Monthly Archives: September 2004

Recalling Animal Rights Activists Reaction to 9/11

Posted on by
Reply

I hadn’t really intended on revisiting the animal rights movement’s reaction to 9/11. From Gary Yourofsky’s rantings urging people not to donate money or blood to the Red Cross to PETA’s suggestion to hinder recovery efforts after the attack, the animal rights movement’s grotesque reaction to 9/11 has been well-documented on this site.

But while doing research on another topic I ran across another item that I’d never seen that was published a few weeks after 9/11. It is a poem by animal rights activist Fran Hutcherson which takes Joan Dunayer’s view that people killed by terrorist attacks are on the same moral plane as broiler chickens. This appeared in the Sept. 26, 2001 issue of Animal Writes, an online newsletter published by Susan Roghair of Animal Rights Online.

Welcome To Our World
by Fran Hutcherson
In the aftermath of September Eleventh

From our laboratory cages, we see a huge cloud of smoke and soot fast approaching. Cover your faces, quick! Strange substances in the eyes are incredibly painful and can make you blind.

From the slaughterhouse, we hear, for the first time, what YOU sound like screaming in terror as you see others dying all around you, knowing that you are next.

From endless rows of stacked-up battery cages, we cry for those of you who remain alive inside, crushed together in tiny spaces, wondering if you will ever move freely again.

From metal gestation crates, we mourn for the young who will grow up without their mothers’ love, and for the mothers whose babies have been ripped away from them forever.

From radios and televisions, we hear you sharing your grief and pain and promising your loved ones that they will never be forgotten. We hear angry voices promising to avenge the evil and make sure it never happens again.

From every factory farm, research lab, circus truck and slaughterhouse, we hear your cries as you experience what, for us, is everyday life.

Apparently, a chicken is a boy is a victim of terrorism.

Source:

Welcome to our world. Fran Hutcherson, Animal Writes, September 26, 2001.

Activists Claim Geoff Kerns Is Source of Grand Jury Testimony Against Watson and Lynn

Posted on by
Reply

Over the past several months Allison Lance Watson and Gina Lynn have spent time in and out of jail over their testimony or refusal to provide such testimony to a Seattle grand jury. One of the questions raised by the grand jury calling them to testify is who had implicated them in a number of acts of animal rights terrorism. According to a number of animal rights web sites, animal rights activist Geoff Kerns is apparently cooperating with the grand jury, probably as part of a plea bargain.

Kerns has been arrested a number of times for animal rights related activities. According to a Fur Commission USA press release, Kerns was one of three minors arrested at a Washington state fur farm in February 1999. According to the FCUSA,

On Tuesday, when the protesters left the [Seattle Fur] Exchange [following a protest sponsored by the Coalition to Abolish the Fur Trade that led two arrests], the hapless troupe reached the fur farm where about 15 people donned masks and jumped the fence. Five were quickly arrested by on-the-spot policemen. Three out-of-state minors — Lindsey Parme, Kyle Salisbury and Geoff Kerns — and two adults — Kim Berardi and Nicole Dawn Briggs — were charged with second degree burglary and first-degree theft.

Kerns was arrested again on August 2, 2000 at an anti-circus protest at the Los Angeles Sports Arena. According to a No Compromise report on the protest,

Meanwhile, three activists, Michelle Dyrness, Pamelyn Ferdin and Geoff Kerns, staged a lockdown in front of the front doors with lockboxes. (Lockboxes are three foot, cylinder, metal tubes weighing about 25 pounds each.) The activists inserted an arm into each lockbox and locked themselves to each other.

. . .

Three of the five activists remain incarcerated ON A HUNGER STRIKE at Southwest LA Precinct and the 77th Precinct (Jerry Vlasak, trauma surgeon/physician/MD, at Southwest — Pam F. and Michelle D. at 77th).

Two of the five civil disobediencers were minors and released a few hours after they were arrested. They were ADL-LA activists Geoff Kerns and Jeff Van-Name.

When Allison Lance Watson was charged with perjury, prosecutors were required to hand over any grand jury testimony related to the perjury charge to her lawyers as part of discovery. Part of that apparently included Kerns’ testimony, which Watson and/or her attorneys passed on to other animal rights activists.

