."

Heh . . .

In July, an arson attack by the ALF caused major damage to Oxford University's Hertford College boathouse on the Thames. In a statement on its website, the ALF told the university it would "destroy every bit of property you own" to stop animal testing.

Animal rights extremists were also believed to have targeted the widow of a former senior executive of a pharmaceutical company by blowing up her car last month.

Mann was jailed in 1994 for 14 years for carrying out a terrorist-style sabotage campaign against the meat industry.

Mr Willis added: "When you look at how difficult it is to confront animal terrorists and how difficult it is to get them into court and to get them sentenced I think there will be many people in the scientific community saying that this is really not an effective way of dealing with a very, very serious terrorist threat." [My emphasis . . . ed]

As understatement go, Mr. Willis' is a beaut . . .

So I ask you . . . if the English legal system were deliberately trying to minimize the consequences to violent AR extremists, what would it do differently?

This does not bode well for British science.

Brian

Vlasak and Best Dissed by ALF

Interesting things are happening in the violent AR wing of the extremist AR movement: Dr. Jerry Vlasak and Professor Steven Best are being dissed by at least some ALF operatives, and Dr. Vlasak is being dissed by Paul Watson of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society.

Dr. Vlasak, of course, is infamously known for advocating the assassination of some biomedical scientists, which he views as "morally acceptable," in order to intimidate the rest into abandoning the use of animals in research. He did so in his creepy testimony before a Senate committee on Oct. 26, 2005, and before that, he did so on Australian TV (you can watch Dr. Vlasak openly advocate assassination by following the link here).

Both Dr. Best and Dr. Vlasak are presently self-appointed "Press Officers" for the ALF.

But before that and until fairly recently, Dr. Vlasak was a spokesman for the PCRM (Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine), which is tied closely to PeTA: PCRM President Neal Barnard and PeTA President Ingrid Newkirk are two of three directors of the PeTA Foundation, which funnels hundreds of thousands of dollars to PCRM (op cit).

The PCRM also has close ties with SHAC — PCRM President Barnard co-signed a letter with then SHAC President Kevin Kjonsas; and Dr. Vlasak's wife, Pamelyn Ferdin is the current President of SHAC — Ferdin carries a PCRM business card listing her as a PCRM employee.

So with all that for background and context, we can consider the comments of a putative ALF cell leader, a person interviewed by Mr. Ed Bradley as background for his 60 Minutes piece last Sunday (Nov. 13, 2005).

[ . . . ]

BRADLEY: Do you know Jerry Vlasak. You know who he is? Calls himself a spokesperson for the cause, for your cause. And he says it’s time to start killing people who do research on animals?

ALF CELL LEADER: Well, we appreciate that he likes to consider himself a spokesperson, but he doesn’t operate with our endorsement or our support or our appreciation, the support of the ALF. We have a strict code of non-violence. Not a single human being in the 20 to 30 year history has ever been harmed in an ALF action…. That’s not luck, it’s a pretty good record.

[ . . . ]

Ouch! This has got to hurt — one of the guys in the trenches saying that Dr. Vlasak "doesn’t operate with our endorsement or our support or our appreciation, the support of the ALF."

Translation: "That Vlasak dude is screwing up the good name of the ALF."

I ask you — how low can a punch be?

Parenthetically, the ALF cell leader suggests that the absence of harm to a human "is not luck" parallels what Rodney Coronado said on 60 Minutes: “The fact that nobody was ever injured in any of the actions that I’ve been accused of is not a coincidence.”

Perhaps . . . but Dr. Vlasak's pronouncement that assassination is "morally acceptable" and his open advocacy of murder has lowered the bar for human injury and murder, each of which is just that much closer to becoming but one other tool in the armamentarium of those claiming to operate in behalf of ALF (and who is to deny them their claim?).

It really doesn't matter what Mr. Bradley's ALF cell leader wants to happen or thinks is justifiable in the ALF name.

The whole structure of ALF — its secrecy, its insulated cell organization and its illegal activities specifically designed to instill terror in the minds of selected targets — is an open invitation for someone to make a name for himself in underground circles, or just to satisfy some dark inner urge, by going that one logical step further and committing murder in behalf of the ALF.

Dr. Vlasak's words have made it possible for useful idiot to legitimize his murderous urge in furtherance of the AR cause.

Who will stop the murderous him (or her)? The ALF credo? I don't think so . . .

Note to ALF cell leader: this is how slippery slopes work, fella. You and those who share your vision have lost control of your own "organization." Dr. Vlasak has seen to that. And the fact that you risked being interviewed to disavow Dr. Vlasak's strategy of murder shows how worried you are.

But, back to people dissing Dr. Vlasak.

As a second example of that, we have none other than Skipper Paul Watson, he of the financially-compromised Sea Shepherd Conservation Society (SSCS). By way of background, the reader should appreciate that Dr. Vlasak was was a member of the SSCS's Board of Directors until recently. Then, CBC reporter Peter Gullage did a series of stories on Dr. Vlasak (link, link), exposing his appreciation for murder's utility to the public.

