Animal Rights Conclave Window to Weird World of Act-Out Activists

By Dan Murphy, editor, Meat Marketing & Technology, dedicated to the US and Canadian meat-processing industry.

It's a great feeling to define in sharp crisp outlines what you believe in, and what you stand against.

Don't worry. I'm not going to launch into a Kevin-Costner-as-Crash-Davis "I believe in …" rant.

But the reality is that we need the occasional pressure of a conflicting philosophy to sharpen our own viewpoints, much the way the relentless onslaught of the ocean defines the shoreline. That's not to say that there isn't a tidal area where the sea periodically recedes, only later to reclaim the beach, but in general, there's a value in knowing where the land ends and the water begins, philosophically speaking.

Such was the situation following a couple days spent free-ranging around the recent Animal Rights 2002 National Conference in Washington, D.C., where I was invited to deliver a short speech detailing a few issues where industry and activists might search for common ground. 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.

A few more moderate leaders were willing to dialogue on positive changes - however incremental - that could be effected by meatpacker and livestock producers. That alone was worth the trip.

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.

Here are but a few examples of what I encountered:

• Mission impossible: There are countless causes competing for an activist's attention these days, enough so that the properly righteous do-gooder can find it increasingly difficult to get through the day making appropriate choices.

  Obviously, you can't eat meat or chicken or fish (it's like voting Republican). But you also can't drink milk (causes disease, makes cows suffer) or wear fur or leather or buy, wear or display the skin, hide or pelt from any mammal, reptile or bird (it's theirs, not yours). You can't wear gold (mines are environmentally unsafe) or diamonds (exploits miners) or anything made of cotton (pollutes ecosystem). You can't support hunting (causes pain suffering, unlike when "natural" predators kill) or any sort of wildlife population control (unnatural). You can't ride horses (steals animal's freedom) or watch races (ditto) or train dogs for any purpose (it's like slavery) -- other than to eat vegetarian dog food -- or drink Perrier (depletes aquifers) or remove geese from private ponds (inhumane and unnatural) or watch a circus or visit a zoo (animals held captive) or use any cosmetics tested at commercial labs (exploits rats) or support coal-fired power plants (harms air and water) or nuclear-powered electric plants (radioactive storage problems) or infringe on wild horses and burros (they deserve to rule the range -- not cattle) or support any global corporations (harms environment, enslaves workers) or corporate farming or corporate food production or corporate anything, basically.

  Rule of thumb: If anything has "Corp." or "Inc." in its title, it's bad.

• Absence of malice: It's interesting, although not always enlightening, to hear some of the statements tossed around by people who accept without question the premise that anyone involved in animal agriculture is evil. Examples:

  "The meat industry has an incestuous relationship with USDA. They're able to get whatever favorable regulations they want. What we need is the 'right' president to appoint the 'right' secretary of Agriculture." (Wayne Pacelle, Human Society of the U.S.)

  "When people liberate fur farm animals, it's not true that they can't survive in the wild. They're not really domesticated, and if they're freed, some will die, but many will quickly adapt to natural environment and lead normal lives." (Kevin Jonas, Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty).

  "You just look at animals -- just look into their eyes -- and you can tell they're people. It's that simple." (Ingrid Newkirk, president of PETA).

• Dangerous liaisons: Should those outside the animal rights movement respect the participants? Of course. Should they be concerned that their motives and their tactics can become extreme? Judge for yourself.

  "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." (Paul Watson, Sea Shepherd International).

  "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 businesspeople, 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:

• "We are not advocating violence here today. We have overcome that. The only weapon we have in our hands this evening is the weapon of protest." (Speech in Montgomery, Ala., in December 1955 at the beginning of the boycott triggered by Rosa Parks against the city's segregated bus system.)
• "Violence as a way of achieving racial justice is both impractical and immoral. It is impractical because it is a descending spiral ending in destruction for all. It is immoral because it seeks to humiliate the opponent rather than win his understanding; it seeks to annihilate rather than to convert." (Lecture at Morehouse College, Atlanta, 1962.)
• "This award which I receive on behalf of the movement is profound recognition that nonviolence is the answer to the crucial political and moral question of our time: The need for man to overcome oppression and violence without resorting to violence and oppression." (Acceptance speech upon being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, December 1964.)

The Rev. Martin Luther King is about the closest our country comes to a contemporary hero, a visionary who occupied the moral high ground of a real movement, whose message of nonviolent resistance as an agent of social change in a segregated South was arguably one of the most profound socio-political events in our history. The appeal to conscience he delivered to white America from the pulpit, on the street corners and ultimately across an entire nation was a powerful message of dignity and purpose that resonates yet today, nearly 50 years after he proclaimed his belief that one day "justice would run down like water, and righteousness would flow like a mighty stream."

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.

Listen, among the many frivolous and foolish ones within the animal activist campaign there are some legitimate issues, such as trophy hunting, exotic animal breeding and unregulated operations of puppy mills. These are all areas where nobody in good conscience can claim that abuses don't exist.

But a blanket goal of pretending that it's possible for all animals, domestic and otherwise, to somehow live a pampered life free of hunger, stress, disease or suffering is ludicrous. That's not even possible (or worthwhile) for people!

I can offer support for the general notion that deliberately abusing animals is wrong. That's just common sense.

But I also can feel secure in my conviction that the world would NOT be a better place if animals were no longer a part of agriculture and food production. Such a starry-eyed notion -- even if it were plausible -- is not going to solve world hunger, clean up the environment, restore the rainforests and end global poverty and exploitation caused by greedy corporations.

That much I know.

And for that, I thank the Animal Rights 2002 people for their support.

Back to Animal Rights / Home