No Compromise has an edited version of Kerns’ testimony (they have removed all of the names). The grand jury is clearly focused on that 1999 incident, and provides the grand jury not only with who the driver was (who escaped arrest), but also provides the name of a person he claims could identify the others who participated in the raid. Even with the names redacted, this makes for very interesting reading (especially the item I’ve bolded near the end),

AUSA: So it’s your testimony that you don’t recall anyone involved? You don’t recall any person involved in any animal rights or anti-fur protest or activity–

GEOFF: I recall seeing a couple of people. Just people that I recognized from L.A.

AUSA: Who did you see?

GEOFF: I saw [BLANK7]. S/he was at the protest. And I don’t remember specifically seeing them there but I would imagine [BLANK8] was there.

AUSA: Who is that?

GEOFF: [BLANK8]

AUSA: Who else did you see that you knew?

GEOFF: I believe maybe [BLANK]. I think s/he might have been there.

… AUSA: Ready to resume?

GEOFF: Actually, some of the questions that you have asked, as of now, have brought some things up that I didn’t recall at first…

GEOFF: Yeah. See, at the hotel, there’s one other activist I can remember specifically. And that
would be [BLANK9].

AUSA: What do you remember about [BLANK9]?

GEOFF: I just remember that s/he was there, actually with [BLANK10].

GEOFF: If you could go over some of those questions again.

AUSA: Let’s focus on, anyone else that you recall being involved in the fur exchange protest?

GEOFF: [BLANK11]. S/he’s also from Los Angeles.

AUSA: Anyone else?

GEOFF: [BLANK11], [BLANK7], again, [BLANK8], and [BLANK1].

AUSA: Do you remember any of them driving up to the mink release with you?

GEOFF: I believe [BLANK1] might have been in the car with me.

AUSA: You said you were in the back?

GEOFF: Yeah

AUSA: Where was [BLANK1]?

GEOFF: If it was her/him, it was next to me.

AUSA: You knew her/him from Los Angeles, right?

GEOFF: I had met her/him a few times. S/he was kind of a not friend.

AUSA: What did you talk to her/him about on the way up to the protest?

GEOFF: Everybody was kind of silent. There was music on in the car, I think.

AUSA: Do you recall that s/he was the [person] next to you?

GEOFF: Not clearly. It might have been her/him. I could say with a decent amount of certainty that it was her/him, but I wouldn’t want to bank a perjury charge on it.

… GEOFF: Look, I am trying to remember these things. A lot of them are things that I intentionally try to block out. I am trying to be honest here, clear all this up, and move on with my life. I am not involved with any animal rights group right now. I am working for a medical company trying to improve my life. I am giving you guys names, telling you, I mean.

JUROR: It just seems like you are protecting these people. You are protecting certain individuals that you shouldn’t be. You are too bright for that.

GEOFF: I am telling you who was in the car with me.

..GEOFF: And, I mean, I donÂ’t do well in jail. You know, IÂ’m not the kind of person that can go in there and deal with the fights and the bigotry and all that. ItÂ’s not easy on me. IÂ’m oh, God. And, I mean, I am claustrophobic. It scares the shit out of me.

GEOFF: I have a belief about government in general. I have a lot of beliefs. Believe me, I am not talking to you guys because I want to see these people go to prison. I am not talking to you because– I am not talking to you because I like you. I am not talking to you because I trust you. I am not talking to you for any other reason than if I donÂ’t, I could go to prison.

AUSA: …Is it because youÂ’ve seen them at a lot of meetings, therefore you trust them or–

GEOFF: Can they handle going to jail, have they been to jail before, have they done a considerable amount of time, are they willing to do something like that again. Most people are going to rat people out, because they donÂ’t want to go to jail. Can they handle it.

AUSA: Is that why you want to get out? You canÂ’t handle it when things get tough?

GEOFF: I canÂ’t handle jail. I can handle being questioned. I canÂ’t handle jail.

