Monthly Archives: April 2005

Christina Louise Dicker Reviews Joan Dunayer's Speciesism

Posted on by
Reply

In the March-May 2005 issue of Vegan Voice, Christina Louise Dicker reviews Joan Dunayer’s recent book, Speciesism. Like other activists, Decker is smitten with Dunayer’s extreme, if consistent, animal rights philosophy.

Dicker highlights the expansive nature of the types of creatures that Dunayer would grant rights (emphasis added),

Dunayer’s arguments are hard-hitting and rock solid as she uses plain and simple language, supported by a myriad of examples, to clarify every aspect of the discussion. . .

. . .

The author convinced me beyond a shadow of a doubt that our fellow species on this planet are not our inferiors. She argues that “any form of consciousness should suffice to confer legal personhood,” and when discussing the grounds for such a statement she carefully explains how consciousness and sentience (rather than complexity and intelligence) are the only relevant methods to assess a creature’s right to justice.

I’m assuming, based on Dicker’s use of quotation marks, that the section highlighted above is Dunayer’s formulation. Regardless, it is absurdly broad.

Dunayer has previously argued that it is wrong to use indirect human measures of consciousness to assign rights. Dunayer criticizes Steven Wise, for example, for Wise’s refusal to grant rights to honeybees on the grounds that bees are invertebrates. Dunayer says this creates a nonsensical hierarchy of species.

But if any form of consciousness should suffice, then we are in the same boat with every species. For example, I am fairly certain that my fern is not conscious. However, in arriving at that view, I am inferring it from the fact that the plant does not exhibit minimal signs that I would argue are necessary at a minimum for consciousness, such as acting intentionally (which is not to say that every being that acts intentionally should be considered conscious — though Dunayer seems to take that view — but rather that creatures that don’t act intentionally would seem to be automatically excluded from the set of beings that is conscious).

But if “any form of consciousness” qualifies, the same objection applies — how dare we apply our human-mammalian-animal prejudices to deciding whether or not my fern is conscious?

Rather than simplifying things, Dunayer’s views taken together appear to create a number of problems for those who would embrace them. And yet, embrace them she does as Dicker seems to explicitly recognize where Dunayer’s position leads. She writes, (emphasis added),

Throughout the ages, one of the most effective methods of achieving social reform has been education, followed by action. My prediction is that Joan Dunayer’s work will have a snowball effect as other considerate human beings to [sic] accept, adopt, and then promote the goals outline in this book. The potential impact of this amazing text is ready to prove once again that the proverbial pen has the power to change the world.

A book like Speciesism promotes a thoroughly positive step forward for the future of our planet, since the rebounding effects of the abolition movement will bring about improvements for other global problems, such as environmental degradation and human overpopulation. It envisions a day when people stop heralding the “sanctity of human life” and start proclaiming “the sanctity of all life.”

My prediction is that Dunayer’s book won’t be read outside of a small circle of extremist animal rights types and will have no impact on the wider debate about society’s treatment of animals, in large measure because of the extreme view which Dicker articulates that advocates for “the sanctity of all life.” That view takes an already fringe view and cranks up the nuttiness by a factor of 10. Its absurd to talk about the sanctity — and presumably rights — of all living things. Even vegans need to regularly kill living things in order to survive, unless Dicker and Dunayer favor Newkirk’s dream of a world absent humanity, because that’s ultimately where the abolitionist version of the animal rights philosophy leads.

Source:

Review of Speciesism by Joan Dunayer. Christina Louise Dicker, Vegan Voice, March-May 2005.

UK Animal Welfare Minister Assaulted, Receives Death Threats from Pro-Hunt Extremists

Posted on by
Reply

Pro-hunting extremists in the United Kingdom are demonstrating that they can be every bit as violent as animal rights activists.

This was amply demonstrated when Animal Welfare Minister Ben Bradshaw was injured by a pro-hunt activist in January, and then received death threats from pro-hunting extremists in March.

Bradshaw was assaulted in a January 17th incident when about 70 pro-hunt protesters showed up to protest Bradshaw’s appearance at a fishing industry conference. One of the protests threw a piece of hollowed out fruit which had been filled with animal entrails at Bradshaw. The object hit him in the face and caused a small cut beneath his right eye.

