Anti-Fur Activist Sues Firefighter

This one had me laughing out loud. In April 2000, anti-fur protester Andrea Lindsay chained herself to a Nieman Marcus billboard that was atop a 10-story building in San Francisco. Now she’s suing the firefighter who removed her from that billboard, charging he assaulted her. She’s also suing police claiming their efforts to coax her down from the billboard “inflicted emotional distress.”

Most of Lindsay’s injuries were a direct result of her method of affixing herself to the billboard — she put a bicycle lock around her neck and attached it to part of the billboard. Then she dropped the key. Firefighters retrieved the key and unlocked Lindsay, but she claims she suffered injuries to her neck and back, as well as tearing in her ear lobes (she did all this wearing earrings).

Part of the lawsuit actually contends that she was placed at risk when, “Plaintiff then noted blood coming from her head which was not only painful but particularly distressful due to the large amount of rust and bird droppings on the billboard.” Yeah, its hard to imagine a billboard having rust and bird droppings. Aren’t those the sort of things you’re supposed to consider before chaining yourself to a billboard?

As for the emotional distress she suffered, Lindsey didn’t particularly like the no-nonsense manner in which police treated her. The lawsuit complains that police at various times told her, “Get the f– down” and “I don’t care how long you a– stay up there. For every minute you are up there, I’ll add another charge.” Apparently she was hoping for a written invitation.

San Francisco City Attorney Nathan Ballard put it better than I can in response to the lawsuit,

She admits that she chained herself to a billboard 50 feet in the air and now she wants us to feel ‘concerned for her safety’ when the Fire Department comes to rescue her. We’ll have to see what a jury thinks about that.

Maybe the firefighters who had to forcibly remove her from atop a 10 story building should counter sue Lindsay for recklessly putting their lives in danger with this little stunt.

Sources:

Activist sues firefighter rescuer: Alleges assault during removal from billboard. Peter Hartlaub, San Francisco Chronicle, June 13, 2001.

How PCRM Distorts Medical Research

A Tennessee newspaper recently provide an excellent example of how the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine distorts genuine medical research. Notice the difference between the reporter’s accurate summary of a recent study about dairy products and prostate cancer, and Neal Barnard’s snap judgement,

A recent study by the Harvard School of Public Health raised the possibility
that consuming lots of dairy products could modestly increase the risk of
prostate cancer. The study stressed the case was far from settled and
recommended further study of calcium’s effects on health.

“Dairy products cause hormonal changes in a man’s body that increase the risk
of prostate cancer,” said [Neal] Barnard, a psychiatrist and nutrition researcher
with Georgetown University.

For the activists, any study which finds a correlation for something they agree with becomes instant proof that they are right, while studies that find correlations which the activists don’t agree with (such as those finding some advantages for eating fish) are either ignored or dismissed out of hand.

Source:

Group Targets Mississippi Because Of High Prostate Cancer Death Rates. The Commercial Appeal (Memphis, Tennessee), June 13, 2001.

Newkirk on Animal Lovers (Or, Is It Okay to French Kiss Your Dog?)

Last week the New York Times ran an article in its arts section about the controversy that erupted after Peter Singer’s review of Midas Dekkers’ book, Dearest Pet: On Bestiality. It looked like this controversy was dead, but buried in the article is a bizarre quote from none other than People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals’ Ingrid Newkirk|. I have no idea of what to make of this,

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.

Apparently, PETA’s position on pets is that we should let domesticated animals die out, but if you have to keep a pet, French kissing it might not be all that bad.

In an e-mail to the Times reporter, Singer said that the only reason his book review caused such an uproar in the United States is that, “This country is in the grip of a Puritan worldview.” Maybe, but I think I’ll take a Puritan worldview over French kissing dogs any day of the week.

Source:

Yes, but Did Anyone Ask the Animals’ Opinion?. Sarah Boxer, New York Times, June 9, 2001.

Oops, HSUS Did It Again

It seems that the Humane Society of the United States can’t make up its mind about whether activists should protest Columbia, Missouri.

In a June 13, 2001, Humanelines e-mail — which is widely redistributed on numerous animal rights e-mail lists and web sites — HSUS wrote,

Stephens Lake recreational area, owned by the City of Columbia (MO) is waiting until the geese on their property begin molting (and are unable to fly) to round them up and send them to slaughterhouses. You can write to them in protest of their plan at: City of Columbia, Parks & Recreation Dept., (Attn: Karen Ramey), 1 South 7th St., Columbia, MO 65205 / email: [email protected] / (573) 874-7460.

But less than 24 hours later they sent out a semi-retraction,

Regarding the Stephens Lake, Canada Goose Roundup & Slaughter printed in yesterday’s Humanelines, it appears as though the City of Columbia may NOT actually be engaged in such a slaughter plan. Please hold off on sending your protest letters until we can actually confirm the City of Columbia’s stance on this issue. We apologize for the confusion, and thanks for your patience!

Ariana Huemer
HSUS Government Affairs
[email protected]

Hey, everyone makes mistakes, but you’d think HSUS would thoroughly fact check a story before sending out a plea for people to call and write to protest.

PETA on Flood Victims

More than a dozen people died in Texas in early June after flood waters inundated the state. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals is more concerned, however, with the non-human victims of the flood — 30,000 laboratory animals who died as a result of flooding at Baylor College of Medicine and the University of Texas Medical School at Houston.

In a press release, PETA said,

Apparently, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) allows research institutions in flood-prone regions to warehouse animals in basements without providing a plan for their evacuation in the event of flooding. NIH also consistently promises to reimburse such institutions for “losses,” thereby removing any incentive for properly caring for the tens of thousands of animals in the researchers’ possession.

I’m not certain how exactly 30,000 lab animals would be evacuated, but PETA is being extremely hypocritical when it goes on to argue that the NIH should require that no animals are stored on basement levels in flood-prone area, and adds, “No one can reasonably argue that with an annual budget of $310 million and $60 million, respectively, Baylor College of Medicine and the University of Texas Medical School at Houston couldn’t afford a security guard!”

Of course beginning the mid-1980s, such facilities have had to dramatically increase their expenditures for security systems and personnel to prevent animal rights terrorism, which PETA itself endorses. Maybe if they didn’t have to spend so much time and money trying to keep PETA’s Animal Liberation Front friends from getting in, they might have a bit more left over for plans to get animals out in case of flooding.

Source:

Texas Floods Drown 30,000 Caged Animals. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Press Release, June 2001.

Great Britain to Prosecute Farmer for Foot-And-Mouth Related Offenses

With speculation still running rampant about the source of the Foot and Mouth Disease epidemic in Great Britain, the Northumberland County Council recently confirmed to the BBC that it plans to prosecute pig farmer Bobby Waugh for his alleged role in the outbreak.

The Ministry of Agriculture has identified Waugh’s farm as the likely source of the outbreak. Waugh is being charged with “failure to notify the existence of disease in pigs between its occurrence and discovery by Maff” as well as “feeding unprocessed catering waste to pigs.”

Six hundred pigs at Waugh’s farm were destroyed in March in an attempt to control the spread of the disease.

Waugh denies the allegations and claims that the government is trying to turn him into a scapegoat for the epidemic.

“They are just clutching at straws,” Waugh told the BBC. “I can disprove all these charges. They are determined to make me responsible for the foot-and mouth crisis.”

Source:

Pig farmer faces prosecution. The BBC, June 1, 2001.