… GEOFF: I don’t remember how other people were dressed. I don’t remember if anybody had a mask. Like I said, I remember that [BLANK1] was in the car, and that is it. I am trying to think about conversations I had with [BLANK2].

JUROR: There was a protest going on as well as the mink release?

GEOFF: Right.

JUROR: Do you know how many people were involved in the mink release part?

GEOFF: I would estimate 15 or 20.

… GEOFF: … [BLANK2] told me that s/he had driven to pick those people up that had all run into the woods and later caller her/him. So, I mean, if s/he had gotten away with the rest of them, s/he I mean, I don’t think s/he would have done that. I mean.

… GEOFF: … And it was the police or the FBI that ended up arresting me. Seriously, there were a lot of things I can’t recall about it. I do know [BLANK2] told me later on that s/he drove to pick them up. S/he knows who they are.

… JUROR: Had you ever heard [BLANK2]‘s name before coming up here?

GEOFF: I think I heard her/his name. I think [BLANK3] were friends of hers/his.

…JUROR: Are you active with animal rights right now?

GEOFF: No.

JUROR: You are not associated at all?

GEOFF: I have completely disassociated myself from it. The only contact I have had with people regarding or who are involved in the animal rights movement has been through an arrest last July. It was for an old warrant. And pertaining to this. And after some of the questions, as I said, I was able to go back and clarify things.

…JUROR: And you said you disassociated yourself with the whole animal rights. WhatÂ’s the reason for that?

GEOFF: ThereÂ’s a number of reasons. I was finding myself getting in a lot of trouble. That was one thing. I didnÂ’t want to destroy my life. I didnÂ’t want to do all this stuff, even though my ideals were so strong. And, you know, I didnÂ’t want to keep going through that. A lot of the people I had met were not the kind of people I liked associating with. On top of that, I burned a few bridges. I stole things from an activist house in Utah. They trusted me to be there, and I stole things from them. I was still– I had stopped doing drugs and started drinking and falling into a crowd that glamorized theft from the rich. And I betrayed someone who was a good friend of mine. And I couldnÂ’t stand the torment of those people continually confronting me about that. And I totally fucked that up.

AUSA: How do you justify breaking into another activistÂ’s home and stealing from them for the cause?

GEOFF: I donÂ’t justify it. I donÂ’t justify it. I donÂ’t pretend to. Breaking into an activistÂ’s home, that wasnÂ’t related to the cause. That was because I was fucked up. That was because I was going through a lot of things and learning about you know, new philosophies on how wonderful it is to shoplift and steal from the rich. And I went and did it. I was an idiot. I screwed up and betrayed people. ThereÂ’s no justifying that. At the time, I justified it by thinking, these people are rich. ItÂ’s okay to take from them. I donÂ’t have money. They do.

… GEOFF: … As I said, wanted to really start living my life and not just living unquestioning the way that everyone taught me to. We were taught to spout off statistics that we didn’t know were true. We were taught to, you know, embellish things to make things look more tragic than they already were.

JUROR: And when you are saying that you were taught things, who was teaching you? Who was giving you the statistics and telling you what to say?

GEOFF: I mean, just everybody. Mainstream animal rights groups, they don’t say where they get their statistics or anything like that. And, you know, people just say, you know, if you make things seem more extreme than they are, people aren’t going to research it. They are going to believe it. And I don’t know. It’s– the whole thing. I mean, you’ve got to understand, I have had all this stuff drilled into my head all the time about, you know, don’t snitch, don’t name names, don’t say things. And you have to understand that the vagueness and all that comes from a deep sense that I am betraying people that I loved. This is so hard for me.

JUROR: That is the believable Geoffrey. That is what we wanted to hear.

… GEOFF: … I really don’t remember her/ him driving up there. The only person I remember was [BLANK1], and s/he was sitting next to me…

AUSA: Do you want a minute before we go on? I have put a stack of pictures in front of you. And they are labeled Grand Jury exhibits GK 1 through 13. Can you take a look at each one? If you know who the person is, tell us the name.

GEOFF: This one looks familiar. I don’t know who s/he is.

AUSA: Is that GK1?

GEOFF: GK1.

