Friday, December 19, 2008

Winograd: Taking Back Our Movement

Another excellent posting from Nathan Winograd, a no-kill advocate from California, who has unbelievable had to fight tooth and nail with the likes of PETA to establish no-kill shelters - as PETA has the backwards idea that 'animal rights' for cats and dogs is the right to be systematically murdered by humans.

According to this blog entry, a whopping 17 out of 1,997 cats and dogs were adopted out in 2008. That's a 0.8% success rate. Less than one percent. I think a dog has a great chance of surviving multiple lightening strikes than getting adopted out by PETA.

Enough from me, read on - by the end, join me in telling PETA and their supporters these famous words: I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it any more!

Taking Back Our Movement

PETA is once again on the attack against ending the killing of dogs and cats in shelters and pounds. PETA functionaries like Daphna Nachminovitch and Teresa Chagrin continue to give voice to Ingrid Newkirk’s dark impulses by writing letters to the editors of newspapers, asking supporters to call their city councils, and putting out misleading and false propaganda in communities that have announced plans to lower shelter death rates by hiring compassionate animal control directors, passing shelter reform legislation, seeking No Kill goals, or implementing programs like TNR for feral cats.

Every time a community questions its shelter rate of killing and makes a decision to do something to reduce it in a manner consistent with the No Kill philosophy and the programs which make it possible, PETA goes on the offensive. In Pittsburgh, they called for the City to continue killing feral cats, rather than neutering and releasing them. In King County (WA), they sent robo-calls to supporters asking them to condemn the effort to save 85% of animals in the shelter. In Indianapolis, they questioned the hiring of an animal control director who wants to reduce the death rate by 75%. In Houston, they condemned a review of shelter operations with an eye to increasing lifesaving. In Tompkins County (NY), they attacked innovative strategies to save lives during peak intake periods. And in Charlottesville, they sided with fired employees (who killed animals that rescue groups were willing to save and one of which had a history of cruelty to animals) against a director who pledged to end unnecessary killing. And this is just the tip of the iceberg. If a public official so much as questions whether there is something to learn from the No Kill philosophy and whether it might help reduce staggering levels of killing in their community, PETA goes on the offensive chanting kill, kill, kill.

Not surprisingly, PETA itself continues to put to death over 90% of animals they take in (in 2007, they adopted out a paltry 12 of 3,043 animals and in 2008, only 17 of 1,997 were placed in homes). But not content with passively killing animals brought to them as most shelters do, PETA maintains death squads of functionaries who actively seek animals out in order to kill them, as they did in Virginia and North Carolina, which resulted in police involvement for illegally dumping dead animals in supermarket trash bins. (As a "shelter" with the authority to kill, PETA staff was acquitted of animal cruelty charges.)

And what does our movement and our movement’s "leaders" do about it?

Instead of shunning them, the Humane Society of the United States invites PETA to speak at their national conference in a workshop equating No Kill with hoarding.

Instead of condemning them, the Animal Rights Conference inducts Ingrid Newkirk—the architect of its kill policies, and a killer of dogs and cats herself—into the Animal Rights Hall of Fame.

In fact, few national animal welfare or animal rights groups have stood up for the animals by opposing Newkirk or PETA, with notable and rare exceptions—Animal People, Friends of Animals, Alley Cat Allies, and the No Kill Advocacy Center.

How can animal rights/welfare groups expect the public to embrace their goals when the actions of their so-called "leaders" act in ways which are in direct violation of the principles they claim to espouse?

It is time for all animal welfare and animal rights organizations to stand up against PETA's hypocritical, unethical, pernicious, and abhorrent actions. It is time to publicly condemn PETA's policies that allow animals like that poor sweet dog above, to be given an overdose of poison from a bottle marked "Fatal-plus" and then dumped into a garbage bin like nothing more than yesterday's trash—killed despite readily available, proven, life-saving alternatives they simply REFUSE to implement.

PETA's actions are not compassionate. They are not kind. They do not promote the welfare of animals. This isn't a position consistent with a belief in animal rights.

What kind of movement tolerates the serial killing of those they are supposed to protect by the movement's very leaders and groups?

What kind of movement doesn't declare that those they are pledged to protect have a right to live?

What kind of movement inducts unapologetic killers and promoters of a view antithetical to their own core values into their hall of fame?

What kind of movement invites workshops which undermine its goals at their national conferences?

We must not let cowardice keep us from standing up to those who harm animals and hold back progress—just because they claim (falsely) to be part of our movement. We must not let complicity through silence continue to cost innocent animals their lives. And we must certainly not reward them through speaking engagements at national conferences or induction into a hall of fame.