Later, in March, Bradshaw told The Times of London that a pro-hunt extremist had left a death threat on his voice mail system.

Bradshaw quickly spoke out against the violence,

I’ve had fake blood thrown over me in an anti-Kosovo war protest and an offal bomb thrown at me by hunt protesters and now this death threat. This goes with the territory and anyone in public life is aware that they are vulnerable because we are democratically elected politicians and we are accessible.

But I am deeply troubled about the effect of all this on the people who work in my office and civil servants who are with me on visits and get caught up in it all. Most of my officials are female and they have been affected and are unsettled by it all. It is extremely threatening behavior, very loud and frankly pretty abusive.

Bradshaw is wrong about one thing — death threats and abuse should not come with the territory. Those who assaulted and threatened Bradshaw are no better than the animal rights extremists who threaten and commit assaults. There is no place in a democratic society for this sort of nonsense, regardless of the ideology or the issue.

Unfortunately, police in Bradshaw’s case made the same mistake they have made repeatedly in dealing with animal rights violence — not acting quickly and decisively enough to squash it. For example, take the man who assaulted Bradshaw causing him to receive a cut. His punishment? Police arrested the man, but then let him go with a verbal warning.

They did this at the direction of Bradshaw himself, to be sure, but this sort of laissez-faire attitude to what should be treated as an assault simply encourages this sort of violence and its eventual escalation. Bradshaw could have been seriously injured and should have urged the man to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of British law, if not for himself then for the other members of the government who may face such assaults.

The animal rights extremists show what happens when a violent movement is allowed to get away with a slap on the wrist for an extended period of time. The last thing Great Britain needs now is equally nutty pro-hunt extremists feeling they can break the law with impunity.

Sources:

Pro-hunting extremists issue death threat to MP. Valerie Elliott, Times Online, March 7, 2005.

Offal thrower receives a caution. The BBC, March 23, 2005.

New York Assemblyman Wants Anti-Hunting Office

Posted on by
Reply

In February, New York Assemblyman Felix Ortiz introduced a bill in that state’s legislature to create a new Office of Advocacy for Wildlife that would, among other things, be charged with finding alternatives to hunting for managing wildlife populations.

Assembly Bill 4306 would create this new agency which would be charged with, among other things,

To study, develop, encourage and provide assistance for non-lethal management of wildlife.

The full text of AB4306 can be read here.

Source:

New York Bill Creates Anti-Hunting Office. U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance, March 2005.

We Don't Need Pro-Hunt Liars

Posted on by
Reply

Anti-hunters put out enough nonsense without pro-hunters adding their own lies and dishonesties. But that is precisely what two Heritage Foundation commentators do in an article on recent anti-hunting legislation at the state level.

In this case, Heritage’s Trent England and Steve Muscatello lie by omission. They selectively quote from a bill introduced by New York State Assemblyman Alexander Grannis to make it appear as if his bill would ban all hunting outright. Here’s England and Muscatello’s version (emphasis added),

New York has a large, vibrant hunting community outside its metropolitan areas. Assemblyman Alexander Grannis, who is from the nation’s largest metro area, has drafted a bill that could, if passed in its present form, make all hunting illegal in the Empire State. The text of New York State Assembly Bill 1850 reads, in part: “A person is guilty of aggravated cruelty to animals when … he or she intentionally kills … an animal or wild game [or] wild birds.” You don’t have to be a National Rifle Association die-hard to see the danger in a bill that makes pursuit of game, “so as to capture or kill,” a felony with a minimum one-year prison sentence and a $5,000 fine. Advocates, of course, claim this is merely a means to criminalize the torture of animals. But the phrase “intentionally kills,” in this context, clearly could apply to hunters as well as those who would mistreat animals for fun.

Now compare the text of the bill’s language that England and Muscatello quote compared to the full text of the bill, (emphasis added),

A person is guilty of aggravated cruelty to animals when, with no justifiable purpose, he or she intentionally kills or intentionally causes serious physical injury to a companion animal, OR WILD GAME AND WILD BIRDS AS DEFINED IN SECTION 11-0103 OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION LAW, with aggravated cruelty. For purposes of this section, “aggravated cruelty” shall mean conduct which: (i) is intended to cause extreme physical pain; or (ii) is done or carried out in an especially depraved or sadistic manner.

