HSUS' Michael Fox on 9/11 Attack: Humans Need to Recognize "Our Collective Violence Against Nature"

Yet another prominent animal rights activist has decided to weigh in with a nutty diatribe linking the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States with the plight of animals. This time it’s Michael Fox of the Humane Society of the United States who circulated a brief appeal, “Forms of Violence and the Attack on America.”

After an introductory paragraph in which Fox hopes that the terrorists attacks don’t lead to an ongoing cycle of violence and “a world at war,” Fox offers the following,

Where I do my volunteer work in India, I have killed rabid dogs with compassion, sadness, and precision, and I continue to seek donations from caring people to vaccinate them to prevent outbreaks of this natural horror of rabies. But what vaccine is there to prevent outbreaks of evil from rabid human souls? What are caring people to do? I would say that our faith, hope, and salvation are in simple acts of loving kindness, and in finding less harmful, and often less violent ways of satisfying our needs and wants.

. . .

Our collective violence against Nature and against human nature, from the plight of endangered cultures, wildlife and the environment, to the sufferings of indigenous peoples and of domestic animals, especially in factory farms and commercial laboratories around the world, needs to be acknowledged. Until we find atonement with Nature and all beings, human and non-human, how can human nature find peace an not annihilate all that our better natures embrace?

Apparently animal rights not only offers a way to alleviate suffering, but now we’re all going to find atonement and perhaps even a bit of redemption! All pray at the altar of animal rights.

Aside from Fox’s bizarre pseudo-religious view of Nature, it is odd that he mentions efforts to vaccinate against rabies in the same piece in which he complains about “our collective violence against Nature” and the suffering of animals in “commercial laboratories.”

Vaccination against rabies goes back to the late 19th century and the great French scientist Louis Pasteur. As early as 1804, researchers in Europe had hypothesized that something in the saliva of rabid animals caused the disease to pass into those bitten. In 1879, Victor Galtier became the first man to successfully pass the disease from dogs to rabbits and then from rabbits back to dogs, confirming that rabies was some sort of infectious disease.

Only two years later, researchers working with Pasteur proved that rabies infected the central nervous system and, in numerous animal experiments, proved the disease could be transferred by injecting material from the central nervous system of an infected rabbit into the central nervous system of an uninfected rabbit.

And those researchers noticed something else which would change the face of human health forever. If, instead of injecting material from an infected rabbit to an uninfected rabbit directly, they desiccated the material first and waited a period of days, the virulence of the disease declined rapidly. They had discovered a method whereby animals and humans could be vaccinated against rabies.

Pasteur himself demonstrated that vaccination would work by exposing 50 dogs to his vaccine and then exposing them to the virulent form of rabies. On July 6, 1885, Pasteur did something that no one else in human history had every done — he vaccinated a young boy who had been bitten more than 14 times by a rabid dog. The boy survived, and within 15 months more than 2,500 dog bite victims had received Pasteur’s inoculation.

Pasteur’s discovery was a godsend. The last known case of a human being contracting rabies in France was 1924. Although people still contract and occasionally die from rabies in the United States and other developed countries, their numbers are extremely small (almost all people who die from rabies in the United States do not realize they have been bitten by a rabid animal until the disease has progressed too far to halt the infection).

Thank goodness Pasteur did not have to contend with folks like Fox, who has said not only that, “The life of an ant and that of my child should be granted equal consideration,” but that genetic research, which promises to help rid us of other horrible diseases, violates “the sanctity of life and may be regarded as an act of violence.”

If Fox feels he needs to atone for his sins against nature, that’s his businesses, but some of us would prefer life saving medical treatments, like the rabies vaccine which he has no problem using despite its origin, which the animal rights movement is actively trying to prevent. Human society will “find peace” when the animal rights movement gets out of the way and allow biomedical researchers to get on with their jobs.

Source:

Forms of violence. Michael W. Fox, Undated e-mail communication, Accessed: September 24, 2001.

General information on diseases: rabies. Aventis Pasteur, Undated, Accessed: September 28, 2001.

