Tag: Ingrid Newkirk

Newkirk Agrees: Eating Meat in Moderation Can Be Healthy

Ingrid Newkirk appeared on CNN’s Crossfire on Sept. 6 to defend People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals’ latest billboard campaign urging Americans to lose weight by becoming vegetarians. But in the course of an exchange with Crossfire co-host Robert Novak, Newkirk offered an interesting admission about meat eating,

NOVAK: Ms. Newkirk, this is first time I’ve been on with you, and I’m a 71-year-old healthy American. I eat meat all the time. I even eat meat when I go to seafood places, and, you know, …

NEWKIRK: Fish meat. Fish is meat.

NOVAK: What is wrong with having a good steak? I don’t, either, overeat. What’s the problem with that?

NEWKIRK: Well from a health perspective, anything in moderation, I suppose, you can get away with. From a cruelty to animals perspective too, not only when…

NOVAK: I don’t like animals much, though.

See, even Newkirk agrees that a diet with moderate meat consumption can be healthy (it certainly hasn’t killed Novak yet, despite absurd claims by Newkirk later in the show that in order to live past 70 people needed to become vegetarians.)

Not so insightful were Newkirk’s claims about the history of human consumption of meat, this time in an exchange with Paul Begala,

BEGALA: I wonder if you’ve done anything to call attention to the fat polar bears who, you know, they subsist on a diet of meat up there, and they’re all fat. Are you going to move polar bears into veggie, too? Isn’t it, simply, natural for people to eat meat, just the way it is for some animals to eat meat?

NEWKIRK: They don’t say — anthropologists say that we started out, you know, picking berries and getting vegetables and fruits and things like that. And then, the first time we hit a Brontosaurus over the head, I think we fell in love with the taste of meat, and it sends us to the emergency room ever since. The more we’ve eaten, the sicker we’ve become as a nation, and so…

In fact the available evidence indicates that early human beings ate far more meat than that found even in American diets. They also ate plant-based foods as well, but Newkirk is completely off the wall trying to write meat out of the diet of early human beings (and, of course, homo sapiens never existed contemporaneously with Brontosaurs).

Still, Newkirk’s recognition that a diet including meat can be healthy is a good step forward for her.

Source:

Transcript, CNN Crossfire, Sept. 6, 2002, 19:00.

Dan Murphy's Excellent Commentary on AR2002

Dan Murphy, the editor Meat Marketing & Technology magazine, wrote an excellent account of an appearance he made at Animal Rights 2002.

Murphy was invited to give a short speech to activists covering areas where industry and activists might have some common ground. As you might expect, Murphy was largely wasting his time. As he wrote,

Not surprisingly, my remarks had about as much of a lasting impact on the more than 800 diehard activists in attendance as the “lecture” I gave my cat Riley last week about not clawing the couch.

. . .

Unfortunately, the overwhelming attitude among speakers, disciples and exhibitors alike encompassed a migraine-inducing mix of virulent anti-meat propaganda, bizarre animal action campaigns and a few frightening glimpses into the mind and soul of crusaders who have truly lost the plot.

Murphy relayed a long litany of things that the assembled activists were against as well as some choice quotes from people like Ingrid Newkirk (“You just look at animals — just look into their eyes — and you can tell they’re people. It’s that simple.”) and Paul Watson (“There is no way to change our laws without using violence, and we cannot shy away from violence as a crucial arm of the movement. We can all put ourselves on the line. It doesn’t take a four-year degree to call in a bomb threat.”)

But Murphy was brilliant in tearing apart a bizarre claim by the Animal Defense League’s Jerry Vlasak who argued that violence was compatible with the nonviolent outlook of the civil rights movement.

“Dr. [Martin Luther] King said that destroying property doesn’t violate the principle of non-violence,” [Violence] is part of every successful social justice movement.” (Jerry Vlasak, of the Animal Defense League). That last quote angers me.

Narrow-mindedness in the service of one’s chosen mission is at least understandable. But some of the animal rights leadership obviously enjoys selling a not-so-subtly packaged message of violence in service to the cause.

When the pro-violence folks quoted above arrogantly tried to claim King as a spiritual ancestor to the extremists responsible for blowing up trucks, bombing buildings and destroying the property of legitimate business people, I glanced around at the SRO crowd packed into the room, and the mostly young, predominantly female and almost exclusively white audience members were all nodding their heads in earnest agreement.

Were the real Dr. King still alive I can only imagine that he would disagree with far greater conviction. I won’t digress too extensively here, but allow me to share just a couple relevant quotes for those losers who have a dream that King would somehow relish their sick sanctioning of property destruction:

. . .

To suggest that arson in the name of the “cause” would be approved by Dr. King — whose own home was fire-bombed by white bigots passionate about their “cause” — is an ignorant interpretation of history at best.