It is time to take our movement back. Back from PETA which defends, promotes and even practices the antithesis of what they are supposed to represent. Which keeps our movement shrouded in the worst kind of darkness. And which kills animals unapologetically, opposes lifesaving alternatives, and does both with a fervor that can only be described one way. It is time to call evil by its name.

Friday, November 21, 2008

Vegan.com - Contributing to the BS

One of the most unfortunate incidents to befall veganism is that the domain name 'vegan.com' is run by Erik Marcus. The irony is that in his logo, he claims to be "Cutting Through the BS":


Yet he doesn't even seem to know what he's talking about. Check out the FAQ on his website. Under "What is a vegan?" he has written:
A vegan is someone who doesn’t eat animal products: meat, fish, milk products, eggs, or honey. Many vegans also avoid fur, leather, and wool as these products generally result in the confinement, abuse, or slaughter of animals.
Once more, veganism is dumbed down. And to the lowest common denominator: it's a diet.

Almost as an afterthought, he mentions "many" vegans also avoid wearing the skins and fibers from animals.

I'm sorry, but ALL vegans refuse to wear fur, leather, wool, silk and whatnot. And no, these products don't "generally" result in "confinement, abuse or slaughter of animals" -- they inevitably do. On top of it all, this apologist bonehead makes it sound as if confinement, abuse or slaughter are the problem. What is the 'line' here? Two out of three? If i don't abuse or slaughter the animal, is it okay to abuse them?

More-over, this all reduces the meaning of veganism. Like most 'authorities' on veganism, Marcus doesn't describe where veganism came from, or what it was originally intended to be about (as is no surprise, since it conflicts with what Marcus purports veganism to be.)

But, to top it off, there's this article (even highlighted on his blog) where Marcus, a supposed vegan, exclaims that he is "thrilled" about a place that exploits hens and sells their eggs.

I'm sorry, but no vegan should ever be "thrilled" about a place that sells eggs. But Marcus is "relieved beyond belief" that there are some cage-free eggs being made available. (Why don't advocates of cage-free eggs and other 'free-range' animals ever address the issue that in order to be cage-free, these farms must spread out immensely - thus eliminating significant amounts of habitat from free-living animals? Do chickens need to be cage-free more than other animals need space to LIVE?? You call yourself an animal advocate???)

In his vision, this "is only 5 percent of what needs to happen", followed by "We’d like them to be exclusive as soon as possible."

So 100% of what needs to happen, according to this vegan, is 100% cage-free eggs.

No, veganism isn't the goal. Cage-free eggs are.

What a disaster. With vegans like this, who needs omnivores? It's becoming really difficult to tell the difference.

Cutting through the BS, Erik? Not even close. You're at the forefront of the BS.

Thursday, November 20, 2008

UVic Martlet: Campus food outlets recognized for veggie-friendly practices

I had a quick Facebook interview with Kailey Willetts from the University of Victoria weekly newspaper the Martlet, as PETA had awarded UVic 2nd Place in their 'awards' for vegetarian-friendly campuses. Luckily, this turned into an informative article, rather than some skimpy fluff piece that typically results.

I'm guessing for 2009, UVic won't be included, after PETA's effort to highlight and promote themselves backfires in this instance. ;)

- Dave

Campus food outlets recognized for veggie-friendly practices
Nov 19, 2008 02:23 PM Kailey Willetts

If you head to Village Greens for lunch today, you'll find vegetarian fajitas on the menu. Or, if noodles are more your thing, you can opt for a stir-fry with tofu.

It's because of options like these that UVic scored second in Canada in the "Most Vegetarian-Friendly Universities List" from People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals youth division (PETA2).

The competition focused particularly on vegan options, and praised UVic for its vegan lasagna, curried faux chicken and potatoes stuffed with chili and soy cheese. Winners were chosen based on their dining options, student nominations and votes.

Last year, UVic achieved fourth place overall.

With this year's second-place finish, UVic beat out nominees Simon Fraser University and the University of B.C., coming second to Mount Allison Univesity in New Brunswick.

According to PETA2, more students are becoming vegetarians or vegans because, on average, they are fitter than meat eaters. Eating animal products has also been linked to heart attacks, diabetes and other diseases, according to the group, which believes becoming a vegan is the best way to end animal suffering and protect the environment.

Dave Shishkoff, director of the UVic Vegan Association, says UVic is a good school to be a vegan at, and he's impressed with the venues offered on campus, like ones in the Student Union Building.

"The SUB apparently labels foods very well, and places like [Finnerty's] have vegan brownies, cookies and muffins, sushi and frozen burritos," Shishkoff wrote in an email interview. "Plus, our annual Vegan Thanksgiving Potluck is by far the most delicious Thanksgiving event in the city."

