Dixie Chicks Tried to Pay Off PETA

The controversy over the Dixie Chicks anti-Bush comments right before the war on Iraq led MSNBC’s Ashley Pearson to dig up some old dirt on the group’s odd relationship with People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and its infamous “I’d Rather Go Naked Than Wear Furs” ad.

According to Pearson, the Chicks posed for an “I’d Rather Go Naked . . .” ad. According to Pearson,

The trio posed in a field of flowers, wearing nothing but blossoms and their strategically placed instruments.

But at the last minute, the Dixie Chicks changed their mind, apparently fearing reaction from fans. Pearson quotes an unidentified source as saying (emphasis added),

The Chicks themselves were lovely about the whole thing, but their management got worried that some of their fans were rifle-toting, Bambi-shooting types who would take offense at an anti-fur, pro-animal message. They forbid release of the ad because they were worried about backlash or boycott. They even tried to pay PETA $10,000 to say it never happened.

A PETA spokesman said of the incident, “Agree with them or not, this trio became a phenomenon because they have country hearts with modern sensibilities and aren’t afraid to voice their views. And we hope that one day they’ll let us release this ad.”

Source:

Dixie Chicks dodged PETA-fed fire. Ashley Pearson, MSNBC, March 20, 2003.

Farm Sanctuary Shelter Manager Sentenced for Lamb Theft

In March, the Gannett News Service reported that Farm Sanctuary shelter manager Susan Coston was sentenced to 100 hours of community service and ordered to pay $200 in restitution for stealing a black lamb from a New York farm. She was also ordered to write a letter of apology to the lamb’s owner.

According to Gannett, Coston originally received a call claiming there was an injured lamb on a farm in the Town of Tyrone on November 22, 2002. She went to the farm, but no one was home. So she took the injured lamb and took it to a veterinary hospital where the animal was eventually euthanized.

Police arrested her later that day and charged her with third-degree burglary for stealing the lamb, but that charge was later reduced to misdemeanor criminal trespass.

Source:

Lamb thief gets community service. Jennifer Kingsley, Gannett News Service, March 18, 2003.

PETA Protestor Arrested in North Carolina

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals Protestor Kayla Worden, 41, was arrested in Ashville, North Carolina on March 18.

According to the Chicago Sun Times,

[Worden] . . . was passing out leaflets from People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) about 9 a.m. on Clark and Washington, wearing only a pair of shoes, green shorts, a St. Patrick’s Day hat and flowers covering her breasts, police spokeswoman JoAnn Taylor said.

Worden disrupted pedestrian and car traffic and refused to stop passing leaflets “while improperly clothed,” Taylor said. She was arrested about midday and charged with disorderly conduct.

Source:

Semi-nude animal rights activist arrested. Ana Mendieta, Chicago Sun-Times, March 18, 2003.

UK Promises New Laws to Deal with Animal Rights Extremists

The Financial Times (UK) reported in March that Home Office Minister Bob Ainsworth had held a series of meetings with groups representing biotechnology firms, pharmaceutical companies, and medical researchers to discuss possible new legislation to make it easier to crack down on animal rights extremists such as Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty.

The Financial Times reported that there will not be any single overarching bill designed specifically to target animal rights extremism, but rahter a series of more focused bills look at strengthening legal methods of dealing with activists.

The Financial Times cites the BioIndustry Assocation as saying that in the last quarter of 2002 alone, there were over 62 protests by animal rights activists at the homes of the employees of targeted companies and a total of 20,000 e-mails, phone calls or text messages directed at animal testing firms.

Aisling Burnard, chief executive of the BioIndustry Association, told The Financial Times,

We need better co-ordination of policing and better co-ordination with the Crown Prosecution Service. We must be able to get convictions.

So far, that has been easier said than done.

Source:

Plan to reign in animal rights protesters. Patrick Jenkins, The Financial Times (London), March 19, 2003.

Animal Rights Extremist Jailed in the UK

Animal rights extremist Sonia Hayward, 35, was sentenced in March to 15 months in jail after pleading guilty to charges of destruction of property and harassment.

