Category: Uncategorized

United Poultry Concerns Urges People to Donate to a Charity that Does Animal Experiments

Oxygen Media, the cable television channel founded by Oprah Winfrey and others, is running a promotion with the Heifer Project to send chickens and other livestock to families in Afghanistan. The “Send a Chick to Afghanistan” project notes that, “Poultry will help because the birds are so adaptable to the environment, supply an excellent source of nutrition through their eggs, and they’re easy to transport.”

This wonderful program has drawn the wrath of United Poultry Concerns which issued a press release condemning the shipment of chickens to Afghanistan. According to UPC,

The Heifer Project and Oxygen Media are fueling the world’s bloodshed and chaos by adding animal misery and abuse to U.S. bombs, landmines, and civilian suffering and death in Afghanistan. Promoting the idea that sending animals to be tended and fed by famine-stricken countries plagued with drought and American bombs is absurd and misleading.

Well, when it comes to absurd and misleading rhetoric, UPC and Karen Davis are certainly the experts, but in this case it’s yet more absurdity from UPC. The odd thing is that UPC slips up in sticking with the party line. In the very next paragraph of its press release, it suggests that,

People who truly want to help the people of Afghanistan should support famine relief organizations that provide direct aid. For example, the Red Cross is providing rice, oil, and peas for immediate consumption.

Oops. The Red Cross is on PETA/PCRM’s list of forbidden charities because it funds animal research.

This writer recommends giving to both organizations if you are concerned about relief efforts in Afghanistan.

Sources:

UPC Action Alert: Protest “Send a Chick to Afghanis-Scam.” United Poultry Concerns, Press Release, March 6, 2002.

PETA Wants to Run Anti-Fur Ad in Great Britain

Before the Sept. 11 attack, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals commissioned a particularly violent anti-fur advertisement that it planned to show in the United States. After the Sept. 11 attack, PETA shelved those plans but did display the ad on its web site. Now, PETA wants to show the ad in UK cinemas. Lets hope they get approval for that and start showing the ad in the United States.

The ad is a barbaric summation of PETA’s views. It shows a woman wearing a fur coat on a busy day who suddenly is attacked by a stranger with a baseball bat. The man beats the women until she falls to the ground at which point the stranger steals her coat and runs off. The viewer is left wondering whether or not the woman is still alive.

According to PETA’s Sean Gifford, this advertisement is supposed to highlight the pain inflicted on fur bearing animals who are raised and killed for their pelts,

When animals are killed on fur farms, they are gassed or beaten and many of them are alive when they are skinned. This advert is meant to convey the graphic nature of what happens. . . . It is meant to shake people up and we only hope the censors do the right thing and allow us to show it.

It is odd that PETA recently complained that a game of cow bingo reinforced cruelty to animals, but it has no such qualms showing an advertisement featuring the brutal beating of a human being.

Which is why this writer, for one, hopes the British advertising censors allow it to run, and moreover that PETA changes its mind and broadcasts this ad in the United States. That PETA thinks a mink killed for its fur and a woman assaulted with a baseball bat are essentially the same things speaks volumes about where the animal rights movement is coming from.

There can be few more visceral examples of the poverty of the animal rights position than to point out that the larges animal rights organization in the United States is unable to draw clear moral distinctions between the thousands of women murdered every year and the killing of mink and other fur bearing animals. This commercial should be considered required viewing for anyone who wants a peek at what is really behind PETA’s pro-animal facade.

Source:

Animal rights want to show violent advert. Graham Hiscott, The Irish Examiner, March 9, 2002.

McDonald's Rumored to Be Considering Settlement of Vegetarian Lawsuits

Last summer it came out that McDonald’s used a beef flavoring in its french fries despite billing them as being vegetarian. Shortly after that revelation, Seattle-based attorney Harish Bharti began soliciting clients for a class action lawsuit against McDonald’s. This week Reuters and other news outlets reported that McDonald’s appears close to settling those lawsuits.