GEOFF: This is the only one that looks familiar, I don’t know where I’ve seen him before. It was probably at the protest. This one looks familiar. I might have seen him in Salt Lake. GK5–

… AUSA: Do you know [BLANK3]?

GEOFF: No, I don’t, not personally.

AUSA: Okay.

GEOFF: [BLANK4], GK9.

AUSA: That’s the next one that looks familiar after GK5?

GEOFF: Yeah. GK10 is [BLANK1]. GK11, I think, is [BLANK5]. GK12 I don’t know. So these are the only ones that look familiar.

AUSA: Let me hand you three more exhibits… Can you take a look at each set of pictures and tell us if you recognize the person in that?

GEOFF: It could be [BLANK5]. I don’t know though.

AUSA: There’s four pictures. So take a look at the four.

GEOFF: Oh.

AUSA: I believe you told us earlier that you recognized her/his build.

GEOFF: Definitely her/his build. I can’t recognize the face though.

AUSA: Which exhibit is it that you are talking about?

GEOFF: It’s GK14.

AUSA: What about GK15 and 16?
GEOFF: 15, I don’t really remember. Is that [BLANK6], actually?

AUSA: Who is [BLANK6]?

GEOFF: My old friend, [full name].

… AUSA: Would you look back at GK14 for a minute. That’s the one I think you thought was [BLANK5].

GEOFF: Could have been, yeah.

AUSA: Could you take a look and tell us if you think it is?

GEOFF: I think so, based on the build, but the face is really blurry.

AUSA: You believe it’s [BLANK5] based on what you can see?

GEOFF: Yeah. I think [BLANK5] wears glasses. And based on the build, the lack of any fashion sense. That’s serious.

… AUSA: Are these people expecting to hear from you as far as what you have said here to the Grand Jury?

GEOFF: [BLANK1] told me to talk to her/him about it. I have not talked to her/him in the past couple of weeks, but–

AUSA: But s/he asked you to tell her/him what happened here. Are you planning to do that?

GEOFF: No. I was thinking about that last week.

… GEOFF: Which organization?

AUSA: The animal rights organization that you were involved in.

GEOFF: I was involved in a number of them. But in general, with activism movements such as that, if you do something like what I am doing now, this is the general rules, snitches get stitches.

AUSA: Then there are consequences for you?

GEOFF: If anybody finds out, yeah.

AUSA: For example.

GEOFF: I don’t know. Get beaten. Get hurt really bad.

AUSA: Had you heard that before, had somebody said if you do that, this is what’s going to happen?

GEOFF: I mean, not specifically, not relating to this. But in general, that like I said, snitches get
stitches. I mean, shit, I kicked this kid in the face for doing the same thing in Long Island.

AUSA: So you do have some fear for your safety because of what’s happened here at the grand jury?

GEOFF: If anybody finds out, I don’t know what happens. If they do, yeah.

AUSA: If it’s any consolation to you, you haven’t snitched on anyone.

GEOFF: I have talked about [BLANK5].

AUSA: No, you haven’t. People showed you pictures of [BLANK5]. And you said, yeah, that’s [BLANK5]. And you said you heard s/he had picked up some people after the mink release. We already had that information.

GEOFF: It’s still snitching. The thing you got to understand, you don’t help them put people in jail. And if they didn’t have a use for it, for me coming up here and doing that, then they wouldn’t be bringing me up here.

… GEOFF: Right, but I picked her/him from that. I am not trying to protect her/him. If s/he was driving the car, why would I say s/he was not driving the car but pick her/him out there?”

Source:

Geoff Kerns snitches to grand jury. San Diego IndyMedia, August 28, 2004.

Geoffrey Kerns talks. No Compromise, September 18, 2004.

6 Arrested, 2 Hurt at LA Sports Arena Circus Protest. No Compromise, August 2, 2000.

Quick Arrest for bungling terrorists. Press Release, Fur Commission USA, February 23, 1999.

MI5 Reportedly Set to Infiltrate Animal Rights Groups

Posted on by
Reply

The Times of London reported this month that British internal security agency MI5 might become involved in efforts to curtail acts of animal rights extremism in the UK.