To invoke the name of Martin Luther King on behalf of violent ALF types who are past even the fringe of legitimacy is a venal, bankrupt attempt at credibility that puts an Orwellian spin on a chapter of American social history about which I doubt more than a handful of the activist types at that Animal Rights meeting have more than an MTV-like video clip awareness of its significance.

In fact, using Vlasak’s perverse version of nonviolence, the fire bombing of King’s house was morally acceptable because nobody was hurt — only property was destroyed. According to Vlasak philosophy, somebody who might burn down a black church or firebomb an abortion clinic is not engaged in violence so long as it is only property that is destroyed.

That these sorts of pedantic arguments actually seem to find widespread acceptance in the animal rights movement is indicative of just how marginal the movement is. Nobody outside the movement buys these sorts of arguments anymore than the buy the argument of extremist anti-abortion advocates that destroying an abortion clinic is simply a valid act of defense on behalf of unborn children.

Source:

Animal Rights conclave window to weird world of act-out activists Dan Murphy, MeatingPlace.Com, July 12, 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.

PETA Puts Supporter of Violence on Its Payroll

Gary Yourofsky’s absence from the animal rights movement was short lived as the advocate of violence distributed a letter this week indicating that he is now on the payroll of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.

Yourofsky writes in his letter,

The day after my resignation letter was sent out a couple of months ago, I received a phone call from Ingrid Newkirk, PETA’s founder and president. Ingrid called after Bruce Friedrich, PETA’s Director of Vegan Outreach, informed her of my situation. As most of you recall, after six years of volunteering for ADAPTT, I resigned as ADAPTT’s president due to financial ruin.

Ingrid’s message was touching and emotional, to say the least. Frankly, I was blown away that Ingrid would call me with concern because I could no longer continue my activism. Getting a call and/or a request from Ingrid is like getting a call from the Godfather’s Don Corleone. It’s an offer one can’t refuse.

In a nutshell, Ingrid and PETA wanted to know what they could do to keep me involved. We’ve been in negotiations ever since. Then, on Monday, May 20, PETA made me its official, national lecturer. This union will benefit the animals immensely. Words cannot describe the joy that I am experiencing over this alliance.

Yourofsky’s comparison of Newkirk to the fictional Don Corleone is quite apt. Newkirk says she wishes she could torch labs, hires people who admire serial killers and advocate violence, contributes to legal funds for accused animal rights terrorists, and now has hired on Yourofsky who once said that, “I would unequivocally support” murder in order to further animal rights aims. Oh yeah, that’s a real peace loving, nonviolent bunch of folks right there.

Yourofksy is planning to hit the lecture tour and PETA apparently plans to sell recorded copies of his rantings. Yourofksy writes,

After watching my 68-minute presentation, PETA, like many others in this movement, believed that my vegan/animal liberation lecture was damn persuasive! So, our goal now is to have DAILY lectures set up in schools across the U.S. when the fall semester begins next September. Several people will be helping me achieve this goal. Plus, at the end of June, an oration will be recorded at a Michigan college and placed on VHS, DVD, and CD (audio). These items will be featured in PETA’s next issue of Animal Times which will be available in the PETA catalogue. This will help us reach many educators across the country.

The rest of Yourofsky’s letter is given to defending himself against charges that he’s “sold out,” since he used to blast PETA every chance he got. Yourofksy writes,

By the way, those closest to me know that I have been growing wiser as each year of activism passes. I used to be flat-out vituperative when it came to PETA and other groups who didn’t do things my way. But last year I started to realize that my acrimony was wrong and wasteful. . . .

Moreover, after spending a week here at PETA’s HQ in Norfolk, Virginia, I now see that PETA people work damn hard for the animals. There are 100 Yourofskys working in this building, each activist doing what they do best. Every activist should be required to meet our PETA brethren face-to-face and attend a monthly staff meeting to see all the hard work and achievements. While I may have had tactical differences with PETA, I have had tactical differences with EVERY group and EVERY activist involved in animal liberation, even the ALF!!!! Heck, I don’t even agree with myself sometimes!

For any of you out there who feel that I’ve sold out or something like that — let me paraphrase Paul Watson by saying what makes you think I care what you have to say? Creating an image for one’s self is NOT more important than fighting for animal freedom. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: “I work for the animals and the animals alone.” And, thanks to largest animal rights organization in the world and its founder Ingrid Newkirk, I can now continue my work!

Of course. The $10,000 that PETA gave Yourofsky to run anti-fur advertisements in the Detroit-area played no role whatsoever in his sudden change of heart.

Source:

Open Letter. Gary Yourofsky, May 28, 2002.

PETA Child Watch: Portsmouth Mayor Not Impressed by PETA's Targeting of Schoolchildren

In March 2002, Ingrid Newkirk appeared on CNN’s Crossfire and denied Tucker Carlson’s accusation that People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals crossed a line by targeting children. According to Newkirk, “… everything we do is based at adults. We’re asking adults [to] be responsible.”