The charges stemmed from two separate incidents from different animal rights campaigns.

The more serious crime, which drew a 15 month sentence, was that Hayward drove an accomplice to the home of Timothy Allington at least twice so that the accomplice could throw rocks and bricks at the windows. Allington was so concerned about his safety that he hired private security guards and had a security system installed in his house.

Not surprisingly, Hayward seems to have targeted Allington on bad information. She incorrectly believed that Allington, who used to be the managing director of a pharmaceutical firm, was somehow connected to Huntingdon Life Sciences. The story of Hayward’s capture is somewhat amusing. One of the bricks that was thrown at the Allington’s home had a piece of paper tied around it, presumably with a written message. The only problem as the paper this braintrust used was her own gas bill, which made tracking her down relatively easy.

Hayward also drew a 2 month sentence for a campaign of harassment she carried out against female hunters during the summer of 2001. Hayward compiled the names and phone numbers of seven female members of three hunt clubs, and then created what the Press Association described as “prostitute calling cards” listing the women’s personal information. Hayward then left the cards in phone booths, and some of the women received phone calls from men soliciting sex based on the cards.

Police discovered sheets of uncut cards when they raided her home in August 2001 as part of their investigation of the property damage at Allington’s home.

Her two prison sentences will run concurrently and she will likely be out of jail sometime in July 2003. In sentencing her, Judge David Mitchell said,

This was a campaign against Mr. Allington in the mistaken belief that he had some connection with Huntingdon Life Sciences. It shows how people who take matters into their own hands can be gravely mistaken.

A person is entitled to feel safe in his or her home. If a person cannot feel safe in his or her own home, where can they feel safe?

Mr. Allington suffered such a nervous worry for himself and his family that he was in constant fear of attack. You are just as guilty as the person who got out and threw the rocks.

The Press Association story on the sentencing did not mention the status of the investigation of the person who threw the rocks. Judge Mitchell did warn Hayward that any future arrests for animal rights-related crimes would likely bring her a longer sentence (we can only hope).

That could prove a problem as Haward has a history of being arrested at animal rights protests. She was arrested and fined 120 pounds in 2000 after being arrested at a protest at a facility that raised monkeys for medical research.

Source:

Animal activist jailed for harassment campaign. Simon Baker, The Press Association, March 20, 2003.

Case against photographer is dropped. Phil Dennett, This is Mid Sussex, October 6, 2000.

Animal Extremists Not Affecting Support for Medical Research in the UK

A new study of British views of animal research suggests that extremists such as Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty are not winning the battle for the hearts and minds of the British public and may, in fact, be driving up support for medical research.

In a poll conducted by Mori and commissioned by the Coalition for Medical Progress, 90 percent of respondents gave conditional approval for animal research. A similar poll in 1999 found 84 percent of respondents conditionally approving animal research.

In both years, those agreeing favored animal research so long as experiments are for life-threatening illnesses that do not impose unnecessary suffering and use non-animal alternatives where feasible.

The poll did find a lack of trust, however, of both researchers and of the regulatory regimes that govern them. Only 39 percent said they trusted researchers did everything they could to minimize suffering — although that was an increase over the 29 percent figure from the 1999 survey.

Meanwhile, 50 percent of those surveyed said they didn’t trust the regulatory regiment that covers animal research, although again this was a big improvement over the 1999 survey when 64 percent of respondents said they didn’t trust regulations of animal research.

The message of this poll, which is pretty consistent with other polls of people in the United States and Great Britain, is that most people are essentially animal welfarists — they support the human use of animals provided human beings do as much as possible to reduce animal suffering. And despite their very public protests and often extremist tactics, SHAC, PETA and the rest of the usual suspects are having no success at replacing this animal welfare view with their animal rights nonsense.

Sources:

Key Finding from the MORI Surveys. Coalition for Medical Progress, 2003.

Support grows for animal experiments. David Derbyshire. The Daily Telegraph (London), March 19, 2003.

Animal rights extremists boost backing for live tests. Mark Henderson, The Times (London), March 19, 2003.