Based on confidential documents the news agencies claim they obtained, McDonald’s is offering to pay for public apologies in religious and vegetarian magazines, give $4,000 each to 12 plaintiffs who have filed 12 separate lawsuits against the company, and donate $10 million to vegetarian and religious organizations. It will also supposedly offer to set up an advisory board to aid it in matters related to vegetarians.

This is odd considering the weak position of the plaintiffs. After all, McDonald’s never claimed the fries were vegetarian or vegan. Instead, in 1990 it announced that it was switching to cooking the fires in “100 percent vegetable oil.” This change was made to placate customer concerns about cholesterol, but to my knowledge McDonald’snever claimed that there no animal products or derivatives in its fries.

Source:

McDonald’s makes beef-tainted fries payout. Vivian Chu, Reuters, March 7, 2002.

McDonalds nears settling vegetarians’ lawsuits. Ameet Sachdev, Chicago Tribune, March 6, 2002.

Scottish Fur Farm Ban Passes Last Milestone

This week the Scottish Parliament voted 77 to 8, with 6 abstentions, to outlaw fur farming in that country. This despite the fact that there are currently no fur farms in Scotland.

Proponents of the bill said it was necessary to prevent fur farmers being put out of business by the Labor government in Great Britan from simply relocating to Scotland.
Source:

Scottish Parliament. Wednesday 6 March 2002.

Rep. Scott McInnis Wants to Know What PETA's Doing with Its Money

When the Center for Consumer Freedom revealed that it found evidence that People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals had donated money to the Earth Liberation Front it dropped a bombshell whose effects are still reverberating. Unless PETA is able to pull some rabbit out of its hat to explain away the donation, this appears likely to do serious damage to PETA.

This week, Rep. Scott McCinnis (R-Colorado) sent a letter to Ingrid Newkirk asking for information about PETA’s role in funding animal rights and environmental terrorists. The letter is reproduced in full below.

March 4, 2002

Ms. Ingrid Newkirk
President
PETA
501 Front Street
Norfolk, Virginia 23510

Dear Ms. Newkirk:

When the House Resources Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health held an oversight hearing probing the increasing threat of ecoterrorism on National Forest lands last month, evidence was submitted by one of the Subcommittee’s witnesses showing that the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) contributed to the Earth Liberation Front, the public face of an organization described by the FBI as America’s single largest domestic terrorism threat. The purpose of the contribution to ELF is listed on PETA’s Form 990 tax return as to “support their program activities.” Subsequent reporting in the media appears to substantiate these allegations.

As a non-profit organization with tax-exempt privileges and the incumbent public policy obligations that status entails, PETA has a responsibility to explain the full extent of its involvement with and contributions to environmental terror groups like ELF and ALF. With that in mind, I respectfully request that you respond to the following questions, the answers to which will be made part of the hearing’s public record.

  • Since 1993, how much and on how many occasions has PETA made financial contributions to either the Earth Liberation Front and/or its press office, the Animal Liberation Front and/or its press office, and suspected or convicted persons associated with ELF and ALF?
  • Does PETA have any internal policies or guidelines either encouraging or discouraging financial support of unlawful groups like ELF and ALF? If so, what are they?
  • Under what rational did PETA make a contribution(s) to ELF?
  • What steps did PETA take to ensure that these funds would not be used for unlawful purposes?
  • Whose signature appeared on the returned check that PETA gave ELF?
  • Does PETA condone the violent activities of organizations like ELF? Should PETA’s contribution to ELF be seen as an endorsement?
  • Does PETA have any intention of contributing to ELF, ALF or other similarly motivated groups in the future?

    • As local, state and federal law enforcement officials grapple with this formidable threat, careful scrutiny must be applied to any and all persons or organizations that lend financial aid and comfort to this radical band of extremists. In the future, I hope that PETA will cut-off its financial ties with ELF and ALF, and join America’s largest mainstream environmental groups in publicly condemning these and other eco-terrorist groups.

    I look forward to your response.

    Sincerely,
    Scott McInnis
    Chairman
    House Resources Subcommittee on
    Forests and Forest Health

    cc: Internal Revenue Service, Federal Bureau of Investigation

I can’t wait to see what sort of response PETA comes up with to these questions.