Tag: Bruce Friedrich

PETA Features David Duke in Bizarre Billboard Ad

Most of the times People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals is intentionally offensive to garner media attention. But sometimes it’s really hard to tell what (if anything) PETA is trying to accomplish with some of its more bizarre ads and stunts.

Such is the case with a billboard that PETA is running in Shreveport that features an image of David Duke — used without the knowledge or permission of the former Grand Wizard of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan — that parodies the “Got Milk?” advertisements.

The ad shows Duke’s image with a white mustache. The copy on the ad reads, “Got (lactose) intolerance? The white stuff saint’ the right stuff.”

Yeah, that one left me scratching my head too. According to PETA’s Bruce Friedrich,

David Duke is the perfect milk-industry poster child since he’s identified by many as being intolerant. . . . It’s a public domain photograph, but no one in their right mind applauds David Duke and no one in their right mind should be drinking milk.

That’s even more logically confused than normal for Friedrich. That makes about as much sense as putting up a picture of accused-Pim Fortuyn assassin Volkert van Der Graaft and arguing that since van Der Graaft is a killer, so is a vegan diet.

But then again, no one ever accused Friedrich and PETA of trying to make sense.

Source:

Anti-milk ad features David Duke. Alan Sayre, Associated Press, November 11, 2002.

Who Are You Calling Terrorists?

In an op-ed published in the Washington Times, Steven Zak accuses conservative anti-animal rights writers of falsely branding animal rights activists as terrorists. But Zak undermines his own case by glossing over actual animal rights terrorism.

Zak writes,

Granted, some animal activists have committed serious acts of vandalism and other crimes. But the wrongers’ wrath isn’t directed solely at them. Mr. [Wesley J.] Smith, for instance, condemns groups like People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and even the moderate Humane Society of the United States.

First, it is interesting that Zak lumps all animal rights related crimes into two categories: vandalism and “other.” So the firebombing of a Minnesota University laboratory was just an “other” crime. The death threats and razor-blade laced letters to researchers and farmers are just “other” crimes. Certainly vandalism is a major part of animal rights crimes, but animal rights terrorism has progressed way beyond just simple vandalism.

Second, of course, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals deserves condemnation for its support — moral and otherwise — of terrorism. Zak doesn’t even bother to address the issue of PETA’s Earth Liberation Front donation nor its donation to the legal funds of several individuals accused of animal rights terrorism. He doesn’t bother to dismiss or explain away the numerous statements made by PETA insiders such as Ingrid Newkirk or Bruce Friedrich that encourage and justify animal rights terrorism.

Third, Smith’s comments about the Humane Society of the United States were completely justified, although twisted and distorted by Zak’s failure to actually outline Smith’s complaint. Smith wrote,

. . . known ELF and ALF activists are routinely invited to speak at the yearly Washington, D.C. animal-rights conference sponsored by PETA and the Humane Society of the United States.

I believe HSUS is simply a participant in AR 2002, not a sponsor, but aside from that this is a valid question — why does HSUS participate in FARM USA’s annual animal rights conference which features animal rights terrorists front and center? If there were an anti-animal rights conference which featured groups that advocated burning down the businesses of animal rights activists, I know I would not attend and I cannot imagine any other anti-animal rights group would attend. So why does HSUS want to associate with known criminals and advocates of animal rights crimes?

(The irony, by the way, in Smith attacking animal rights activists is that his view of medical research is rather close to the animal rights position. Smith is, for example, a vocal opponent of transgenic research which he claims undermines human dignity).

Hopefully Zak’s next op-ed or article defending PETA and HSUS will actually address the salient issues.

Source:

Exposing animal-rights terrorism. Wesley J. Smith, National Review Online, October 2, 2002.

PETA Threatened to Violently Disrupt Church Pig Roast

A recent story about a threatened protest by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals continued PETA’s foray into open advocacy of “direct action” with Bruce Friedrich threatening to overturn tables at a church fundraiser if the church did not cave in to PETA’s demands.

Hibernia United Methodist Church in West Brandywine Township, Pennsylvania, planned a September pig roast as a fund raiser. Friedrich responded that the roasting a pig was not a Christian thing to do.

Friedrich told The Philadelphia Inquirer that PETA had offered to ship meat-free items, but that if the pig roast when on as planned,

. . . in good Christian tradition, we will probably bear witness of some sort . . . although I wouldn’t rule out turning over tables.