So the bill doesn’t call for prosecuting people who kill wildlife, but rather people who kill wildlife “with no justifiable purpose” and with the intention of inflicting extreme pain or killing in an extremely depraved or sadistic manner.

Rather than focus on “no justifiable purpose” or “in an especially depraved or sadistic manner”, England deceives readers into thinking that the bill applies to any intentional killing of wildlife, such as hunting.

This is an outrageous distortion. The last thing those of us who oppose the animal rights movement and its anti-hunting agenda need are people like England and Muscatello adopting PETA-like tactics and distorting the truth.

Source:

Hunters in the Crosshairs. Trent England and Steve Muscatello, Heritage Foundation, March 31, 2005.

PETA and Bestiality, Round 2

Posted on by
1

In March, one Harold Hart, 63, of Neillsville, Wisconsin was arrested for allegedly had committed sexual acts with cows at a Greenwood, Wisconsin farm more than fifty times since 2004. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, of course, was all over this, but their reaction was a bit odd given Ingrid Newkirk’s previous claims about bestiality.

PETA’s Daniel Paden sent a letter to Clark County District Attorney Darwin Zwieg urging Zwieg to order psychological testing for Hart and waxed on about how people who have sex with animals are also supposedly more likely to engage in other criminal behaviors,

A recent study by Jory, Flemming, and Burton shows that 96 percent of offenders who had engaged in bestiality also admitted to sexual assaults on humans. When asked how many serial killers had a history of abusing animals, FBI supervisory special agent Alan Brantley, a psychologist who was formerly on staff at a maximum security prison, said, “The real question is, ‘How many do not?Â’” Experts agree that it is the severity of the behavior, not the species of the victim, that matters.

PETA’s Martin Mesereau also maintained there was a link between bestiality and other sex crimes, saying in a press release,

Studies show that offenders who commit bestiality often go on to commit sex crimes against humans. The community should follow this case closely because anyone capable of this kind of cruelty poses a definitive risk, not just to animals, but to fellow human beings.

If people who have sex with animals are so much more likely to engage in other criminal sexual acts, why was Ingrid Newkirk so nonchalant about it when defending Peter Singer’s claims about bestiality?

Singer, you might remember, was roundly criticized by most animal rights activists and groups for saying the following in a book review,

The potential violence of the orangutan’s come-on may have been disturbing, but the fact that it was an orangutan making the advances was not. That may be because [Birute] Galdikas understands very well that we are animals, indeed more specifically, we are great apes. This does not make sex across the species barrier normal, or natural, whatever those much-misused words may mean, but it does imply that it ceases to be an offence to our status and dignity as human beings.

The only prominent activist who came to Singer’s defense was Ingrid Newkirk, who said of bestiality,

If a girl gets sexual pleasure from riding a horse, does the horse suffer? If not, who cares? If you French kiss your dog and he or she thinks it’s great, is it wrong? We believe all exploitation and abuse is wrong. If it isn’t exploitation and abuse, it may not be wrong.

Following Newkirk’s claims, shouldn’t investigators first establish whether or not the sex between Hart and the bovines was consensual and or not? Certainly the fact that he apparently tied the cows up first might initially lead one to conclude that it was not, but perhaps the cows on this particular farm have some sort of bondage fetish. Either way, at a minimum — using Newkirk’s benchmark — bestiality may not even be wrong, much less lead people to commit sex crimes against humans.

Perhaps Hart’s defense should claim that he was merely taking noted animal advocate Ingrid Newkirk’s advice. No, wait a minute . . . if a judge learns Hart takes Newkirk seriously, that would be proof positive that he’s nuts.

Sources:

PETA pressures DA in cow-sex case. Marshfield News-Herald, March 9, 2005.

Peta Demands Jail Time, Psychiatric Intervention If Alleged Neillsville Animal Rapist Is Convicted. Press Release, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, March 8, 2005.

Group Fights Against Aquariums

Posted on by
2

Tony Moore of Fight Against Animal Cruelty In Europe said in march that his organization and other animal rights groups would oppose a proposed large aquarium to be built as part of a revitalization project in Southport, England.