Ryan Courtade Takes Issue With My Comments About Him

A few months ago I wrote a short piece on animal rights/welfare activist Ryan Courtade (see Young Animal Rights Activist Has Second Thoughts). At the end of July, Courtade posted a letter to an e-mail list expressing concerns over animal rights violence.

Given that Courtade is only 15 years old, I thought his letter was a pretty eloquent appeal to nonviolence, especially given that so many of the adults in the animal rights movement openly advocate and/or approve of violence. I added that since Bruce Friedrich went ballistic when Elliott Katz dared criticize the more violent elements of the animal rights movement, I wondered if Friedrich would not turn his brilliant intellect to slamming Courtade’s argument that harassing Huntingdon Life Sciences employees at their homes “does not promote compassion and it changes the focus from animals to violence.”

Courtade apparently did not appreciate my article and on September 25, 2001 posted a letter on an e-mail list claiming I had “twisted my meanings,” even though I was very careful to quote him verbatim at length specifically so no one would accuse me of twisting his words.

The real problem is not any twisted words or meanings, but rather the twisted world view shared by Friedrich, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty and others who openly claim that terrorism is a legitimate act of political dissent.

Anyway, here’s the full text of Courtade’s latest letter,

Dear Compassionate Person,

During the past couple of weeks the United States has been hit with some hardcore attacks. Innocent people were killed, the United States was shocked and brought to its knees, not from being destroyed, but we were brought to our knees in prayer and praise. We prayed to our creator as to how something like this could happen, and what the purpose of these attacks were.

Today I read a disturbing article about myself. I’m sure most of you are familiar with Brian Carnell, and/or http://www.animalrights.net. On July 27, 2001 Brian wrote about my criticisms to the animal rights movements. He took my words and quoted me, and twisted my meanings, he also made a attempt to get Bruce Friedrich and myself in an arguement, by asking if “Friedrich will be up to the intellectual challenge of taking on a teenager’s rather eloquent arguement against violence.”

Many of you don’t know me, and most of you do not know how I operate. Some of you question my leadership abilities, and maturity for being a 15 year old boy, but no matter what what you think about me, I hope that you have the maturity to talk to me about my issues, and not to post things on the interenet that I will not read for 2 months.

I may disagree with many things that the animal rights movement does, and how they do it, but I have no problem with its message, and I have no problem with its goals.

With that being said, I hope that in this time of prayer for the community and United States, I also hope that you pray for people. That somehow they can be shown compassion they deserve, and that some how with the grace of God, they will show that compassion towards others. It has gotten to that point where Compassion needs to be todays motive, and not violence.

For we shall get further with compassion and understanding, than we have
any come in any war.

Pray for America,

Your Brother in Freedom,

Ryan Courtade

Is Ingrid Newkirk Ever Right About Anything?

Even when she temporarily strays away from animal rights ever so slightly, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals chief ignoramus Ingrid Newkirk still manages to spread falsehoods and nonsense wherever she goes. This week, Bruce Friedrich posted an article by Newkirk, “Violence at home,” to an animal rights news list. Within the first three paragraphs, Newkirk manages to make three demonstrably false claims about violence and the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack on the United States.

Newkirk opens her article by writing,

Is it a coincidence that, in the wake of the attacks on Washington and New York, most men speak of retaliation while most women express an urge to return to peace?

No, Ingrid, it is not a coincidence, its a complete falsehood. Zogby International interviewed 1,018 likely voters September 14-16, asking them, “Would you support or oppose an all-out war against countries which harbor or aid terrorists?”

Of those polled, 78.9 percent of men and 71.0 percent of women said they would support such an all-out war. When asked, “Do you agree or disagree that such a war would be worth it even if it involved substantial American casualties?” 77.0 percent of men said they agreed, while 64.8 percent of women did as well.

The number of men and women who outright oppose such a war on terrorism are almost identical. Only 16.1 percent of men said they opposed an all-out war on terrorism, while 18.7 percent of women said they opposed such a war.

Apparently when Newkirk writes that “most women express an urge to return to peace,” she’s talking about her and her 5 closest friends, rather than the general female population of the United States.

