PETA Launches 'The Holocaust on Your Plate' Campaign

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals created its latest manufactured controversy when it launched its “Holocaust on Your Plate” campaign in February asking people to compare the suffering of Holocaust victims with the suffering of animals killed for food.

The campaign started in California and features eight 6 foot by 10 foot panels showing victims of the Holocaust juxtaposed with pictures of images of cows, chickens and pigs off to slaughter.

PETA certainly received the publicity it craves — coverage of the story was difficult to miss. But the campaign gave a spin to the animal rights argument that makes the movement easier to dismiss for the vast majority of Americans who know little about it.

Holocaust On Your Plate campaign creator Matt Prescott defended the campaign to everyone would listen. He told the Associated Press,

The fact is all animals feel pain, fear and loneliness. We’re asking people to recognize that what Jews and others went through in the Holocaust is what animals go through everyday in factory farms.

ABC affiliate WABC published the following transcript of an exchange between its reporter, Jim Dolan, and PETA’s Michael McGraw over the campaign,

Dolan: The suffering of people is absolutely, in your mind, equal to the suffering of animals?

McGraw: Yes.

. . .

McGraw: At the root of this campaign is to show people that yes, animals do suffer . . .

Dolan: Are you comparing the suffering that these animals are going through to the suffering of the Jews in the Holocaust? Are they the same in your mind?

McGraw: In many cases, yes.

. . .

They certainly are both atrocities, and I think that we should not choose which atrocities to oppose. I think, as human beings, I think it’s our responsibility to oppose cruelties and atrocities of all kinds.

McGraw and Prescott’s comments just reinforce the ridiculous rhetoric found on PETA’s website in support of the campaign which asks the reader,

Decades from now, what will you tell your grandchildren when they ask you whose side you were on during the “animals’ holocaust”? Will you be able to say that you stood up against oppression, even when doing so was considered “radical” or “unpopular”? Will you be able to say that you could visualize a world without violence and realized that it began at breakfast?

This sort of rhetoric is so bizarre that it’s pointless to waste too much time arguing against it, but Sun Media columnist Michael Coren did have a wonderful, quick dismissal of this absurdity. Coren wrote,

“Just as the Nazis tried to ‘dehumanize’ Jews by forcing them to live in filthy, crowded conditions,” says PETA, “animals on today’s factory farms are stripped of all that is enjoyable and natural to them and treated as nothing more than meat, egg and milk-making machines.”

Nobody has ever accused animal liberation zealots of being intellectual giants, but this one really takes the non-animal product biscuit. They accuse the Nazis of dehumanizing Jews, and immediately compare the plight of Holocaust victims to that of cows, hens and sheep. What is this if not direct dehumanization?

Indeed.

But the real message here is that there is simply no idea too nutty for PETA to champion and, for that, I give some small amount of thanks. PETA seems to think that there is no such thing as bad publicity. That is true if you are some sort of celebrity whose stock in trade depends solely on being noticed. It is not true, however, if you are a fringe ideological movement actually trying to change people’s minds and convince them that granting animals rights would be a good thing.

In that case there definitely is such a thing as bad publicity. Now when it comes to the whole Holocaust comparison, Charles Patterson’s “Eternal Treblinka” book making just this comparison has been out there for a couple years now, but defenders of the animal rights movement could always explain it away as being part of a fringe on a fringe. But PETA, bless their hearts, decided to take up the cudgels for this idiotic thesis and thereby make it impossible to simply put down such nonsense to a minority view even within the animal rights community.

As long as PETA is willing to put itself on the line for such absurd ideas, the animal rights movement doesn’t stand a chance at advancing its agenda.

Sources:

Critics pounce on animal-rights campaign. The Associated Press, February 28, 2003.

MassKilling.Com. PETA, Accessed February 28, 2003.

PETA’s campaign comparing suffering of livestock to slaughter of Jews in the Holocaust. WABC, February 28, 2003.

Animal liberation bigots. Michael Coren, Sun Media, March 1, 2003.

Hawaii Considers Strengthening Penalties Against Cockfighting and Dog Fighting

The Hawaii state Senate is currently considering a bill that would toughen penalties for cockfighting and dog fighting.

The bill, which was moved out of committee on February 28, would create a new Class C felony, “aggravated cruelty to animals,” which would include cockfighting under its purview. Cockfighting would then be punishable by up to 5 years in prison and a $10,000 fine.

Hawaiian Humane Society president Pam Burns testified at a hearing on the bill that under current Hawaiian statutes, offenders convicted of cockfighting are typically fined a mere $50 to $100.

The bill is opposed by the Hawaii Game Breeders Association. Association spokesperson Annette Lee question the need to make cockfighting a felony saying, “We do need to get our priorities in order when it comes to increasing felony crimes.”

Source:

Cockfighting bill advances. Viki Viotti, The Honolulu Advertiser, March 1, 2003.

Pamelyn Ferdin Gets Her Day in Court

Former child star, actress and animal rights activist Pamelyn Ferdin was scheduled to make an appearance in Federal Court on March 3 to appeal her conviction and 30 day sentence stemming from a protest at a circus.

Ferdin was arrested in the 2000 protest when two college security officers observed her carrying a bull hook which she was showing to passers by.

State Judge John Gunn found her guilty and sentenced her to 30 days in jail. Ferdin appealed and the appeal is scheduled to be decided by the 9th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals in Pasadena, California.