The fact that PETA does not target children did not stop the group from showing up at Portsmouth Middle School in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, earlier this month to show a video depicting the slaughtering of pigs.

PETA showed up on a sidewalk outside the school with a large television monitor. The monitor showed a videotape of pigs beings slaughtered while two members of the group talked with students about the alleged cruelty involved in raising pigs.

POrtsmouth Mayor Evelyn Sirrell was livid at the PETA video showing, writing a letter to PETA asking,

Has your campaign failed so miserably among adults — those who actually make the food-choice purchases in homes across our city — that you must target children as young as 11 to try to make your case? Was this ethical treatment of young people, or simply a publicity stunt in poor taste?

Of course, as the New Hampshire Union Leader pointed out, it is precisely because PETA’s argument has failed that it is forced to resort to this “publicity at any costs” approach. As the Union Leader put it in an editorial,

Indeed. PETA has a history of using uncivil, even violent tactics to get its point across. Showing gory videos to children is just the latest low point for the group.

In these times of extremist politics, when many consider tolerance for other points of view unacceptable, uncivil behavior is often seen as a justified way of promoting a cause. Animal rights groups show shocking videos to kids and toss blood onto people, pro-life activists stand outside abortion clinics with grotesque posters of aborted babies, radical environmentalists burn and blow up buildings, and anti-technology wackos put bombs in mail boxes.

Frustration breeds this ill-mannered, tactless behavior. All of the activists mentioned above have lost their larger political battles, but have refused to give up the fight. Not that they should give up the fight. But in continuing their struggle, they shouldnÂ’t let their frustration get the better of them. Using extremely rude tactics is not only very bad manners, it also has the opposite of the intended effect. It just makes people more resolved in their opposition.

Aside from the error attributing violent acts to PETA, this is a pretty spot on analysis of the current state of the animal rights movement. It is in a Catch-22 of its own making in that individuals in leadership positions of groups such as PETA explicitly decided in the 1980s and 1990s to play to the media with high profile protests and claims.

This was a pretty effective strategy for awhile, but the problem is that after awhile this becomes old hat and PETA and other groups have been forced to find new ways to be shocking. Those methods, however, alienate precisely the sort of people that the animal rights movement would have to recruit in order to ever become anything more than a fringe movement.

This is why, I suspect, Newkirk lied on Crossfire about whether or not PETA targets children or adults. She’s caught in a trap of her own making where PETA has to pull stunts like this to get in the papers, but the very act of doing so alienates people who otherwise might be receptive to a discussion about the welfare of pigs slaughtered for food.

Sources:

Portsmouth mayor blasts PETA for showing kids grisly video. Jody Record, The Union Leader (New Hampshire), May 9, 2002.

Unethical treatment of people: PETA goes too far in Portsmouth. The Union Leader (New Hampshire), May 10, 2002.

Group Asks IRS to Investigate PETA's Tax Filings for 1997, 1998

In March the Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise filed a complaint with the Internal Revenue Service asking it to revoke the tax-exempt status of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. CDFE’s Ron Arnold argued in that complaint that, “PETA openly and actively induces and encourages unlawful acts by planning.” This month CDFE amended its complaint to ask the IRS to look into PETA’s 1997 and 1998 tax filings.

According to the amended complaint,

We have discovered irregularities in reporting grants and allocations by PETA that reinforce our request to revoke recognition of PETAÂ’s tax-exempt status under I.R.C. Section 501(c)(3):

  • PETA failed to provide a schedule of its grants and allocations to other organizations in addition to the totals in Part III of the Form 990, for the fiscal year ending July 31, 1998; and
  • PETA failed to provide a schedule of its grants and allocations to other organizations in addition to the totals in Part III of the Form 990, for the fiscal year ending July 31, 1997.

Based on examination of PETAÂ’s Form 990 annual reports for those two fiscal years, we find that the public inspection copy now on file with the IRS contains no detailed accounting for nearly one million dollars of PETA funds in grants and allocations to other groups. No schedule of grants and allocations was attached containing any list of any grant amount, any recipient, and any purpose. There is no evidence that such a schedule was ever filed with the IRS for either of the two fiscal years in question. PETA, however, did attach such a schedule to its Form 990 for the fiscal years before and after the two fiscal years in question. This irregularity in reporting prompted this complaint.

Rather than confirm or deny whether or not PETA had filed these forms, as required by federal law, Ingrid Newkirk simply attacked the complaint as irrelevant, telling CNSNews.Com that, “Nobody much cares about it, put it that way, except outlets that are perhaps sympathetic to this kind of thing.”

Source:

Group issues additional call for IRS investigation of PETA. Jason Pierce, CNSNews.Com, May 2,2002.

Re: People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc.. Ron Arnold, Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise, May 1, 2002.