Why So Much Violence for Animals?

By David Martosko, research director, Center for Consumer Freedom*

WASHINGTON: Casual observers of the New England protest culture have been thinking out loud lately: When did the animal-rights people turn so violent? Just recently, 12 activists were indicted on charges of attempted extortion and harassment. The group allegedly threatened to burn down an insurance broker's apartment building and harm his 2-year-old son.

So what does any of this have to do with animal rights?

The broker's employer provides insurance to Huntingdon Life Sciences, a well-known research facility that uses animals to find cures for diseases like breast cancer and Parkinson's Disease. That any company would choose to do business with such a firm astounds the animal-rights movement. Some of its more violence-prone members associate under the banner of "Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty" (SHAC).

The group's protesters in Great Britain - where this whole mess started - have blown up cars, issued death threats to elderly women, and applied the baseball-bat approach to diplomacy, literally, to Huntingdon's CEO. Since the company moved to the United States last year, the caravan of violence has shifted here as well.

Not that it should make anyone feel better, but Boston is not alone in this regard. As the conflict over Huntingdon has escalated, innocent people in places like Philadelphia, New York and Little Rock have been put in harm's way. This summer SHAC detonated military smoke bombs inside a pair of Seattle office buildings, evoking horrifying 9/11 parallels. A few weeks later, nine San Antonio hoodlums were charged with felony stalking for a loud, violent, all-night vigil. And now Bostonians who draw paychecks from the "wrong" companies are left to fear for their lives.

It gets stranger still. Instead of condemning acts like these as the work of terrorists, animal rights groups like People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) seem more concerned with making sure their jailed comrades get vegetarian meals in the slammer. PETA and its pseudo-medical front group, the misnamed Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM), have both been faxing Rikers Island on behalf of one New York animal-rights criminal. PCRM president Neal Barnard has even co-signed SHAC letters demanding that independent businesses in 13 countries yank their Huntingdon contracts.

Few Americans know that PETA has a long history of supporting violent activists, some of whom are affiliated with groups that, like the Animal Liberation Front (ALF), are regarded as "domestic terror groups" by the FBI. PETA served as press liaison for some of ALF's first U.S. crimes, and has so far spent over $100,000 of its tax-exempt contributions in attempts to keep ALF arsonists and vandals out of jail.

PETA campaign director Bruce Friedrich told last year's Animal Rights 2001 convention that "it would be a great thing if all of these fast-food outlets, these slaughterhouses, these laboratories and the banks that fund them exploded tomorrow. I think it's perfectly appropriate for people to take bricks and toss them through the windows, and everything else along the line. Hallelujah to the people who are willing to do it." For this, he earned a standing ovation.

This year's convention was no less incendiary. The Animal Rights 2002 event included panel discussions about the use of "physical threats" and on the nuts and bolts of handling "arson gone bad." This, of course, presumes that there's such a thing as "arson gone good."

Kevin Jonas, a former ALF "spokesperson" who now runs SHAC's operations in the United States, made several appearances. The convention program described Jonas's first speech as a discussion of "economic and peer pressure" and "physical threats." He boasted in one session that his group is targeting the entire medical-research industry, saying that they are "going to take them out, one by one, after Huntingdon."

"You don't need a four-year degree to call in a bomb hoax," Jonas yelled at one point. "It's time for us to start flexing our muscles." Now SHAC is openly planning a December event to mark the 50th birthday of Huntingdon Life Sciences "in a way they will never forget."

Again, the more "respectable" animal advocates have little criticism for this kind of vitriol. In April, PETA president Ingrid Newkirk acknowledged in U.S. News & World Report that nonviolent tactics are not as effective.

"We ask nicely for years and get nothing," Newkirk complained. "Someone makes a threat, and it works."

The animal-rights movement isn't just about fuzzy bunnies and baby seals anymore; last year alone, animal-rights attacks on U.S. soil cost Americans more than $20 million. And now human lives are in danger. There's a line between peaceful protest and issuing a fatwa against people whose careers one may find distasteful. Thugs and zealots of any stripe who cross it have earned a big scarlet "T." We shouldn't be afraid to call a terrorist a terrorist, and we must have the courage to defend our freedoms from all enemies, whether foreign or domestic.

* The Center for Consumer Freedom is a US-based coalition supported by restaurant operators, food and beverage companies, and concerned individuals. For further information contact: Center for Consumer Freedom, PO Box 27414, Washington, DC 20038; Tel: (202) 463-7112.

Back to Animal Rights / Home