Hmmm . . . do as PETA says or risk having thugs like Friedrich show up to overturn tables. Sounds an awful lot like extortion, doesn’t it?

Source:

Activists to church: Serve vegetarian menu or else. Sandy Bauers, The Philadelphia Inquirer, September 19, 2002.

PETA's Sensitivity to Terrorism Accusations

The Virginian-Pilot ran an article in June about People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals’ apparent growing concern about accusation that it funds and/or supports animal rights terrorism.

Reporter Bill Burke notes that for once Ingrid Newkirk has been keeping a low profile on this topic and letting PETA’s general counsel, Jeffrey S. Kerr, field all press inquiries about the allegations. Kerr tells Burke,

The whole notion that PETA supports terrorism is false and defamatory. When you use the word ‘terror,’ look at the terror inflicted on billions of animals in this country every year. That’s real terror.

. . .

They’re [PETA’s opponents] trying to smear us any way they can.

In a letter to a House subcommittee investigating ecoterror, Kerr wrote that it “is an insult to the victims of Sept. 11th” to suggest that PETA fosters terrorism. “It is reprehensible for PETA’s opponents to equate peaceful and lawful animal protection with al-Quaida or any other type of terrorism, and to exploit that tragedy for expedient political gain.”

In other words, when PETA’s point man on fur, Dan Matthews, said he admired serial killer Andrew Cunanan “because he got Versace to stop doing fur” — that must have been some other Dan Matthews working for some other animal rights group.

And when Bruce Friedrich told an audience at Animal Rights 2001 that while he doesn’t personally advocate animal rights terrorism, “I do advocate it, and I think it’s a great way to bring about animal liberation” — well, he was probably a victim of some mind control scheme by those evil folks over at The Center for Consumer Freedom.

At the very least, when Ingrid Newkirk was quoted in 1997 as saying, “I wish we all would get up and go into the labs and take the animals out or burn them down,” that was probably a case of mistaken identity. That was really Ingrid Bergman back from the dead saying such vicious things, because everyone knows Ingrid Newkirk would never even think such a thing.

PETA’s press blackout on the terrorism allegations included refusing an interview request with Gary Yourofsky. Yourofsky has an Animal Liberation Front tattoo on his arm and said just over a year ago that animal activists should “not be afraid to condone arsons at places of animal torture” and said that if an animal researcher were killed in such a raid “I would unequivocally support that too.”

That sort of resume makes him perfect material for PETA which hired Yourofsky on as a “humane education presenter” after Yourofsky sent out an e-mail whining that he was broke and leaving the animal rights movement temporarily.

The bottom line is that the widespread support for terrorism within the animal rights movement harms groups and individuals associated with it far more than it poses any credible threat to bringing medical research or animal agriculture to a halt. Fortunately it is not that difficult to make the link since so many prominent animal rights activists apparently see the need to endorse or condone criminal acts in order to appease the extremists who seem to set the agenda within the animal rights movement.

For this reason, The Center for Consumer Freedom’s print ad featuring a Bruce Friedrich quote is easily the most powerful anti-animal rights ad I’ve seen. Hopefully there will be a follow-up with some choice quotes from Yourofsky.

The animal rights movement is intellectually bankrupt on a number of issues, but its willingness to endorse violence and criminal acts makes discrediting the movement to all but the true believers relatively simple. Personally, I’m glad that PETA hired Yourofksy and that Newkirk and Friedrich decided to wax on about their support of terrorism. It certainly makes it much easier to illustrate just how extreme even the most nominally mainstream animal rights organizations are.

Source:

Terrorism accusations raise hackles at PETA. Bill Burke, The Virginian-Pilot, June 22, 2002.

Supreme Court Agrees to Hear RICO Lawsuit Appeal

In a decision that will have implications for the animal rights movement and its opponents, the Supreme Court today agreed to consider the appeal of anti-abortion advocates who have been hit with multi-million dollar judgments in racketeering lawsuits brought by the National Organization for Women.

The issue at hand is at what point legitimate protests become racketeering. Under the civil provisions of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, NOW was able to win judgments against individuals such as Joseph Scheidler who did not personally engage in acts of violence but whom publicly approved of such violence and/or engaged in a long pattern of other harassment such as staging sit-ins outside of abortion clinics where they would prevent access to and from the clinic, often by chaining themselves in the doorways of clinics.