According to the Times,

Senior officers from the Security Service are consulting the Home Office about the need for intelligence-gathering to counter the threat to pharmaceutical companies.

The Times reports that MI5 had previously considered and ultimately rejected becoming directly involved in investigating animal rights groups, but the increasing level of violence and other acts of extremism — along with pharmaceutical companies’ recent threats to pull new investments from Great Britain — have led the government to reconsider whether MI5 should be used.

According to The Times, “The sources said that a final decision would depend on whether the extremists were judged to have crossed into a more dangerous arena. . . . If MI5 becomes involved, the agency would work with the new National Extremism Tactical Co-ordination Unit, formed by chief constables this year and based at Cambridgeshire Police headquarters, which has been policing the demonstrations against Huntingdon Life Sciences and the threats against Cambridge University’s now abandoned plan for a primate laboratory.”

Source:

MI5 agents to infiltrate animal rights terror groups. Michael Evans, Patrick Hosking and Stewart Tendler, Times of London, September 10, 2004.

Activists File Suit Over New York Hunting Training Courses

Posted on by
1

Several New York-based groups, including the NY Whale and Dolphin ActionLeague and the Committee to Abolish Sport Hunting announced in August that they were filing a lawsuit against the New York State Department of Conservation’s offerings of hunter training courses.

The hunting courses are divided into four areas — Hunter ED, Bowhunter Ed, Trapper Ed, and Waterfowl ID — and new hunters are required to pass the appropriate course before they can be granted a license to hunt or trap in New York State.

Animal rights activists in New York have formed a new group, Coalition for the Ethical Use of Public Money, to sue the state on the grounds that providing such courses is a discriminatory use of taxpayer funds. In a press release put out by Animal Defenders of Westchester, NY Whale and Dolphin Action League director Taffy Williams said,

We find the use of public funds to train hunters and bow hunters a misuse, discriminatory and unethical management of public funds. . . also, the use of taxpayer funds for hunting-related activities is a discriminatory use of public monies, since there are no programs to benefit birdwatchers, kayakers, nature-enthusiasts, etc. The link between hunting and other forms of violence has been established in such sources as the Journal of Interpersonal Violence (B.W.Boat, June 1995) and the Purdue University Press (Child abuse, Domestic Violence and Animal Abuse, 1999).

Similarly, the Committee to Abolish Sport Hunting’s president, Anne Muller, said in a press release,

Towns should be frowning upon the DEC’s practice of building wildlife populations for hunting. The Bureau of Wildlife is running a private hunting business on taxpayer money. The excise taxes on firearms, bows and arrows are insufficient to pay for their sport of killing animals. (New York State is required to match 25% of the federal excise tax that is contributed to the State.) All of the Bureau of Wildlife’s overhead costs are paid out of the general fund.

The courses at issue are free to individual hunters, and according to the DEC’s website,

New York’s Sportsman Education Programs are supported in part by Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration, funded by your purchases of hunting equipment. Additional funding comes from sales of hunting and trapping licenses. Hunters and trappers pay for Sportsman Education and wildlife conservation.

Source:

Hunters under fire for abuse of taxpayer money. Press Release, Animal Defenders of Westchester, August 16, 2004.

NYS DEC Running Free Hunting Training Course. Press Release, Animal Defenders of Westchester, Undated (Accessed September 16, 2004).

Sportsman Education Classes. Press Release, New York State Department of Conservation, Accessed September 16, 2004.

Humane Education — Just A Synonym for Animal Rights Indoctrination

Posted on by
Reply

The Long Island Press recently ran a fawning portrayal of humane education efforts in New York State.

New York is one of a number of states that has a law requiring that courses in human education be offered. That law requires that,

The officer, board or commission authorized or required to prescribe courses of instruction shall cause instruction to be given in every elementary school under state control or supported wholly or partly by public money of the state, in the humane treatment and protection of animals and the importance of the part they play in the economy of nature as well as the necessity of controlling the proliferation of animals which are subsequently abandoned and caused to suffer extreme cruelty.

. . .

The provisions of this section shall not be construed to prohibit or constrain vocational instruction in the normal practice of animal husbandry, or prohibit or constrain instruction in environmental education activities as established by the department of environmental conservation.

