PETA and Bestiality, Round 2

In March, one Harold Hart, 63, of Neillsville, Wisconsin was arrested for allegedly had committed sexual acts with cows at a Greenwood, Wisconsin farm more than fifty times since 2004. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, of course, was all over this, but their reaction was a bit odd given Ingrid Newkirk’s previous claims about bestiality.

PETA’s Daniel Paden sent a letter to Clark County District Attorney Darwin Zwieg urging Zwieg to order psychological testing for Hart and waxed on about how people who have sex with animals are also supposedly more likely to engage in other criminal behaviors,

A recent study by Jory, Flemming, and Burton shows that 96 percent of offenders who had engaged in bestiality also admitted to sexual assaults on humans. When asked how many serial killers had a history of abusing animals, FBI supervisory special agent Alan Brantley, a psychologist who was formerly on staff at a maximum security prison, said, “The real question is, ‘How many do not?Â’” Experts agree that it is the severity of the behavior, not the species of the victim, that matters.

PETA’s Martin Mesereau also maintained there was a link between bestiality and other sex crimes, saying in a press release,

Studies show that offenders who commit bestiality often go on to commit sex crimes against humans. The community should follow this case closely because anyone capable of this kind of cruelty poses a definitive risk, not just to animals, but to fellow human beings.

If people who have sex with animals are so much more likely to engage in other criminal sexual acts, why was Ingrid Newkirk so nonchalant about it when defending Peter Singer’s claims about bestiality?

Singer, you might remember, was roundly criticized by most animal rights activists and groups for saying the following in a book review,

The potential violence of the orangutan’s come-on may have been disturbing, but the fact that it was an orangutan making the advances was not. That may be because [Birute] Galdikas understands very well that we are animals, indeed more specifically, we are great apes. This does not make sex across the species barrier normal, or natural, whatever those much-misused words may mean, but it does imply that it ceases to be an offence to our status and dignity as human beings.

The only prominent activist who came to Singer’s defense was Ingrid Newkirk, who said of bestiality,

If a girl gets sexual pleasure from riding a horse, does the horse suffer? If not, who cares? If you French kiss your dog and he or she thinks it’s great, is it wrong? We believe all exploitation and abuse is wrong. If it isn’t exploitation and abuse, it may not be wrong.

Following Newkirk’s claims, shouldn’t investigators first establish whether or not the sex between Hart and the bovines was consensual and or not? Certainly the fact that he apparently tied the cows up first might initially lead one to conclude that it was not, but perhaps the cows on this particular farm have some sort of bondage fetish. Either way, at a minimum — using Newkirk’s benchmark — bestiality may not even be wrong, much less lead people to commit sex crimes against humans.

Perhaps Hart’s defense should claim that he was merely taking noted animal advocate Ingrid Newkirk’s advice. No, wait a minute . . . if a judge learns Hart takes Newkirk seriously, that would be proof positive that he’s nuts.


PETA pressures DA in cow-sex case. Marshfield News-Herald, March 9, 2005.

Peta Demands Jail Time, Psychiatric Intervention If Alleged Neillsville Animal Rapist Is Convicted. Press Release, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, March 8, 2005.

Australian Minister Accuses PETA of Involvement with Terrorist Groups

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals recently threatened to sue Australia’s Agricultural Minister Warren Truss after Truss accused the animal rights group of providing aid and comfort to animal and environmental terrorists.

Truss apparently cited testimony by the Center for Consumer Freedom about PETA’s alleged involvement with the Animal Liberation Front and Earth Liberation Front. CCF reprinted part of Truss speech which said,

But even more concerning, it has been alleged in a US Senate hearing by the same organization that PETA has provided aid and comfort to people associated with two groups considered domestic terrorist threats by the FBI — the Earth Liberation Front (ELF) and the Animal Liberation Front (ALF).

According to the FBI, the two groups have been responsible for more than 600 crimes since 1996, causing more than $43 million in damage. The ALF even brags on its website that the two groups committed “100 illegal direct actions” — like blowing up four-wheel-drives, destroying the brakes on seafood delivery trucks, and planting firebombs in restaurants — in 2002 alone.

PETA lawyer Jeff Kerr threatened to sue Truss calling the claims part of a smear campaign by a “discredited group.”