Moore, whose group opposes aquarium projects on principle, claims that aquariums stress animals and are the equivalent of “peep shows”. He told The Liverpool Daily Post,

There is no justification for an aquarium, when we have such wonderful video footage of marine life. [Apparently Moore is unconcerned about the stress caused by camera crews in the seas]. Aquariums take many of their animals out of the wild and there is a constant need to replace them. Not only does this bring stress to the animals, surely this [aquarium] must be the least appealing out of all the proposed uses of the site.

. . .

It would be like a peep show. I thought I had better do something about it now before it really gets going, because I would not want something like this on my own doorstep. I do not want it to get to the point where they accept it.

Responding to Moore’s claims that the aquarium would place stress on the animals, John Pugh, member of Parliament for Southport, told The Liverpool Daily Post,

It is a bit premature to come to a judgment when one doesn’t know what kind of environment the marine life would be kept in. Some marine life can be kept in an aquarium quite well without any accusations of stress or abuse involved.

But not from animal rights activists such as Moore. The Fight Against Animal Cruelty In Europe web site maintains that (emphasis added),

A captive environment can never provide all that a wild animal needs. . . . Why not get a new idea instead of an old one especially one that abuses sentient beings.

Sources:

Steamy Water Babes and Husky Hunks delight the crowds in London’s hot tourist spot. Press Release, Fight Against Animal Cruelty In Europe, August 2, 2004.

Animal rights group protest over resort’s aquarium plans. Graham Davies, The Liverpool Daily Post, March 9, 2005.

Animal Rights — Its Even for Flesh Eaters!

Posted on by
Reply

Sometimes you see quotes from animal rights activists that makes you wonder if they even understand their own ideology.

For example, in march the Body of Animal Rights Campaigners — a University of Central Florida animal rights student group, collaborated with the Orlando Animal Rights Alliance and the Farm Animal Reform Movement for a Meatout Walk.

Why they bothered to organize such a walk is a mystery given this statement from Body of Animal Rights Campaigners co-president Sara Beniamino,

You don’t have to be vegan or vegetarian to support animal rights. I just think if people had all the facts, as I do, they’d get there, because I used to eat meat, too.

Fine, I’m going to take this twit at face value and come out here and now — that’s right I’m a closet animal rights supporter. I support animal rights, I just also happen to think its okay to eat meat, experiment on animals, kill them for fur, hunt them, fish them, put them in zoos and circuses, and pretty much everything else that’s legal to do with animals in the United States other than cockfighting.

Maybe we need a whole new nomenclature for animal rights types similar to the umpteen versions of hyphenated vegetarians (for example, I might be classified as a morte-ARA — someone who supports the rights of animals but I also think its okay to kill them with impunity as long as you’ve got a good reason to do so, like you’re hungry or have a thing for veal).

Anyway, the whole thing was apparently a way to get money to rent a billboard. Dan Holbert, the other co-president of BARC, told the Central Florida Tribune,

The money raised for this vent goes to FARM, which does great work within the United States and around the world to address the plight of farmed animals. If OARA and BARC raise at least $1,000 together, then we get a billboard in the Orlando area showing people the cruelty of factory farming and asking them to go veg! If BARC and OARA each get 10 people to raise $50, then we’ve got the billboard.

And, of course, the annual statistics on number of animals slaughtered in the United States for food demonstrate just what a good job FARM is doing in the United States. In fact, since I’m coming out here as a closet activist, let me add that I encourage all of my fellow activists to give as much of their money as possible to groups as effective as FARM.

(On a side note, it is good to see they let Holbert out of his cage once in awhile).

Source:

Animal rights club beats meat. Bruce Rabin, Central Florida Tribune, March 10, 2005.

Accused Eco-Terrorists Arrested

Posted on by
Reply

On December 21, 2004, two men accused of plotting an eco-terrorist attack were arrested in Oregon.

Charles Arthur Jordan IV, 20, and Stephen Marshall, 19, were arrested at an abandoned farm house and charged with plotting to blow up equipment owned by Oregon quarry company, Morse Bros. The two allegedly believe that the quarry company was polluting a local river and decided some well-placed explosives was a logical response.

The two apparently came under suspicion after they allegedly boasted to friends about their plans.