For some animal rights activists, this is a wedge to get animal rights ideology into elementary schools. The Long Island Press profiles Humane Education Advocates Reaching Teachers executive director Lisbet Chiriboga. How does Chiriboga see humane education (emphasis added),

Our vision of humane education is broad in that it calls us to question and examine our cultural assumptions regarding the inherent value of all species and nature, helps us explore our responsibility toward the Earth and other living beings and enables us to connect our daily choices with their global impact.

The Humane Education Advocates Reaching Teachers site provides links to three articles explaining human education, including Lydia Antoncic’s “A New Era of Humane Education: How Troubling Youth Trends and a Call for Character Education Are Breathing New Life into Efforts to Educate Our Youth about the Value of All Life.” Antoncic is the founder of HEART, and her May 2003 article is based on an alarmism about the state of American youth,

A passing glance at newspaper headlines today reveals what
haunts most parents and educators: violence among our youth is extensive,
drug and alcohol abuse is prevalent, and teen pregnancy is a
common occurrence. These symptoms suggest a chronic deficiency in
the ethical education of our youth.

In fact, the teen pregnancy rate has dropped every year for more than a decade in the United States (the 2000 teen pregnancy rate was 28 percent lower than the 1990 rate). Arrests of youths for violent crime have also declined significantly since the early 1990s. Apparently teens have somehow been able to change their behaviors without humane education, thank you very much.

For Antoncic and her ilk, the problem with the educational system is that it reinforces the widely held view that it is morally permissible for human beings to use animals for food, medical research and other uses. For example, in a section of her paper entitled “What Humane Education Is Not”, Antoncic writes,

At first glance, it appears that the approach described above would produce uniform results, but that is not the case. Misinformation has produced many efforts to include materials in curricula that clearly do not constitute humane education. For example, a well-meaning school may attempt to teach kindness and respect to animals through projects that glorify the Iditarod Race in Alaska. In such projects, educators portray the dogs as happy and eager to run the treacherous race across Alaska in the name of sport. The dogs who suffer injuries and death in this grueling expedition are mentioned rarely. Instead, promoters depict the race as a noble act by the dogs.

The treatment of farm animals is another area that is not fairly represented in schools. Animal industry advocates have gone to great lengths to create learning exercises for students that depict farm animals as happy creatures that can move around freely, spend leisurely time outdoors, and exhibit natural behaviors. Nowhere do teachers discuss the reality of factory farming, where animals are barely given freedom to move or express natural behaviors. In addition, other special interest groups work to preserve and teach their way of life through education programs targeting youth, despite evidence indicating ill-effects, such as gun camps that target youth in an effort to preserve hunting or websites tailored for young girls that promote the consumption of animal products. Without adequate monitoring, it is difficult to ensure that materials provided to schools embody the true principles of humane education.

Antoncic then approvingly quotes a special-ed teacher from Ohio as saying,

Far from being value free, schools promote, if not actively, at least in subtle
ways, the following beliefs: Animals are ours to use as we see fit; their suffering
is inconsequential; our benefit is the primary criterion governing
their use; animals are simply a collection of muscles, bones, nerves and
tissues; and the use of animals is not an issue to be seriously discussed.

Antoncic does, to her credit, argue that students should be allowed to make up their own minds, but based on the examples from HEART’s website, this is simply lip service — the goal is not to promote a reasoned debate about animal use (which would be inappropriate, to my mind, for elementary students anyway), but rather to convince students of the correctness of the animal rights position. For example, HEART on its website offers examples from teachers to “inspire others.” Here’s one such example from reading specialist Trudy Schilder,

I am a Reading Specialist who works with 2nd, 3rd and 4th graders…very open and impressionable age range. I have been a “humane education specialist” since the age of 4! Teaching has given be the blessed opportunity at every crossroad to show these children what it means to me “humane”.