If the statements are untrue and part of a smear campaign, then why hasn’t PETA sued the Center for Consumer Freedom for making the same statements for several years now? Perhaps PETA doesn’t think it would help to go into court only to have CCF show PETA’s own 2001 tax return showing a $15,000 donation to the Earth Liberation Front. Or maybe it doesn’t want to be reminded of Ingrid Newkirk’s odd behavior in the Rodney Coronado case which was cited in the government’s sentencing memo (emphasis added),

Forensic evidence discovered during the investigation confirmed that Coronado played an important role in planning and executing the ALF’s campaign of terrorism. Investigators learned that immediately before and after the MSU arson, a Federal Express package had been sent to a Bethesda, Maryland address from an individual identifying himself as “Leonard Robideau”. The first package went to Ingrid Newkirk, PETA’s founder.

. . .

Significantly, Newkirk had arranged to have the package delivered to her days before the MSU arson occurred.

Not to mention quotes from everyone from Bruce Freidrich to Dan Mathews to Newkirk herself expressing approval for actual acts of violence and destruction and anticipation that more such acts might be forthcoming.

I suspect that this lawsuit will have the same sort of longevity as PETA’s lawsuit against New Jersey over another PETA attorney’s violent altercation with a deer.


PETA may sue over Truss’ terror comments. Australian Associated Press, March 3, 2005.

Not A G’Day For PETA Down Under. Press Release, Center for Consumer Freedom, March 4, 2005.

Ingrid Newkirk On the Evils of Procreation

Ingrid Newkirk is making the rounds with a new book, “Making Kind Choices” — no word on whether or not firebombing research laboratories heads the list of kind choices. But Newkirk is traveling the country promoting the book and giving interviews, some of which reveal more about her extremist views.

First, as usual, Newkirk is less than truthful in her interview in this exchange with OnlineMilwaukee.Com (emphasis added),

OMC: Is it true you said you want to dance on Col. Sanders’ grave?

Newkirk (laughing): No, that I never said. But KFC, unlike McDonald’s, Wendy’s and Burger King, refuses to make any reforms in their treatment of chickens. I ask people not to stop the car for KFC. . .

But the truth is that Newkirk did, in fact, suggests dancing on Col. Sanders grave. That anecdote comes from a New Yorker profile of PETA by Michael Specter in which Specter writes of attending a brainstorming session with Newkirk and other PETA employees (emphasis added),

The group devoted the biggest block of time to its most important current action: the campaign against KFC. According to the company’s Web site, last year the chain served seven hundred and thirty-six million chickens. If the chickens served in its restaurants in 2002 were laid head to claw, they would circle the equator more than eight times. Somebody suggested making Colonel Sanders action figures, or having people go to Louisville basketball games dressed only in a bucket. Another person said that perhaps they ought to commit civil disobedience at KFC restaurants; getting arrested is always good for the cause. Newkirk quickly rejected that idea. “No,” she said. “Once you start, you have to continue, and I don’t think we have the resources or the support yet.” Everyone agreed that they had to attack the image of the Colonel. “He is loved in Louisville, and he is buried there,” someone said. Newkirk’s eyes lit up. “Why not find out when his birthday is, call the newspapers, and go dance on his grave?” she said.

Asked by OnlineMilwaukee.Com if she really plans to donate her body parts after her death, Newkirk replied,

Yes. I plan to send my liver somewhere in France to protest foie gras (liver pate). California recently banned this food and England and Germany banned it as well. I really think France needs to ban it.

OMC: What else?

Newkirk: I am going to donate my pointer finger to Ringling Brothers. Not the (swear) finger, I’m not that rude, but the pointer finger is a way to say “shame on you.” They have mistreated so many animals over the years, and recently killed three baby elephants that were too young to be weaned from their mother.

I plan to have handbags made from my skin . . . and an umbrella stand made from my seat. I grew up in India and it’s common for an elephants foot to be cut off and made into an umbrella stand. My feet are too small to make a proper umbrella stand, but my seat . . .

Newkirk also reiterates her view that having children is a very selfish thing to do,

OMC: I read that you think having a baby is like adopting a pure-bred animal — totally selfish.

Newkirk: Yes, that’s true. I wish more people would adopt children. If I had more time, I would. There are so many beautiful children in Eastern Europe — all over the world — that need to get out of orphanages and into families.

Well, I think we can all be glad that Newkirk did not selfishly decide to reproduce or adopt.


PETA president promotes new pub. Molly Snyder Edler, February 1, 2005.

PETA Targets Children — And Lies Again

Despite Ingrid Newkirk’s assertions that People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals does not target children, the animal rights group recently launched a campaign — “Chickens are Friends, Not Food” — aimed at elementary school-aged children.