Juries hearing these cases have tended to agree with NOW’s claim that taken together, the persistent use of these tactics by an individual or group fits the description of racketeering and extortion under the RICO statute.

Of course, these are the same sorts of tactics commonly used by animal rights activists and groups against restaurants, fur stores and other animal enterprises. According to the Associated Press, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals was one of the groups that asked the Supreme Court to accept the anti-abortionist appeal in order to clarify the rule.

PETA has been the target of at least one RICO lawsuit. After undercover activist Michelle Rokke infiltrated Huntingdon Life Sciences and came back with video tapes, pictures and other documents that PETA claimed showed abuse, HLS hit PETA up with a RICO lawsuit asking for $10 million in damages and legal fees.

PETA counsel Jeff Kerr testified before the House Subcommittee on Crime. According to Kerr,

The RICO counts in our case allege that PETA’s earlier animal cruelty investigations dating back as far as 1989 constituted a pattern of racketeering activity, including extortion through a climate of violence against Huntingdon and the other subjects of our investigation. All told, Huntingdon sought damages and legal fees exceeding $10 million. Early in the case we were slapped with a gag order which precluded us from further disseminating our findings to the public. The gag order prohibited us from cooperating with the USDA investigation of our own complaint, and this despite USDA requests for our cooperation.

PETA eventually released a settlement agreement with HLS.

One thing about PETA, by the way, is that they do not practice what they preach. According to Kerr,

PETA officers, directors and employees have repeatedly been the targets of death threats. We receive photographs of ourselves with our eyes poked out, explicit details of our own sexual torture and bloody packages of animal remains. These threats have often contained references to information disseminated by our opponents, including vivisection industry trade groups and animal abusers whom we have exposed. We do not sue our opponents under civil RICO claiming extortion or mail or wire fraud as a result of these activities. Rather, we fight those opponents in open public debates, in the media, in panel discussions, on radio and television talk shows, through letters to the editor, and by aggressively publicizing our views to rebut their positions. That is how it is meant to be in America.

Of course this is the same PETA that turned around and sued Rosie O’Donnell for $350,000 for saying that “the GAP uses only leather that is approved from PETA…” This despite the fact, that PETA had successfully lobbied for The Gap to switch its leather supplier from the Indian and Chinese suppliers it had been using.

PETA is notorious for threatening litigation over hair splitting stuff like this. PETA would have surely lost its case, but who has time to face off with these folks in court?

It will be interesting to see what the Supreme Court eventually decides. Using the standards that operated in the lawsuit against Scheidler and others, PETA itself would be wide open to RICO lawsuits given the numerous statements in support of violence and terrorism that Ingrid Newkirk, Bruce Friedrich and others have made over the years, especially in combination with their various acts of non-violent civil disobedience over the years.

If the Supreme Court upholds the Scheidler verdicts, look for serious repercussions against PETA and other animal rights groups. If the Court should overturn the verdicts, however, expect an even more emboldened crowd on the Internet and elsewhere in support of animal rights terrorism.

Source:

Supreme Court to review use of RICO laws against abortion protesters. Associated Press, April 22, 2002.

Statement of Jeff Kerr, Esq., General Counsel, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. Hearing Before the Subcommittee On Crime of the Committee on the Judiciary, House Of Representatives, One Hundred Fifth Congress, Second Session, July 17, 1998.

Best Anti-Animal Rights Ad Yet

Finally, there are a number of different organizations actively engaged in campaigns to dispel animal rights misinformation. I think the most effective ad I’ve seen yet is that being run by the Center for Consumer Freedom (formerly Guest Choice Network).

So far, they have run three separate ads, two of which were designed to clearly parody ads by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. My favorite features a young, smiling girl holding a cat. Along the right side of the ad is a quote by Bruce Friedrich saying, “It would be great if all the fast-food outlets, slaughter-houses, these laboratories and the banks who fund them exploded tomorrow.” The punch line is at the bottom of the ad — “Peta: Not as warm and cuddly as you thought.”

That’s an extremely effective ad — my hat goes off to whoever came up with the idea. Hopefully we’ll be seeing a lot more ads like that.

Center for Consumer Freedom has versions of all three of its ads available on its web site here.

Source:

Recent Advertising Campaign. Center for Consumer Freedom, January 14, 2002.