Source:

Original voice of Lucy on Peanuts specials take her case to the Federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Press Release, Paul Jensen and Pamelyn Ferdin, February 27, 2003.

Animal Liberation Front Released Mink In Ireland

In late February the Animal Liberation Front claimed that it released as many as 1,000 mink from an fur farm in Ireland.

Una Heffernan, the owner of the fur farm, disputed that number telling the Kildare Nationalist that although activists opened cages containing more than 1,00 mink, only about 50 were missing after the owners rounded up the mink the next morning.

Of the 50 that were not in their cages and not rounded up, Heffernan said that most were either subsequently returned to the farm or had been shot.

Source:

Farmers and anglers on “mink alert” after break out. The Kildare Nationalist, February 27, 2003.

Deloitte & Touch Drop Huntingdon Life Sciences

Huntingdon Life Sciences announced at the end of February that its auditor, Deloitte & Touche,

. . . will not stand for reelection following completion of the 2002 audit. D&T has advised LSR [Huntingdon] that their decision was made as a result of harassment they received from animal rights extremists and not as a result of any accounting dispute, disagreement or concern with LSR.

Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty quickly took credit for Deloitte & Touche’s decision, posting on the SHAC web site,

This evening, as late as they possibly could, in a pathetic attempt to avoid the press, Deloitte & Touche have waved the white flag and surrendered to SHAC.

. . .

There has never been a response to a target like this one — we were swamped with phone calls and emails all day long as activists went to war against Deloitte & Touche. Offices were picketed, home demo’s were carried out on directors, locks were glued, offices and homes were spray painted. There was leafleting, there were mass phone calls, there were mass e-mails, there were actions taking place all over he world daily. Most of all there was relentless drive and determination of all of you to drive SHAC’s message home: sever your links with HLS or face the consequences.

The Financial Times quoted an unnamed Deloitte & Touche employee as saying, “There has been criminal damage, windows broken, doors glued shut, and intimidation of wives and young children of several staff.”

Unfortunately running away might not solve the problem. SHAC’s Greg Avery told AcountancyAge.Com that the animal rights group would likely continue to target Deloitte & Touche,

If the latest annual report comes out of HLS with Deloitte’s name on it [as auditor] then we will still consider them to be the company’s auditors.

HLS meanwhile appealed for the British government to follow through on promises of cracking down on such extremism. In a statement the company said,

This is yet another example of how the law and order systems of this country are unable to protect individuals and companies from the illegal acts that inevitably now accompany animal rights protests. How long can the British government allow this extortion to continue?

How long indeed.

Sources:

Amazing! Deloitte & Touche pull out after only 10 days. Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty, March 2003.

Form 8-K Current Report. Life Sciences Research, February 28, 2003.

Deloitte quits as auditor of drug-testing group. Patrick Jenkins, Financial Times, March 1, 2003.

Deloitte severs ties with HLS. Paul Grant, AccountancyAge.Com, February 2, 2003.

Arrest as protesters target HLS auditor. Cambridge News, February 27, 2003.

Supreme Court Rejects Anti-Abortion Racketeering Lawsuit

The Supreme Court overturned by a vote of 8-1 a successful lawsuit brought against anti-abortion protesters under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corruption Organizations Act.

The National Organization of Women successfully sued Joseph M. Scheidler using the civil lawsuit provisions of the RICO act. NOW argued in court that anti-abortion activists who protested at clinics were in essence not simply practicing civil disobedience, but in fact formed a criminal conspiracy aimed at extorting legitimate business enterprise.

Chief Justice Rehnquist, writing in the majority opinion, said of this novel legal theory,

There is no dispute in these cases that petitioners interfered with, disrupted, and in some instances completely deprived respondents of their ability to exercise their property rights. Likewise, petitioners’ counsel readily acknowledged at oral argument that aspects of his clients’ conduct were criminal. But even when their acts of interference and disruption achieved their ultimate goal of “shutting down” a clinic that performed abortions, such acts did not constitute extortion because petitioners did not “obtain” respondents’ property. Petitioners may have deprived or sought to deprive respondents of their alleged property right of exclusive control of their business assets, but they did not acquire any such property. Petitioners neither pursued nor received “something of value from” respondents that they could exercise, transfer, or sell.

This ruling will likely mean an end to any remaining efforts to use RICO against animal rights activists. The court is pretty clear that whatever else the activities of a group like Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty might be, it doesn’t make sense to describe them as extortion.

In a brief concurring opinion, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg points to where opponents of animal rights extremism should look as a model — Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act of 1994. This act provides additional criminal and civil penalties for individuals and groups who block access to clinics. In effect, the law says that organized efforts to deny women access to abortion clinics constitutes a crime of serious enough nature that it needs to be prosecuted as more than a simple trespassing or disturbing the peace.

The Supreme Court has turned away all challenges to the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act that have reached it, and thus it would serve well as model legislation designed to more effectively deal with organized criminal acts against animal enterprises.

Sources:

Scheidler vs. National Organization for Women.

High court overturns ruling in abortion case. Elliott Blackburn, The Daily Texan, February 27, 2003.

Extortion law ruled invalid in protest case. Joan Biskupic, USA Today, February 27, 2003.

Protection for protesters. John Leon, U.S. News & World Report, March 10, 2003.