According to the Associated Press, PETA’s vegan campaign coordinator Matt Rice sent letters to 120 principles of schools across the South wanting to show a PETA produced film, “The Secret Lives of Chickens” and hand out PETA trading cards trying to convince children not to eat chicken. Not surprisingly, according to Rice, “Not one principal responded to our letters.”

Well, maybe if Rice could go through a single interview without an abject lie. He told the Associated Press this whopper,

We would never use shock tactics with children. Children are so naturally empathetic to animals that we focus on showing chickens as intelligent with distinctive personalities, just like pet cats and dogs.

So when PETA promised to distribute Bloody Crown Meals to children at Burger King and Unhappy Meals at McDonald’s, those weren’t shock tactics? Here’s what PETA itself said about the Bloody Crown Meals,

Kids lured to Burger King by the free toy crown bestowed on young burger buyers will have plenty of food for thought when they receive PETA’s new promotional handout: a “blood-soaked” crown with golden points impaling pigs and cows. Below each skewered animal are factoids about how animals suffer on Burger King’s factory farms and a slogan that asks, “How Much Cruelty Can You Stomach?” The PETA crowns make their debut in Los Angeles on May 8 and then will appear at Burger Kings across the country.

Not to mention that last December PETA said it would distribute Your Mommy Kills Animals comic books to children whose parents were wearing fur. Again, here’s what PETA itself said about its plans to give the comic books away outside of holiday performances of The Nutcracker,

PETA activists – including cuddly, costumed raccoons and foxes – are making guest appearances outside performances of The Nutcracker across the country this holiday season with a cheeky message of compassion. As children arrive to see the “Dance of the Sugarplum Fairy,” some will be unaware that their mothers are already starring in a real-life horror story! PETA will be there to greet any fur-clad moms and their children with their newest anti-fur leaflet-PETA Comics presents…”Your Mommy Kills Animals!”</p?

Kids will see the bloody truth behind their momsÂ’ pretentious pelts. Accompanied by graphic photographs of skinned carcasses and animals languishing on fur farms, children will read: “Lots of wonderful foxes, raccoons, and other animals are kept by mean farmers who squish them into cages so small that they can hardly move. They never get to play or swim or have fun. All they can do is cry-just so your greedy mommy can have that fur coat to show off in when she walks the streets.”

Like everyone else at PETA, Matt Rice is first and foremost an opportunistic liar.


PETA’s latest message aimed at youngsters. Lynda Edwards, Associated Press, June 2, 2004.

An Example of How Animal Rights Extremists Rationalize Violence

Animal rights activist Ari Moore, who says he is a member of both People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and Farm Sanctuary, has a post on his weblog in which he rationalizes his desire to engage in violence to further the animal rights cause. Moore’s thoughts on violence are inspired by an issue of Satya magazine that offered a platform for advocates of animal rights terrorism, including the University of Texas at El Paso’s resident terrorist apologist, Steven Best.

Moore writes of his acts of wanting to move beyond his acts of animal rights-inspired graffiti,

I was at a place right before I read the first issue where I was going to step up my anti-speciesist graffiti by throwing red model paint at fast food restaurants and stores that sell furs and/or lots of leather. It hardens to a dark red gloss that looks a lot like blood and is very difficult to remove. I’d also affix a statement explaining the action, perhaps stuck in the paint so it would be difficult to remove. Time was, I would not engage in any action that caused fiscal damage. Over time, I began writing on and stickering over advertisements on phone booths, advertising walls (disgusting marketing development in New York), subway posters and the like. After a while, throwing red paint started looking like a good next step.

I thought I had everything well thought out but now my thinking is even more developed, though I still haven’t decided whether I’m going to stop with the fiscal damage or step it up even further, perhaps join the ALF. (Shhh, it’s secret.)

Moore then goes on to describe the two basic competing ideas he ran through — how would any such action benefit animals and how would the intended audience perceive it. You’ll note that in his analysis he doesn’t waste a single word on the rights of his proposed victims. They simple don’t count,

The issues as I see them are this: I have to keep two things in mind, the benefit to the animals I’m working for, and the impact on my audience — people. While theoretically, stealing farm animals and burning the farm buildings to the ground would save not only the present inhabitants but prevent them from being quickly replaced by yet more animals, this would most likely have a terrible impact on the credibility and image of the animal rights movement, and could possibly be so damaging that in the long run more animals would end up suffering while we repaired the damage. Conversely, while a purely non-violent, pacifist approach that excludes all property damage and vandalism would make for a very respected and trusted movement in the public eye, this restraint would be a form of passive violence (i.e. if a psycho rapist is threatening to harm children, you get in there and you push the fucker away, pacifism be damned).