Initially, Skipper Paul stood firmly behind Dr. Vlasak, right up to the point where another of the SSCS's Board (Elizabeth May) threatened to resign if Dr. Vlasak weren't sacked — which would have drawn still greater adverse publicity to the SSCS. At first, Skipper Paul said he'd accept May's resignation before he'd sack Dr. Vlasak. But that changed, and Skipper Paul ended up first, disassociating himself and the SSCS from Dr. Vlasak, then surreptitiously removing Dr. Vlasak's name from the SSCS website one dark night, then sacking him outright the following morning.

So here's what Skipper Paul of the SSCS now has to say:

On Sunday evening, Dr. Jerry Vlasak, a former Board Member of Sea Shepherd Conservation Society (SSCS), appeared on CBS 60 Minutes to promote his ideas on acceptable violent threats and tactics in animal rights issues. Earlier this year SSCS had promptly removed Dr. Vlasak as a Board member after his interview with the Canadian Broadcasting Company, in which Dr. Vlasak made statements advocating threats of violence to protect animals.

Skipper Paul is being disingenuous . . . Dr. Vlasak was dismissed only because a board member went public with her outrage, and Skipper Paul had no choice. As I argued then, Skipper Paul made a decision because he couldn't afford having the SSCS's reputation publicly savaged, with the consequent drying up of contributions.

"SSCS adamantly opposes any action that would cause injury to any human being," says Captain Paul Watson, Founder and President of Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, a marine wildlife conservation organization founded in 1977.

A former friend and colleague of Dr. Vlasak, Captain Watson upholds the decision to remove Dr. Vlasak from the Board of Directors of SSCS as necessary and consistent with Sea Shepherd's long-standing opposition to physical violence.

How revealing . . . "A former friend and colleague . . ."

There really has been a falling out, hasn't there?

Dr. Vlasak has isolated himself from everybody . . .

I predict that the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine will disown Dr. Vlasak presently — and they may even repossess the PCRM business cards Dr. Vlasak's wife flashes around.

Dr. Vlasak has single-handedly thrown the Animal Rights community into a nightmarish tailspin —

Go you, Jerry!

[ . . . ]

"Promoting a philosophy of violence makes it difficult on all of us," Captain Watson advises. "Not only will people be more likely to engage in unnecessary violence out of fear, but it also makes it more difficult to conduct legitimate conservation activities. We cannot support philosophies or tactics that threaten what I established SSCS to do -- preserve and conserve life."

Such sanctimonious words from someone who wouldn't have acted had he not been pressured into it . . .

But enough of Skipper Paul.

There is yet another ALF communique, this one posted on the ADL-Boston listserve:

We followed Kenneth J Greiner from his home at 105 5th Ave in NYC to his weekend getaway in the Hamptons at 4 Beaver Lane W in Westhampton. While Kenneth was turned in for the night we covered his Honda sports utility and Lexus with a new paint job, and a broken back window. His house was also covered with paint and the words "drop HLS" and "sell lsri.ob".

Kenneth is the CEO to Dalton Greiner an investment advisement company who holds over 615,000 shares of HLS' stock in client portfolios. We expect Kenneth's company to join the growing list of companies who have sold HLS' stock.

This action was an ALF action, and was done in solidarity with Peter Young whose unparalleled bravery serves as an inspiration to us all. As an ALF cell we need to take action to save innocent life whenever possible, and take all precautions necessary to avoid infringing on the safety of others. We as a cell are concerned by the rhetorical muddy waters being stirred up by armchair activists like Stephen Best and Jerry Vlasic. These individuals will never understand the ALF and their attempts to represent them in public are pathetic at best. They cannot rewrite the guide lines, period.

The ALF is not a scholastic discourse in academia.
The ALF is not violent, and never will be.
The ALF is the burning feeling in your throat on that quiet car ride to the lab.
The ALF is spending your weeks pay on a rental truck instead of rent or food.
The ALF is the smell of shit and dander on a cross country ride to a sanctuary.
The ALF is an animals first look at open sky.
The ALF is the tears you get when a creature once crippled by human selfishness takes her first steps.
The ALF is all around you.

So f**k post modernist, bad blazer wearing, womanizers and hollywood heart surgeons - we're taking it back.

xo the ALF

Dr. Vlasak has succeeded in driving a wedge into the violent, terrorist wing of the AR extremists. What we're hearing here is from people who are frightened by what Dr. Vlasak has loosed, and who have utter contempt both for him and Professor Best, both of whom live privileged lives and bask in the press-glory of the violent efforts of others.

It's interesting that these guys are calling to "take back" their movment.

How, I wonder, do they plan to do so? How are they going to prevent some useful idiot motivated by the murderous philosophy of Dr. Vlasak and his principal defender and sympathizer Professor Best from identifying himself, coming forward, killing someone, and claiming the ALF did it?

If the murderer claims that he killed in behalf of ALF, who is to say he didn't?

The ALF is Frankenstein's monster — or better — the monster created by the monster. The ALF created themselves out of self-righteous religious fervor. They escalated the tactics of protest from legal ones to illegal ones, with a trend that inevitably approached a logical milestone . . . the taking of human life.

And now they don't like it when Jerry Vlasak, MD, finds it acceptable to take the next step . . . the one dictated by their own loopy ideology: if each life is of equal value, animal and human, then it is morally acceptable to kill "n" people to save "n + 1" animals.

Brian