Source:

Support Eco-Prisoners – January 2005. Press Release, Earth Liberation Prisoners Support Network, January 2005.

Jarrod Bailey Is No Animal Rights Activist?

Posted on by
Reply

I had to laugh out loud after reading the first couple paragraphs of a fluff piece on Dr. Jarrod Bailey that reporter Paul James wrote for The Newcastle Journal. Here’s James’ take on Bailey,

A Newcastle scientist is spearheading a campaign to end medical research on animals.

But Dr. Jarrod Bailey is no animal rights activists and his argument is founded entirely on the belief that it simply does not work.

As scientific director of Europeans for Medical Progress, Dr. Bailey, 34, said “archaic” animal methods have either harmed humans or set research back by decades.

Of course, Bailey is an animal rights activist.

Bailey is a regular consultant with U.S. animal rights group Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, and Europeans for Medical Progress is simply a British clone of PCRM.

According to PCRM, Bailey is the project development coordinator in the School of Population and Health Sciences at the University of Newcastle Upon Tyne in England.

The Europeans for Medical Progress web site demonstrates that PCRM’s British counterparts are well-school in PCRM-style deception. For example, as proponents of animal research regularly note, most Nobel Prizes award in biological sciences were the result of animal research. EMP just dismisses this argument,

Yes, most did. But it doesn’t follow that the discoveries would not have occurred without animals. It only means that the market for lab animals was thriving and accessible.

From the second half of the 19th century onward, experimenting on animals became part of all medical curricula. Therefore researchers were obliged to perform animal experiments to earn their degrees.

In the instances wherein animals were used for the Nobel Prize-winning results, they were not necessary. Though animal tissue research was the convention, human tissue was available and more viable – as many Nobel Prize winners have since remarked.

I would love Bailey or EMP to explain how, for example, Walter Hess could have demonstrated how the brain functionally organizes the workings of the internal organs, for which he shared a Nobel Prize in 1949, by restricting himself to just tissue samples (Hess used cats).

Source:

Scientist: Animal tests don’t work. Paul James, The Journal (Newcastle), February 24, 2005.

In Defense of Unborn Lambs

Posted on by
Reply

Animal rights activists in Great Britain and elsewhere are launching new protests against astrakhan, lambskin derived from lambs that are killed shortly after birth and, activists claim, in some cases before they are born.

Astrakhan is produced in Uzbekistan from the karakul lamb. An individual pelt can bring Pounds 330 to 45 and a coat made from the material can fetch Pounds 3,500-4,500 according to the Times of London.

PETA’s Sean Gifford told The Times,

The fur trade is a violent, bloody business but these skins are particularly gruesome. Upwards of 4 million lambs are slaughtered every year for these coats. A ewe can usually have four births in a lifetime. The first three lambs are slaughtered after they are born. But the mother is butchered 15 to 30 days before giving birth to the fourth lamb. The unborn lamb is then ripped from her belly. Its skin has not had a chance to develop so it is softer and more highly valued.

Some suppliers of astrakhan deny that the ewe is slaughtered before birth. The Times quotes Andrea Martin of the British Fur Trade Association saying,

Karakul sheep and lambs provide an important source of food as well as other income from skins and wools. In Muslim areas, including Uzbekistan, slaughtering methods for animals are governed by strict religious principles intended to assure humane treatment of animals. Allegations of mistreatment and induced abortions make no sense.

What is the relevance of the “induced abortion” claim? The Times claims, for example, that,

Astrakhan was in limited use three years ago but fell out of vogue after Stella McCartney, the British designer, rounded on her friend Madonna for having an astrakhan coat, telling her she was “wearing a fetus”. She has never been seen in public in it since.

If you’re comfortable with wearing a quote made from animal skin, exactly what does the gestational age of the skin matter? Are there people out there who actually think, “I have no problem wearing lamb skin from a two-day old lamb, but killing the lamb before its born is simply unethical?”

Makes no sense (which is why McCartney and Madonna probably find it to be a logical position — or perhaps it conflicts with Maddona’s kabbala beliefs!)

Source:

Aborted lambs are fashion victims. Maurice Chittenden, The Times Online, March 6, 2005.

A New Fur Controversy. New York Metro, March 28-April 4, 2005.