Earth Liberation Front Claims Credit for $50 Million Fire

Earth Liberation Front extremists carried out their most expensive arson to date in early August when they set fire to a five-story apartment complex under construction. Estimates of the total damage was $50 million.

A 12-foot banner reading “If you build it, we will burn it” and the ELF initials was found at the scene.

About 400 people had to be evacuated from surrounding apartment complexes as the 3 a.m. fire raged.

By coincidence, Rodney Coronado just happened to be giving a speech in San Diego the same evening the fire was set, and numerous media outlets sought out the convicted arsonist for his views on the attack. The Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise compiled a list of quotes of Coronado from various media sources,

  • “I disagree with the FBI’s declaration that ELF is a terrorist organization. I consider a terrorist to be somebody who kills people.”
  • “The fire was a message. The first intent is obviously to cause economic hardship to companies, individuals responsible for destroying the environment.”
  • “I would rather see an apartment complex burn to the ground than developers making money off the environment.”
  • “Regardless of how people feel about these actions, they do help bring the issue to the public’s attention and maybe when it’s enough in the public’s attention that’s when governments will be called upon to do something about it.”

Sources:

Earth Liberation Front claims responsibility for San Diego arson. Seth Hettena, Associated Press, August 18, 2003.

The Center View: Earth Liberation Front commits most dangerous arson yet. Press Release, Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise, August 1-4, 2003.

Animal Testing of Chemicals in Europe and the United Kingdom

In Europe, as in the United States, environmentalists are pushing for extensive safety testing of tens of thousands of chemicals. This is putting them in the path of animal rights activists who note that the proposed changes would result in millions more animal tests.

The European Parliament should vote sometime next year on new rules that would require companies to prove a chemical is safe before it can be formally registered. That could be a lengthy process involving killing a lot of animals.

Dr. Jennifer Dandrea of the Fund for the Replacement of Animals told the Daily Telegraph that anywhere from 1.2 million to 10 million more animal tests would be required for companies to comply with the law. Dandrea added that, “Some substances have a very low hazard. For them to be test on animals is pointless.”

In July the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution released a report urging the UK to adopt laws that require more stringent rules than even the European Union regulations, with one exception. The report recommended eliminating all chemical safety tests using animals, instead requiring only that they be screened using computer models.

Sources:

Health effects of chemicals need closer scrutiny. British Medical Journal, July 5, 2003, 327:10.

Euro safety rules ‘will increase’ animal tests. David Derbyshire, Daily Telegraph, July 10, 2003.

AVMA Officially Opposes Pet Guardianship

At a meeting of its Executive Board in May, the American Veterinary Medical Association approved a statement opposing efforts to designate pet owners as “guardians.”

The position statement reads,

Ownership vs. Guardianship

The American Veterinary Medical Association promotes the optimal health and well-being of animals. Further, the AVMA recognizes the role of responsible owners in providing for their animals’ care. Any change in terminology describing the relationship between animals and owners does not strengthen this relationship and may, in fact, diminish it. Such changes in terminology may decrease the ability of veterinarians to provide services and, ultimately, result in animal suffering.

Several cities and one state, Rhode Island, have approved laws designating pet owners as “guardians.” Source:

AVMA opposes ‘pet guardianship’. American Veterinary Medical Association, Press Release, July 3, 2003.

Shriners, Animal Rights Activists Throw Down in Minnesota

In July a physical altercation took place between at Shriners and animal rights activists at the Shriners national convention in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Police were called, but no arrested were made and charges were not pressed against members of either group.

According to the Minneapolis Star Tribune, about 15 animal rights activists dressed in clown outfits were protesting across the street from a convention center where the Shriner convention was being held. The Tribune reported that,

The initial altercation was between a Shriner, Rob Bernhardt of Denver, and Lori Peterson, a Minneapolis attorney and activist, who wore a bright orange fright wig and a polka-dot bow tie. Bernhardt, arguing with another protester, turned around and saw Peterson standing on the sidewalk.

“I told her to get out of the way, and she said, ‘You’re gonna have to get me out of the way,’ said Bernhardt, who might outweigh Peterson by 100 pounds. “I pushed her out of the way, then the guy on the other side pushes me, and then she goes in on me low, and we’re in the bushes.”

Peterson said, “He threw me into the bushes. I don’t remember throwing punches, but I kicked him between the legs.”

Others then joined in the fracas which apparently lasted a couple minutes.

In an e-mail posted to an animal rights mailing list, Lori Peterson said of the incident,

The truly amazing thing is that several of them PHYSICALLY ATTACKED US! ! ! ! ! THEY WERE HUGE! ! ! They physically threw a female activist (me!) over a cement wall and into some bushes and jumped on top of her, they punched out a 62 year-old man who was trying to break up the melee [sic], they punched a college student repeatedly in the face and knocked his head against a metal pipe, they punched a security guard, and more. Several activists were bleeding and bruised.