You have to love that last sentence — by not committing an act of violence against McDonald’s or a furrier, Moore would in fact be committing a large act of violence against animals by failing to help them. Although acts of terrorism are clearly not on par with those committed by groups dedicated to killing as many people as possible, such as Al Qaeda, they do at least share with such groups ridiculous attempts at rationalizing their actions. If Moore commits an act of violence it’s not his fault or responsibility — its actually his victim’s fault for putting him in a position where if he does nothing he is guilty of a “form of passive violence.”

Moore restates this basic idea a couple paragraphs later by claiming that extreme situations require extreme methods,

On one side of the debate there are total pacifists, many of them making rash generalizations about how violent so many animal rights activists are, and on the other side there are those who use violence against property (but not against any sentient being, unless you count intimidation as violence) to varying degrees.

I have to admit that I’m feeling more in line with the latter folk. When Malcolm X used the words “by any means necessary,” he wasn’t advocating random violence, but self defense. The violence carried out against people of color, women, the poor and the homeless demands that we exercise our right to defend ourselves — or in the case of animal rights, to defend those who can not defend themselves. Extreme situations require extreme methods. In the words of Ingrid Newkirk as quoted by Steve Best, Ph.D. in Satya:

If a concentration camp or laboratory is burned, that is violence, but if it is left standing is that not more and worse violence?Â…IsnÂ’t the chicken house todayÂ’s concentration camp?Â…Will we condemn its destruction or condemn its existence? Which is the more violent wish?

So how will does all of this work in everyday situations? If I throw red paint at McDonald’s, some worker may get pissed off the next day because he has to go scrape it off, and a few people may feel guilty when it occurs to them that what they’re eating is rotting corpse, but they may then close off and get angry instead of changing their actions. But perhaps a lot of people walking by will wake up a little, be startled into thinking about something they don’t usually think about. Maybe the people eating there who feel guilty will decide not to eat there again. Maybe the workers will question what it is they’re being paid to do, and what it is they’re eating. Maybe vegans passing by will feel validated in knowing that other people feel the same way they do, and maybe they’ll be inspired to do some direct action themselves.

Fascinating. Moore has gone from saying that acts of violence may be justifiable because to stand by will allow greater acts of violence to occur, to suggesting that acts of violence may be justified if the acts are publicized and end up validating others who agree with him. This, of course, is exactly the argument that racist extremists use to justify vandalizing the homes of minorities — such vandalism both acts to intimidate the victim (and like Moore probably don’t see intimidation as being violence) as well as validates the opinions of other potential racists in the community. (And, like animal rights extremism, usually tends to produce a backlash much bigger than both).

Moore concludes his essay with a flourish,

So I believe that in some cases non-violence is needed, and in others, considered and careful use of violence against property is needed — a diversity of approaches, always keeping the benefit to non-human animals and the impact on humans in mind. It’s just occurred to me that these two considerations are essentially ahimsa: the most good and the least harm. So I knew this all along. I just had to read a lot and think a lot to get to the answer in a more roundabout way.

Which is simply a long-winded way of saying that, for Moore, the ends justify the means. What a shocker there.


Yet more vegan evolution. Ari Moore, May 7, 2004.

PETA Activists Pester Neighborhood Children After Arriving After School Closure

You remember People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, right? The group that Ingrid Newkirk insisted on national television doesn’t target children? Well, for some reason it sent three activists to Capitol Middle School in Baton Rouge, Louisiana in May to convince children that it is wrong to eat chicken

What the PETA activists did not realize is that the school had let out two hours earlier, it being the last day of the 2003-2004 school year for Capitol Middle School students. So what did the three activists from an organization that doesn’t target children do then? Of course, they pestered neighborhood children walking or riding by the school.

The Advocate newspaper reports the following exchange that PETA’s Matt Rice had with a child outside the school,

Rice asked Keshon Bell, also a sixth-grader at Capitol Middle, whether she eats chicken.

“I eat chicken,” she said.

“That’s too bad. They’re just like dogs and cats,” Rice responded.

“Like that dog over there,” Bell said, pointing out a dog, perhaps dead, which had been lying in the middle of Gus Young Avenue, the whole time.

Afterward, Bell said eating chickens is wrong, repeating what the activists were saying in her own way.

“I know you can’t kill dogs and cats,” she said.

For an organization that targets their message entirely at adults, as Newkirk said, PETA spends an awful lot of time targeting children.


Animal-rights group too late to take message to school. Charles Lussier, The Advocate (Baton Rouge, Louisiana), May 21, 2004.