Month: November 2002

Virginia Authorities Investigating Apparent ELF Attacks

Police in Richmond, Virginia are investigating whether or not numerous acts of vandalism in the area over the past few months are the work of the Earth Liberation Front.

On Sept. 27/28, activists used a glass-etching cream to damage a total of 38 windows at two McDonald’s and a Burger King fast food restaurant. Also in september, a glass-etching cream was used to damage 25 SUV’s at a Richmond dealership.

On Oct. 5/6 two SUVs were hacked with hatchets and a note was left behind that the work was of the Earth Liberation Front.

For the moment, The Earth Liberation Front Press Office says it hasn’t received any information taking credit for the attacks,

We have received no statement of claim for those actions at this press office so we are not able to pass along the motivations of these acts, other than to say that they are in keeping with other E.L.F. actions that have targeted pollution, roads and vehicle culture through attacks on vehciles such as S.U.V.s.

Unfortunately, it is also apparent that the local officials likely don’t have a firm grasp on the ELF. Wade Kizer, Virginia’s Attorney for the county that includes Richmond, told The New York Times,

Police are tryi got dtermine if there are any links to other incidents around the country. [It might be the ELF] but it might be some local people who have just heard of the organization.

But that’s all the ELF and ALF have ever been — a group of people with no ties to any larger organization who commit acts of vandalism and violence and take credit on behalf of ELF. In a very real sense, there is no ELF, but rather just isolated opportunistic acts of vandalism and violence carried out by individuals who have little or no connection with each other (which is what makes it so difficult to prevent ELF and ALF-style actions).

Source:

Rash of vandalism in Richmond may be tied to environment group. Lisa Bacon, The New York Times, November 18, 2002.

Supermodel Gisèle Harassed by PETA

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals garnered some media attention for itself by sending four people to jump on stage and harass model Gisèle during a Victoria’s Secret Fashion Show.

None of the outfits on display at the show used fur, but PETA’s Dan Mathews had been threatening for weeks to make Gisèle pay for modeling furs for a mink cooperative.

Fur Commission USA had the best description and commentary on the disruption.

Of course the obvious question raised by FCUSA is why on Earth does a group like this still have a nonprofit status? Why should taxpayers still be helping to subsidize this sort of activity? And more importantly, why doesn’t the media ever focus on that angle? You can bet that if this were an anti-abortion nonprofit endorsing these kinds of actions, for example, that they would not have that status for long.

FCUSA also has a rundown on each of the PETA activists involved in this protest, with their profile of Kayla Rae Worden raising an eyebrow,

Kayla Rae Worden (who calls herself “Stripper for a Cause”) followed Gisèle all the way down the runway holding a sign, appropriately made of vinyl (plastic), which personally attacked the model. The vinyl sign was emblazoned with the PeTA corporate logo, leaving no doubt what company sponsored the attack.

PeTA employee Kayla Rae Worden started life as Kevin Worden. During a 2002 appearance on the Howard Stern Show, Kayla/Kevin stripped when he threatened to kill insects and fish if the three PeTA-phile guests didn’t show him some boob. Kayla/Kevin was quick to reveal her set and Howard complimented Kayla/Kevin on her commitment to the cause and her “nice, natural breasts”. That’s right – without surgery perfected on animals and daily hormone therapy developed on animals, Kayla/Kevin would be sporting full body fur and a moustache. Isn’t it amazing what a little animal-tested hormone therapy can do?

And working for a group that opposes AIDS research in animals.

Source:

Plastic People Fail to Fluster Super-composed Supermodel. Fur Commission USA, November 20, 2002.

Pro-Hunt Activist Arrested for Inspiring Racial Hatred

As I mentioned earlier this week, pro-fox hunting activists in Scotland and Great Britain are adopting a novel tactic in their fight to keep fox hunting legal. They are arguing that since Jews and Muslims are both allowed to kill animals without stunning them first in order to satisfy religious requirements for food preparation, that to ban fox hunting amounts to cultural persecution under European human rights conventions.

Whether or not that is a valid argument that will succeed in court is one thing, but certainly simply making that argument, as I have done above, should not be a crime. But, in fact, this week the British government arrested Daily Telegraph columnist Robin Page for making just this argument at a pro-hunting rally.

According to the Daily Telegraph,

Mr Page also told his audience that Londoners had the right to run their own events, such as the Brixton carnival and gay pride marches, which celebrated black and gay culture. Why therefore, he asked, should country people not have the right to do what they liked in the countryside.

Mr Page said yesterday: “I urged people to go on the march and I urged that the rural minority be given the same legal protection as other minorities. All I said was that the rural minority should have the same rights as blacks, Muslims and gays.

“What is wrong with that in a multicultural society? I said nothing that could possibly be interpreted as racist.”

The Telegraph goes on to point out that back in September a letter from the Prince of Wales was leaked to the media that made essentially the same argument.

Yet Page was arrested and charged with stirring up racial hatred.

Source:

Pro-hunting writer held in cell after race claims. Neil Tweedie, The Daily Telegraph (London), November 20, 2002.

Steve Coogan's Animal Rights Controversy

One of the silliest animal rights controversies in recent months has to be the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisectoin’s outrage over a planned new television show by comedian Steve Coogan.