Newkirk then goes on to describe a speech by Colman McCarthy. Newkirk writes,

At the Washington Center for Teach Peace, Professor Colman McCarthy has fretted over the fact that, year after year, his female students are always more open than his male students to the concept of peace. A Georgetown law student thought she had the answer. “Women want to know about nonviolence more than men because we are more victimized by violence than men. And, victims always want solutions quicker.”

This is pure nonsense. Aside from rapes that occur outside of prison, the overwhelming victims of violent acts are men. The risk of being the victim of an assault, murder or other act of violence is much higher for men than it is for women.

Finally, Newkirk repeats an oft-repeated but completely fake factoid.

The leading cause of injury to women is being beaten at home. Some women have more fear walking into their homes than walking out of them.

This claim is one of those factoids that appears commonly in domestic violence literature, almost always, as in Newkirk’s case, unattributed. This is because both Justice Department and Centers for Disease Control studies suggest that about 1 percent of women’s injuries are caused by their male partners.

But, of course, the most bizarre part of Newkirk’s column is that she is living proof that women are often just as big supporters of violence as are men. After all, when an underground terrorist group calling itself the Justice Department sent packages loaded with razor blades to medical researchers a couple years ago, Newkirk wasn’t exactly in the mood for nonviolence, saying,

Perhaps the mere idea of receiving a nasty missive will allow animal researchers to empathize with their victims for the first time in their lousy careers.I find it small wonder that the laboratories aren’t all burning to ground. If I had a more guts, I’d light a match.

Apparently, that’s Newkirk’s idea of expressing an urge to return to peace.

Source:

Violence at home. Ingrid Newkirk, September 21, 2001.

SHAC Plans to Turn New York City into a "Battle Ground to Smash Huntingdon Life Sciences"

In the wake of the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center, Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty urged its supporters “from the tri-state area” to join them on October 1st “as NYC becomes the battleground to SMASH Huntingdon Life Sciences and their supporters.”

A press release posted to an animal rights e-mail list promised that “On October 1st we will name, shame and annihilate those who see fit to make it possible for HLS to poison and brutally kill around 500 animals every day.”

SHAC notes that, “NYC is chock full of companies that provide financial support, financial services, and contracts to kill and its time we held them accountable.” The press release promises that they will target multiple businesses on October 1st.

Source:

Oct 1st: NYC becomes a battle ground to smash HSL. Stop Huntingdon Animal Creulty, Press Release, September 24, 2001.

Alex Hershaft: Farmers Worse than bin Laden

After holding their tongues for a few days, the usual suspects in the animal rights movement are falling all over themselves to see who can make the most absurd comment comparing the victims of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack on the United States to the alleged suffering of animals.

Today’s exhibit is Alex Hershaft, who recently distributed a press release urging animal rights activist to march in Washington, DC on September 29 and 30 at two peace rallies. Hershaft discusses possible sign slogans (“Stop Human and Animal Terror!”) and then offers what he calls “the thoughts that moved us to” join the peace protests, which actually maintain that animal agriculture is much worse than the Al Queda terrorist network believed to be behind the terrorist attacks. According to Hershaft,

Worldwide, every day, 125 million innocent, sentient animals are dreadfully abused and butchered for food.

These tragedies are perpetrated by a worldwide animal agricultural terrorist network that is much more threatening to planetary survival than the Al Queda network, because it kills more people and animals, because it kills them unrelentingly every day, because it is pervasive and accepted.

For every human being who dies of warfare, crime, or terrorism, 10,000 innocent, sentient animals die a violent death. A march/rally advocating nonviolence without an animal contingent would be greatly diminished.

A worldwide animal agricultural terrorist network? Is this the same Alex Hershaft who was complaining that the Washington Post was portraying animal rights activists at AR 2001 as extremist nuts?

Source:

WFAD and Peace rallies in nation’s capital. Alex Hershaft, press release, September 23, 2001.

McCartney Plans Firefighter Benefit — Should Denounce His Terrorist-Supporting PETA Friends as Well

In the wake of the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, Paul McCartney is one of many celebrities trying to help raise money to benefit the families of firefighters killed while trying to save people from the two World Trade Center towers.