We called the police (and the press!) and had to follow the Shriners/perpetrators down the street, as they were trying to escape dealing with law enforcement. Let me reiterate: the two main Shriner instigators were HUGE. They must have weighted 300 lbs each and looked ready to go into labor at any moment. Turns out, they are father and son. (I’m proud to say I nailed the biggest one in the nuts, as difficult as it was to find them).

The police and press showed up and conducted interviews. They also watched (without being detected) what the Shriners who walked past said. They got some choice tidbits firsthand. We are considering suing not only the individuals engaged in the violence, but also the Shrine organization. Maybe their money should be used to finance animal rights for a change, instead of to fund their clubhouses, motorcycles, stupid hats and liquor.

Peterson and the other activists were protesting against the Shriners’ circus which features performing animals.

Sources:

Animal-rights activists, Shriners spar at convention. Nolan Zavoral, Star Tribune (Minneapolis), July 7, 2003.

Shriners physically attack activists. Lori Peterson, E-mail communication, July 7, 2003.

AMP on Animal Rights 2003

Compared to the last couple years, there was very little national media coverage of the Animal Rights 2003 convention in Washington, DC this year. According to a summary report of the event by Americans for Medical Progress, AR2003 appeared to have lower attendance and a different focus than previous such events,

It’s evident that this year’s conference is not meant for longtime participants of animal rights campaigns, but is primarily to inculcate a much younger crowd of new initiates who have been recently drawn to the animal rights philosophy. Nearly half the program is filled with workshops on lifestyle matters such as choosing a career, how to avoid burnout, and setting personal priorities. . . .

. . .

This week’s convention may be made most notable not by its speakers, but by those in the movement’s national leadership who are not there. There is no trace of PETA, which had been a major sponsor of previous conventions and whose founder, Ingrid Newkirk, gave the keynote speech at last year’s convention. Neal Barnard, president of PETA’s sister organization, the oxymoronically-named Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, had been listed as a speaker, but opted for remaining on tour promoting his latest book, instead. The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) which also fielded a great number of experts at past conventions, was not represented. The HSUS has also dropped its traditional role as organizer of the activists’ day of congressional lobbying. Many of the workshops previously handled by PETA, PCRM and HSUS staff are being run this year by the staff of the chief sponsor, Farm Animal Reform Movement (FARM).

The organizers have not released information about the number of registrants, but it appears to observers that the numbers of activists attending are far lower than those of previous years.

As AMP noted, though, that may be due to the decision to split the convention into two separate East and West Coast events.

Nonetheless AMP found a few interesting things to report on, with their summary of remarks by Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty’s Kevin Jonas being especially interesting,

Of special interest to those in the research community is that Jonas has backed away from the claim of SHAC’s victory over Huntingdon Life Sciences, which he made at last year’s meeting.

Now, he talks more of the sacrifices involved in his campaign, telling the audience about the raid on his home by federal authorities and jail time he and other activists have endured. As for closing HLS, he demurred. It may take three weeks, three months, three years or thirty years, he noted, saying simply that ‘an example’ was going to be made of the company.

He said of SHAC: “Our campaign comes with an attitude that we noted was missing from the animal rights movement and one that we know the media would bite onto, that of a very aggressive, unapologetic, uncompromising ‘militant’ campaign . . . and, sure enough, it worked.” He talked of the media attention SHAC has been able to obtain. “We need to have some PT Barnum in us; we need to know how to market, how to put our propaganda out there so that people will pay attention. We spent a long time fine tuning and tinkering with our image and it has paid off.” Jonas told the activists, “The tactics we use here can be used against any other company to tear them apart.”

“We want our opposition and the public to know . . . that there is a large and growing segment among us who say enough is enough,” Jonas said. “We aren’t interested in sitting down and having coffee with an animal abuser and asking them to be compassionate . . . we are going to be the force . . . that punches back. Enough is enough.”

Source:

AMP News Service Special Report: At the AR 2003 Convention – Part I. Americans for Medical Progress, July 2003.

Karen Davis on Chicken Catching

In June, the Wall Street Journal ran an article about hand vs. machine catching of chickens. On July 2, 2003, the Journal published a letter-to-the-editor from United Poultry Concerns’ Karen Davis (emphasis added),

Chicken catching, whether by hand or by machine, is completely violent. And bruised and wounded birds do not always conveniently go out of sight into livestock feed. They are processed into nuggets and other unwholesome products like sausages and patties.

For the chickens, hand catching versus machine catching is terrorism either way, just one more part of their totally miserable lives.

Source:

Totally miserable lives. Karen Davis, Letter, Wall Street Journal, July 2, 2003.