Month: April 2005

Accused Eco-Terrorists Arrested

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.

Group Fights Against Aquariums

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.

We Don’t Need Pro-Hunt Liars

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.

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

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.

Christina Louise Dicker Reviews Joan Dunayer’s Speciesism

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.

Lying Liars at the Heritage Foundation

As you might guess from reading my anti-animal rights website I am very much pro-hunting. On the other hand, I’m also very pro-truth, which is why this pack of lies from the Heritage Foundation is so annoying. There’s enough things to hang the anti-hunting movement with; conservative groups don’t have to go out and lie about proposed legislation that might impact hunting.

In this case, Heritage’s Trent England and Steve Muscatello lie by omission. They selectively quote a bill introduced by New York State Assemblyman Alexander Grannis to make it appear as if Grannis wants to ban ordinary hunting (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” 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 and Muscatello deceive 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.