However, Shishkoff said the vegan message shouldn't be confused with the vegetarian one.

"Sadly, groups like PETA, Vegan Outreach and many others have completely ignored this, and are effectively 'dumbing down' veganism to what vegetarianism now stands for - which is nothing," Shishkoff said. "How many fish and chicken eating 'vegetarians' do you know?"

Shishkoff says that while UVic may be vegan-friendly, the message is meaningless coming from PETA.

However, he sees that the upside of the PETA competition is that it may encourage more vegan students to consider coming to UVic. Shishkoff believes it's important to have more active vegans on campus.

"I think a more useful campaign would be to assist vegans at colleges and universities in [promoting] veganism," he said.

For Shishkoff, being a vegan isn't a dietary or lifestyle choice, but a philosophy of "peace and respect, that argues that we shouldn't be exploiting other animals." He made the choice to become vegan 18 years ago, because it made sense.

"There was no reason for me to consume animal products. There's no physiological need, or requirement for anything that comes from an animal," said Shishkoff. "Other animals deserve respect and consideration as well ...should it really be a misfortune to simply not have been born in a human body?"

Shishkoff says being a vegan is very doable - it just takes a little education about alternatives. He also says it's more difficult dealing with social situations, but that people who take themselves seriously will encourage other people to as well - that they'll respect the "anti-speciesist" as they would an anti-racist or anti-sexist.

For more information about PETA2, visit their website at www.peta2.com.

For information about the UVic Vegan Association, visit their Facebook group: "UVic Vegan Association."

Wednesday, November 12, 2008

Irish Group NARA Opposes PETA Publicly

Below is another release from the group National Animal Rights Association, from Dublin, Ireland. So great to see them pushing aside common and popular notions, and thinking more deeply about these issues. They're right on with this, and that PETA has absolutely nothing to do with animal rights, confusing those who are interested in serious ideas..and of course they sully the name of animal rights.

Hopefully NARA will look more deeply into the issues; I wonder if they'd find that other groups that they link to, such as Vegan Outreach, to also be conflicting and problematic, and of even more concern, groups like SHAC and the ALF, who rely on threats, intimidation and violence in their attempts to be heard. If veganism and animal rights are a part of the peace movement, with respect and consideration being at the heart of these, perhaps these methods are opposite of our intended goals as well...

***Press Release***
Misrepresenting Animal Rights: People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA).

Although Irish organisations and individuals have sought to care for nonhuman animals for many years, animal rights advocacy ~informed by rights-based theory~ is a very recent development in Ireland. Grassroots animal rights advocates in Ireland intend to defend animal rights from the threat of neo-welfarism.

The Literary and Historical Society at UCD are hosting a debate next Wednesday (24th) entitled "The Animal Rights Debate", featuring Mr. Bruce Friedrich of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA). We believe that Mr. Friedrich will be contacting the media in Ireland to publicise this event and PeTA in general. He will characterise himself as an animal rights advocate even though he and his employers reject and marginalise animal rights theory. We, the grassroots animal advocates of Ireland, we who take rights, animal rights, and animal rights philosophy seriously, are furious about PeTA's distortion of animal rights, and we want no part in it. PeTA is not an animal rights group even though it claims to be (it claims to be the largest AR organisation in the world). This is misleading: PeTA do not promote animal rights beyond using the term as a rhetorical label and they purposely act against animal rights philosophy.

PeTA are inspired and influenced by animal welfare ethicist Peter Singer (author of the famous non-rights text, Animal Liberation).[1]

PeTA promotes NO animal rights philosophy on their web sites, eg: http://www.peta.org/

"Animal Rights" to PeTA is just a slogan – they are not interested in the philosophy of animals rights and they never promote or mention AR philosophers such as Gary Francione [ http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/?page_id=52 ] and Tom Regan [ http://www.lib.ncsu.edu/animalrights/about.html ].

Instead, they deliberately misname Singer as an animal rights advocate (see "why Animal Rights?" http://www.peta.org / – the 'learn more' tag links to Animal Liberation, a utilitarian text by a leading utilitarian philosopher. Animal rights is based on deontological ethics).

Laura Broxson, spokesperson of Dublin-based National Animal Rights Association, said: "We are just beginning to make a mark for animal rights in Ireland. The last thing we need is for people to believe that PeTA's childish stunts [2] and sexist campaigning [3] have anything to do with genuine animal rights campaigning. PeTA cheapen and trivialise animal rights. The message from Ireland: we don't want PeTA's silliness".

Speaking about NARA's philosophy, Laura Broxson said: "We say clearly and openly on our web site that we are opposed to rights violations. