Leave the Vegan Kids Alone, Part 2

A couple years ago I wrote about an incident in which a Utah high school tried to prevent a student there from wearing a t-shirt that carried the slogan, “Vegans Have First Amendment Rights.” Utah had been the site of a number of animal rights-related attacks by some Straight Edge hooligans, and the high school completely overreacted by banning the word “vegan” from clothing claiming that it qualified as a bonafide gang symbol.

In the intervening couple years, American schools have been carrying out one action after another in the name of “zero tolerance” that makes that little dustup pale in comparison. Now administrators at Stonington High in Connecticut have decided to join this dubious honor roll by punishing a student whose only transgression was criticizing McDonald’s at a school assembly.

The setting was a job interview skills session that took place at the school that McDonald’s agreed to host. The student, Tristan Kading, is a 15-year-old vegetarian and animal rights activist. At the assembly, the representative from McDonald’s asked for volunteers to participate in a mock job interview and Kading volunteered.

When the interviewer asked Kading to tell her a little bit about himself, Kading told her that he hated large corporations like McDonald’s. According to Kading, then “She says `Give me back the mike,’ and I said I would not want to work for a company that falsely advertises its French fries.” (McDonald’s until recently claimed its french fries were vegetarian, when in fact they contain a beef byproduct in the flavoring).

The principal of the school told Kading he was an embarrassment to the school, and forced Kading to read an apology over the public announcement system.

Legally, the principal was almost certainly within his rights as a school administrator to administer such punishment. But ethically the whole incident stinks. I don’t agree with Kading’s view of McDonald’s at all (in fact I think it is one of the more responsive and customer-oriented corporations around), but the only embarrassment to the school I see here is the heavy handed actions of the principal.

Source:

Forced Apology Sparks Debate. Rick Green, The Hartford Courant, June 3, 2001.

ALF/ELF Target McDonald's Corporate Headquarters

In a press release, the Animal Liberation Front and Earth Liberation Front took responsibility for the December 7, 2000 vandalization of McDonald’s corporate office in Long Island, New York. According to the release,

At roughly 1:30am Friday, December 7th, members of the ALF and ELF descended upon McDonald’s corporate offices in Haupauge. Here we smashed over 10 windows and spraypainted anti meat slogans against environmental destruction. We will not be stopped.

For good measure, ALF press officer/activist added that, “McDonald’s represents the core idea of American capitalism which places profit, power, and greed ahead of life.” Whereas vandalism is life affirming.

Source:

Earth Liberation Front Claim Joint Credit for Economic Sabotage at McDonald’s Corporate Offices on Long Island, NY. Front Line Information Service, press release, December 9, 2000.

PETA Takes on McDonald's

Apparently People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals has learned nothing from one of its biggest advertising
fiascoes, which is a good thing from this writer’s point of view. Claiming
that talks with McDonald’s aimed at reducing animal suffering had broken
down, PETA vowed to wage an advertising campaign against the popular restaurant
chain.

One of the ads will feature a drawing
of Ronald McDonald holding a bloody butcher knife and a dead chicken with
the tag line – “Son of Ron – America’s Biggest Serial Killer.”
Didn’t PETA learn anything from the backlash over the ad they took comparing
meat eaters to Jeffrey Dahmer?

McDonald’s spokesman Walt Riker
said the ad campaign was “unwarranted and tasteless and disgusting,
and I’m sure it will turn off a vast majority of Americans who might see
it.” Indeed.

Leave Oprah Alone Already

The Associated Press recently
ran a long profile of the Texas cattlemen who have the dubious distinction
of spending large amounts of money in an effort to keep alive a lawsuit
against Oprah Winfrey for disparaging remarks she said about beef on her
show several years ago. Winfrey already successfully defended herself
in a civil lawsuit brought by the cattleman, that in this writer’s opinion
made the Texas beef industry look very bad. Winfrey may show poor judgment
in relying on someone as unreliable as Howard Lyman for dietary advice,
but the same right to free speech that lets the industry and others show
the animal rights claims are nonsense also protects those who hold other
opinions.

According to the Associated
Press story, the cattlemen have spent close to $6 million pursuing the
case against Winfrey – currently they are appealing the result of the
civil trial on several grounds – and are willing to spend even more get
a court to hold Winfrey liable for her comments.

Charles Babcock, an attorney
for Winfrey, says that he does not see Winfrey giving in any time soon
either. “We feel this is a meritless lawsuit,” Babcock said.
“A jury decided it is a meritless lawsuit. The court of public opinion
says it is without merit. The trial judge said it is without merit. We
think the court of appeals will agree, but if not, we’re ready to go do
it again.”

The whole business carries
a lot of the stench associated with the |McDonald’s| lawsuit against activists
who passed out pamphlets in the United Kingdom accusing McDonald’s of
doing everything from producing food that caused cancer to destroying
the environment. Under British libel laws that heavily favor plaintiffs,
the so-called “McLibel” case became the longest running trial
in British history and when it was all said and done McDonald’s won an
award for a paltry $96,000.

Like the McDonald’s lawsuit,
the cattlemen’s obsessive pursuit of Oprah Winfrey is the sort of intimidation
tactic I would expect to see from animal rights activists.