My favorite prompt is this: “How many of you believe that animals have feelings?”… To those who agree, I ask “What kind of feelings do animals have?” If your lucky, one child might pop right up with, “The same feelings we have!” That is the answer I am going for, but usually it takes a whole list of feelings at which time I ask them…”Do these feelings sound familiar”? Looking for, “Yes, these are the same feelings we have”. This opening launches an enthusiastic, and “eye opening” discussion for those who didn’t raise their hands in agreement. This dialogue, led by the teacher can go in many, many directions. At some point I segue into my belief that insects and bugs have the same feelings as well!! It often takes some loving convincing, but it is well worth all the time it takes!

This is not letting children make up their own minds, this is straightforward ideological indoctrination of very young children. Is this what New York state wants animal rights activists to be doing? To lovingly convince 3rd graders that insects are just like them emotionally?

Sources:

Teaching kids humane education. Alicyn Leigh, Long Island Press, August 19, 2004.

Teacher Connection. HEART Web Site, Accessed September 16, 2004.

A New Era In Humane Education: How Troubling Youth Trends And A Call For Character Education Are Breathing New Life Into Efforts To Educate Our Youth About The Value Of All Life. Lydia S. Antoncic, May 12, 2003.

Government Drops Charges Against Allison Lance Watson; Watson Plead Guilty to Refusing to Testify

Posted on by
Reply

The Seattle Post-Intelligencer reports that the U.S. Attorney’s Office has dropped perjury charges against Allison Lance Watson after a clerk apparently destroyed the only existing copy of a transcript of discussions in the grand jury room before and after Watson testified.

Watson was reportedly asked whether or not an associate of hers, Gina Lynn, was ever a passenger or drive in a truck that Watson had rented during a period when two acts of animal rights terrorism were carried out in Washington state. Watson reportedly answered no, but the FBI has surveillance footage showing Lynn in the truck.

Watson’s defense at trial was apparently going to be that the U.S. Attorney had tricked her into perjuring herself. To that end, the judge hearing the case ordered the U.S. Attorney’s office to turn over a transcript of discussion within the grand jury room immediately before and after Watson testified.

But the U.S. Attorney was forced to drop the charges after a clerk apparently destroyed 10 years worth of grand jury transcripts made when a witness was not in the room. The clerk apparently falsely believed that electronic backups of the transcripts existed and destroyed the records when the U.S. Attorney’s office recently moved to a new building.

Watson was then ordered again to testify to the grand jury on Sept. 2 which she refused to do. She plead guilty on Sept. 9 to misdemeanor contempt charges for failing to answer the grand jury’s questions.

Source:

No perjury charges vs. animal activist. Paul Shukovsky, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, September 9, 2004.

GSK and AstraZenca Threaten to Pull Investments from Great Britain

Posted on by
Reply

The Times (London) is reporting today that in a private meeting with Tony Blair the CEOs of GlaxoSmithKline and AstraZeneca threatened to pull new investments from Great Britain unless the country does something about extremist acts by animal rights activists.

According to The Times, GSK alone spends 3 million pounds a day in Great Britain and told Blair that it would not “spend another pound” until the government demonstrated it had a more effective strategy for dealing with the extremists.

AstraZeneca chief Tom McKillop told The Times,

At regular meetings with ministers, we have said that we cannot continue to function unless you deal with the animal rights issue. The implications economically are desperately serious.

Source:

Drug giants’ threat on animal terrorism. Ingrid Mansell, The Times (London), September 9, 2004.

Pamela Anderson Featured on PETA’s New Anti-KFC Billboard

Posted on by
Reply

After its outrageous billboards against eating meat, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals’ new anti-KFC billboard featuring Pamela Anderson is a major let down,

Wow, “Boycott KFC.” I’m sure the nation’s omnivores will foreswear chicken completely with that message.

Apparently PETA’s creative juices only get flowing when they’re calling meat eaters child abusers or making videos showing women being assaulted.

It is interesting to note, though, that in a letter Anderson wrote to Yum! Brands chair David Novak last October, Anderson requested a meeting with Novak saying,

Please contact me through Dan Mathews of PETA at 757-622-7382, extension 1308, or via e-mail at DanM@peta.org. Thank you for your time and attention to this important matter, and I look forward to hearing from you soon.