Coogan’s new animated for the BBC series is “I Am Not an Animal.” As UK Newsquest Regional Press describes it,

The adult cartoon . . . will portray animals living a pampered life in a luxurious club class wing of a secret lab. The characters — a horse, cat, sparrow, monkey, cat and dog — are fed vintage wine and exquisite food and are blissfully unaware of the outside world. They are appalled when they are liberated by animal rights activists and forced to rough it in their natural surroundings.

The BBC is marketing “I Am Not an Animal” as a UK answer to “The Simpsons,” but BUAV says the concept isn’t funny.

BUAV claims the cartoon needs to remember that animals in laboratories endure “horrendous cruelty.” BUAV’s Wendy Higgins said,

We really hope these rumors are false because to portray the lives of lab animals as antyhing other than a living torture would not only be deeply crass but also irresponsible.

A spokesman for the show responded that the series, “. . . looks at anti-vivisection in a satirical way.” Of course there’s no other option, since most activists don’t even to take their own movement seriously (if they did, they wouldn’t keep spouting the same old distortions and lies).

Source:

Coogan in animal rights row. Barbara Davidson, UK Newsquest Regional Press, November 16, 2002.

PETA's Smoking Campaign

In late September, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals ended up hooking up with the advertising agency that came up with the absurd “Truth” anti-smoking campaign. Miami-based Crispin Porter and Bogusky helped PETA continue its habit of misrepresenting the truth while, ironically, helping it promote smoking to very young children.

PETA’s wanted to convey the message that some tobacco companies do animal research, and so smoking subsidizes this sort of animal “cruelty.”

But they picked on odd method to make this point. Crispin Porter and Bogusky crafted several stickers that parody popular cigarette brands. Marlboro becomes “Murderboro” while Kool becomes “Krool.” On the back of the stickers are pictures of animals being forced to breathe cigarette smoke.

On the one hand, the stickers misrepresented the research done by the tobacco companies targeted. The stickers showed monkeys, dogs and rabbits being forced to inhale smoke, but in fact the companies targeted by PETA only do research on rodents.

Like the tobacco companies did for so many years, PETA seems to think that deception is okay as long as it encourages people to buy what they’re selling.

On the other hand, for once I agreed with a Philip Morris USA representative who said that, “PETA is acting irresponsibly by handing out tobacco logos to children.”

In fact, The New York Times reported that PETA representatives had handed out the stickers to children as young as age 6. That’s just appalling — I know the reaction of my almost-6 year old daughter would likely be a sudden interest in all things tobacco. Not that PETA cares. As Dan Mathews told The New York Times, “If kids stop smoking as a result, we’re delighted, but that’s not our focus. Our focus is to get kids to voice their outrage [about animal research].”

And I’m still waiting for an explanation of how activities like this jibe with Ingrid Newkirk’s claim during a March appearance on Crossfire that PETA doesn’t target children “because everything we do is based at adults.”

Source:

An anti-tobacco campaign aims not at smoking but at the use of animals in tests. Nat Ives, The New York Times, September 27, 2002.

European Union Agrees on Cosmetics Testing Ban — Well, Sort Of

The European Union this month finally reached agreement on a law that will ban animal testings on consumer products as well as the marketing and sale of products that are tested on animals outside of EU countries. But the ban has significant loopholes that make it unlikely that animal testing for such products will end anytime soon.

The agreement to amend the EU’s 1976 Cosmetics Directive defines 14 different types of tests currently performed on animals to determine the safety of consumer products. Of those 14 tests, 11 will be banned outright — well, at least they will be banned by 2009, assuming there are no later extensions to that date.

The three remaining tests are designed to measure toxicity and potential reproductive side effects of chemicals. Those tests don’t have any viable alternatives to using animals. So they are set to be banned in 2014, unless there are still no viable alternatives by then in which case those tests can be granted a 10 year extension. So maybe by 2024, the EU might be looking at banning all testing on animal products.

Don’t hold your breath, though, as even the animal rights groups pushing for the ban note that this is unlikely. Wendy Higgins of the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection told The Guardian,

This has been an extremely long battle to convince Europe to finally stop killing animals in cosmetics test. But there are too many loopholes and there will never be a complete sales ban. As long as this is tied to non-animal testing alternatives it is doomed because there are only a handful available.

Meanwhile, the ban on products that are tested on animals outside of Europe is likely to face a strong challenge in the World Trade Organization. Great Britain, which already bans animal testing on consumer products in the UK, had long opposed these changes precisely because of that concern, but it and France finally withdrew their opposition this time around after the years-long delay was added to the agreement.

Source:

Consumer Policy: Conciliation agreement on animal test ban does not go down well. European Report, November 9, 2002.

New deal on animal testing. Ian Hernon, Liverpool Echo, November 9, 2002.

Activists hail EU’s ban on animal testing. Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, Calgary Herald, November 8, 2002.

Ban agreed on using animals to test cosmetics. Daily Post (Liverpool), November 8, 2002.

Cosmetics tested on animals to be banned: Campaigners give guarded welcome to EU deal. Andrew Osborn, The Guardian (London), November 8, 2002.

Compromise between EU governments, legislators paves way for possible 2009 ban on animal-tested cosmetics. Paul Ames, Associated Press, November 7, 2002.

Animal rights slam EU testing ban. Avirl Stephens, CNN, November 7, 2002.