McCartney notes that his father was a fireman in Liverpool during World War II, and his benefit concert scheduled for October in New York City is a welcome aid. But there’s another thing McCartney could do for firefighters — publicly distance himself from the extremist animal rights activists, including within People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, who endorse so-called direct action, including arson.

Groups such as the Animal Liberation Front have long used arson as a means of terrorism against people involved in animal enterprises, including farms and medical research laboratories. The activists have longed claimed that arson is a non-violent means of protest since they only torch buildings they think are unoccupied. But as the events at the World Trade Center put in stark contrast, whenever there is a fire of any kind, firefighters, police and others often end up putting their lives in immediate danger. Along with the attack on the World Trade Center, many still remember the New York firefighters who died while trying to rescue people from a burning building — it later was revealed that the people the firefighters died trying to evacuate had exited the building earlier.

Yet despite the dangers posed to rescue officials by arson, such activities by the ALF have found plenty of support within the mainstream of the animal rights movement. Although PETA is careful to keep its distance from actual acts of terrorism, it paid part of the defense of |Rodney Coranado|, who was convicted of fire bombing a research laboratory at Michigan State University, and lately people who work for PETA, such as … have come out strongly in favor of such acts of terrorism.

If McCartney truly cares about the lies of firefighters, as he almost certainly does, why does he continue to associate with an organization which endorses activities that regularly put the lives of those firefighters at risk?

Source:

McCartney plans firefighters’ benefits. Reuters, September 21, 2001.

James Cromwell: Just Another Hypocrite PETA Celebrity

James Cromwell, the actor best known for playing the farmer in the 1995 film “Babe,” has lately been very active in the animal rights movement. He has worked with People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and was among a number of people arrested at a PETA-sponsored protest of Wendy’s this summer. And like a number of other PETA-affiliated celebrities, Cromwell is a rank hypocrite, condemning people who eat meat but turning around and defending other uses of animals when it impacts his lifestyle.

In a profile in the Cleveland Plain Dealer, Cromwell says that, “I’m a vegan with an asterisk.” The asterisk? Among other things, Cromwell enjoys wearing leather shoes and dairy products in baked goods.

So it is okay to kill a cow to produce leather for Cromwell’s shoes, but wrong for you or I to eat the meat produced from that same animal. Come on, Cromwell, why be so wasteful? Lets use the whole animal.

Source:

Television column. The Plain Dealer, September 23, 2001, p.33.

Coulston Facility Bombed

I haven’t seen any other reports of this, which is surprising given the current fear over terrorism, but a CBS affiliate in Alamogordo, New Mexico, reports that a bomb went off at a primate lab owned by the Coulston Foundation in the early morning hours of September 20.

Station KRQE quoted Coulston spokesman Don McKinney as saying the bomb went off around 4:15 a.m. on September 20 at the facility. No animals were kept at the facility, and no one was injured, but the device did an estimated $1 million in damages.

KRQE reported that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms along with the FBI are investigating.

Source:

Bomb Goes Off At Primate Lab. KRQE News 13, September 20, 2001.

They Should Have Bombed the World Trade Center on a Sunday!

The things that Lexis-Nexis searches turn up often boggle even my cynical mind. The Rocky Mountain News, for example, ran a very brief editorial item on September 16 about the philosophical connections between animal rights and anti-globalization activists and the terrorists who caused so much grief on September 11.

The Rocky Mountain News was outraged by a comment that appeared in a Wall Street Journal story which interviewed anti-globalization activists for their reaction to the bombing. One San Francisco-area activist actually told the Journal,

We’re supercritical of the terrorists’ scorn for human life. Why couldn’t they done what they did on a Sunday? There are always ways to make allowances for people’s lives.

The Rocky Mountain News comments that, “Anyone who suggests that shattering the World Trade Center with a hijacked jet on a Sunday night might be considered a concession to civilized norms needs to be under the care of a psychiatrist.”

Indeed, one would suspect the validity and accuracy of the Wall Street Journal quote were it not so completely consistent with the direct action philosophy — as long as it only hurts property, the activists claim, it is not really violence. If the terrorists had managed to take out the World Trade Center without taking any lives but their own, this would have been just as valid a political statement as fire bombing laboratories or smashing in the windows of a local McDonald’s.

