![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Minor radical grump
PETA is not the Animal Liberation Front.
I can't say that I've been a radical animal rights kind of person, but I think a lot of people have a whacked idea of what animal rights is, and that whacked idea mostly comes from animal rights critics, not from animal rights "activists." It's like getting your image of "what liberals believe" from Rush Limbaugh (or your image of "what capitalists believe" from Fidel Castro). Here's something from the Humane Society of the United States:
The human-animal bond is as old as human history. We cherish our animal companions for their unconditional affection and acceptance. We feel a thrill when we glimpse wild creatures in their natural habitat or in our own backyard.
Unfortunately, the human-animal bond has at times been weakened. Humans have exploited some animal species to the point of extinction. Research animals suffer pain and distress in laboratory tests considered necessary for human health or well-being. Animals killed for fur fashions endure unimaginable agony in inhumane traps or on fur "ranches." Animals used by the food industry live on factory farms where they are treated as unfeeling commodities rather than as sentient beings. The use of animal parts for traditional medicines has contributed to the disappearance of some species worldwide.
Now, the HSUS carefully avoids using the phrase "animal rights," largely because of the negative association from PETA. PETA has always been a little loopy, and they've been loopier recently--but they've won a lot of the less loopy battles already. A lot of major companies have stopped needless animal testing. Fur isn't nearly as fashionable. And it's largely thanks to the noise of those loopy folks that people are starting to pay more attention to just how cruel factory farming is. (The obvious truism "but we have to eat" has nothing to do with the conditions animals are often kept in. )
The ALF is a radical monkeywrenching group whose tactics have been pretty controversial within the animal rights movement. Here's a quote from PETA's website:
Q: Don't animal rights activists commit terrorist acts?
A: The animal rights movement is nonviolent. One of the central beliefs shared by most animal rights people is rejection of harm to any animal, human or otherwise. However, any large movement is going to have factions that believe in the use of force.
PETA has defended ALF actions on the grounds that some of them have done good. It's hard to dismiss that claim (videos taken on ALF "raids" have led to criminal charges against companies for clear violations of the Animal Welfare Act), but the damage the ALF has done to the perception of animal rights probably outweighs that good.
The concept of "animal rights" as opposed to "animal welfare" is--again quoting from those radical PETA people--the idea that "animals have interests that cannot be sacrificed or traded away just because it might benefit others. The rights position does not hold that rights are absolute; an animal's rights, just like those of humans, must be limited, and rights can certainly conflict."
I'm not a vegetarian and there are many specific instances in which I'd probably end up disagreeing with a more radical animal rights supporter. In general, though, that statement above comes pretty starkly close to the central questions in In Our Image: Where do you draw the line? There's something perversely ironic about furry fans being dismissive of even considering the issue.
PETA does things that are worthy of making fun of, and when seen from some lights, so does ALF--from some lights, ALF is kind of scary. On the flip side, there are a lot of ludicrous things attributed to both groups, including on the Flayrah comment page, that just have nothing to do with reality.
(N.B.: Please don't go through various animal rights pages looking for ludicrous things to point out to me. I've probably already seen them, and if anyone thinks this mild rant is about defending the logic of anti-fishing campaigns or whatever, they've missed the point.)
no subject
And PETA members have been known to do things like splash catsup, red dye, or even blood on people wearing furs.
no subject
Incidentally, while I was paying more attention to this in the late '80s and early '90s: while cases of blood splashed on fur wearers and the like were frequently cited by critics, there weren't any substantiated instances of it in America. That kind of aggressive (and obnoxious) action was going on in England, led by anti-fur activists. The only thing they exported here, though, was a brilliant anti-fur public service announcement that only MTV had enough courage to play. (It was the sort of PSA that would incite a lot of angry calls to a station, but it also won the advertising industry's award for best PSA that year!) In recent years, PETA has staged protests by throwing pies, but that's the closest to officially-sanctioned assault I've heard of.
As for Chinese government money in PETA: while anything's possible, it's difficult to imagine what interest the Chinese government would have in turning America against wearing fur and eating veal scallopini. I don't doubt that membership would be grounds for denying secret clearances--known affiliation with any group that's perceived as having an "insurgent agenda," from the Black Panthers to Sea Shepherd, is going to raise flags with intelligence agencies.
You're right. I messed up.
You were right; I should have written that it's a parody of the Animal Liberation Front.
no subject
no subject
Legally, though, there isn't such a thing as "animal rights"; laws restrict what rights we have to do things to animals. I don't see a practical alternative, since animals can't understand the concept of duties--like a duty to obey the law.
Agreement Tangent.
That's a very keen article. I don't know anything about the Flayrah post that sparked it, but you've got a pretty balanced view on the whole matter.
I think the reputation that a lot of lobbying groups have gotten for the extremism generally come from one or two rather bold statements they've made in the past. Unfortunately, special interest groups seem to want to make it more and more of a habit these days to make 'in-your-face' statements about whatever it is they're protesting.
The best example of this I can think of in recent memory is The Truth, which is an anti-smoking organization that sprouted up on the Web and has moved to TV and magazines. I'm not sure how many people saw it, but they had a *brilliant* PSA a few months ago. Basically, a bunch of Truth members rode up in vans to Phillip Morris headquarters (Kraft Foods, Marlboro cigarettes, etc. etc.) and dumped about 120,000 body bags right in front of their door. A guy with a megaphone shouted "This is how many people you kill each year with your cigarettes!" The aerial view was pretty sobering; the body bags covered the corner of the building on either side, for about half a block.
While this certainly borders on harassment (I'm not quite sure whether or not it was illegal), it certainly got the message across quite well. A lot of these groups feel it necessary to perform similar stunts to be heard, but hopefully the tide is turning for the better. McDonald's has already ordered massive overhauls in the way farmers raise their chicken and is looking into their beef production as well. I forget which group scored this, they managed to do it without any shock tactics at all. A good sign.
I think we're reaching a point where companies are just starting to listen to the more reasonable SIGs, and working with them instead of against them. This'll cause a lot of the extremist groups to either fade away or change their tactics so they'll have a better chance to be heard, which I presume is what they want in the first place.
no subject
The more we see the looming "evils" on the horizon, the more we see the perceived monumentus nature of the opposition (whether or not it is truly there), the more we back down and just try to protect ourselves. It's animal nature. (And the source of at least several short stories I'm working on...) ;)
I think that by allowing people to say what they want with no requirement of honesty, we only undermine true freedom of expression. I say this because, after a while, the truth gets ignored along with all the lies. And if the true message gets ignored, freedom of expression has been circumvented. After all, you can say what you want, but if you poison the minds of the populace sufficiently, you can still stop the message by tainting its reception.
Whatta ya think, sirs?
Yours,
Dave (Sylvan)u
no subject
no subject