So Anderson “care[s] so much about the pain and misery of these abused little animals” as she writes in her letter, but could care less about associating with a man who celebrated the murder of fashion designer Gianni Versace. I guess a celebrity only has time to care about so many things, and worrying about those who celebrate serial killers just isn’t on Anderson’s radar.

Sources:

Letter to Michael Novak (PDF). Pamela Anderson, October 27, 2003.

Animal CARE Foundation Joins Groups Opposing California’s Foie Gras Ban

Posted on by
Reply

Animal CARE Foundation president Sabina De Giacomo posted an e-mail to animal rights list today putting her group on record as opposing California’s proposed ban on foie gras. Passed by the legislature and awaiting Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s veto or signature, the bill was originally promote by animal rights groups but changes made to the bill have such groups divided over whether or not to support it.

Citing amendments made to the original bill, De Giacomo wrote,

You will see the first amendment dragging the abuse out to January of 2012 then
in the second amendment, force feeding becomes exempt from any kind of cruelty
enforcement during that time period of 8 long miserable years and finally, in
the most recent amendment, all pending criminal and civil actions are supposed
to “disappear”. Basically, this leaves the birds with absolutely no protection
for 8 years and the foie gras producers with complete protection from any sort
of legal fees or fear of reprisal for “cruelty”.

The birds deserve better than this! In fact, these modifications practically
invite cruelty and help the CA dead fatty liver producers invest all those
potentially saved lawyers fees in new ways to torture ducks and whatever else
they get into in eight years.

ENOUGH ALREADY! Let Gov Schwarzenegger understand this is totally
unacceptable; he listened before under intense pressure!

Source:

ALERT: Please help Veto California SB 1520. Sabina De Giacomo, September 9, 2004.

Number of Animals Used for Research in UK Increase Slightly

Posted on by
Reply

A report by Great Britain’s Home Office indicates that the number of animals used for medical research in that country rose from 2.73 million in 2002 to 2.79 million 2003.

For all experimental procedures, 85 percent involved mice, rats and other rodents; 6 percent involved fish; 4 percent involved birds; and less than 1 percent involved dogs, cats, horses and primates.

Home Office minister Caroline Flint said of the report,

There remains a clear need for the use of animals in vital scientific research where no alternative is available. This type of research saves countless lives each year and the Government fully supports the efforts of scientists working to secure medical advances and public health improvements. The UK’s controls on the use of animals are amongst the tightest in the world.

. . .

The Government has recently established the National Center for the Replacement, Refinement, and Reduction of Animals in Research to drive the search for alternatives to animal experiments. But let us not forget, this is essential, life-saving research. Scientists carrying out this work have been targeted by extremist groups and the Government has made clear that this type of criminal behavior will not be tolerated.

But perhaps the bigger long term threat is less from animal rights extremists than from relatively mainstream animal welfare groups that do their fair share to undermine support for animal research. It wasn’t surprising, after all, to see Nicky Gordon of the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection tell The Guardian,

Non-human primates are our closest relatives and their capacity to suffer, experience stress and feel pain is clear for all to see. Subjecting them to medical research and toxicology experiments which require them to undergo brain surgery and swallow poisons is abhorrent and should be ended immediately.

It was a bit more surprising, however, to see this exchange between Dr. Simon Festing of the Association of Medical Research Charities and Penny Hawkins of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (emphasis added),

The overall increase of animal use in 2003 is due, in part, to the greater use of genetically modified animals in research aimed at understanding what the 30,000 or so genes inside every human cell actually do.

“One of the things you can do is add a human gene to a mouse so that he mouse gets a disease it otherwise would not have got, like cystic fibrosis,” said Dr Festing. “Then you can observe the mouse and try out new therapies on it.”

But Ms Hawkins said: “Do we actually need to know what every single gene does? Often this is being done without a clear applied medical benefit in mind.“

For someone designated as a “science officer” for the RSPCA, Hawkins seems to have a great deal of ignorance about the importance of basic research.

Sources:

Animal rights groups protest at 20% rise in experiments on primates. Alok Jha, The Guardian, September 8, 2004.

Animal laboratory experiments up 2.2% – Report. David Barrett, Press Association News, September 7, 2004.