One of the upshots of the World Trade Center attack is likely to be an increased media emphasis on all acts of terrorism. Animal rights and environmental terrorists have largely been able to fly under the radar of national attention. The destruction of buildings at the Vail Ski resort received national attention for a few days, but for the most part terrorist acts by groups such as the Animal Liberation Front or Earth Liberation Front have been largely ignored by national media, having been relegated to being local affairs.

Hopefully, this will begin to change as the media and public realizes that the fear and trepidation many of us now feel is something that many medical researchers, animal agriculturalists and others have been living with for years.

Source:

Bankrupt explanation. The Rocky Mountain News, September 18, 2001.

Animal Rights Activists vs. Victims of Terrorism

Some animal rights activists have long been proponents of using the methods of terror — destroying buildings and other property to push their political agenda. But in the wake of the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, some animal rights activists chose to show just how callous they were toward human life.

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals had to weigh in, of course, although the organization seemed to have a quick change of heart. The day after the attacks, PETA issued a press release on its web site which was yanked off the site almost as soon as it had been put up.

Although national news media were reporting that phone service in New York City was suffering under the weight of people concerned about relatives not to mention the ongoing rescue work which had various local, state, and federal authorities staggering to keep up, PETA actually urged people to call Mayor Rudolph Giuliani to express their concerns about abandoned pets. In the press release, PETA said,

Mayor Giuliani has a poor record when it comes to animals. In 1998 he refused to allow desperate New Yorkers whose apartment building’s scaffolding collapsed, the opportunity to tend to or rescue their beloved animals for more than five days, leaving animals to become dehydrated and starving.

Please urge Mayor Giuliani to set up a task force to locate and rescue animals in need. To many of this disaster’s victims and their families, these beloved animals are members of the family and would be a great source of comfort.

It then gave both the phone and fax numbers to Giuliani’s office adding, “If you have a difficult time getting through to Mayor Giuliani due to phone line trouble, please don’t give up; keep trying.” Yeah, they might actually be on the phone trying to arrange to find survivors — clearly PETA’s priorities were far more important than that.

Given the situation on the ground in New York City, such a telephone campaign had the real possibility of endangering human life and has to be one of the more sickening efforts to ever emerge from that sick organization.

Meanwhile, Gary Yourofsky actually tried to top PETA in the level of absurdity. Many Americans have opened their hearts and wallets during this crisis and donated in excess of $100 million to the Red Cross (Amazon.Com alone collected $6.4 million in donations for the Red Cross within a week). Many people also sought to donate blood, in many places quickly overwhelming the ability of volunteers to keep up.

Is this an example of the best of America? According to Yourofsky, people who donate to the Red Cross are simply perpetuating terrorism. In a press release Yourofsky wrote,

Sorry I didn’t post this last week, but The American Red Cross engages in the terroristic, murderous and unscientific practice of vivisection.

It is my personal belief, too, that the Red Cross is making out like bandits over the recent tragedy. You can bet the upper management Red Cross people will be receiving HUGE bonuses after the public sends in tens of millions if not hundreds of millions of dollars because of the WTC/Pentagon attacks.

DO NOT SUPPORT the RED CROSS in any way until it refuses to torture, terrorize and murder animals in unscientific and unethical experiments.

There are other ways to donate blood besides via the Red Cross. Local hospitals or county clinics can take blood donations, too. Be careful about hospitals, though. Many of those institutions engage in vivisection, too. County clinics are your safest bet.

Yourofsky is right about one thing. The Red Cross does participate in some medical research involving animals, and thanks to animal research many of those who likely would have died of their injuries were saved thanks to the incredible advances in drugs, surgical practices, medical devices and other innovations.

Just one more thing to thank them for.

Sources:

Red Cross experiments on animals – DO NOT DONATE. Gary Yourofsky, ADAPTT Press Release, September 19, 2001.

New York City’s Animals Desperately Need Your Voice. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Press Release, September 12, 2001.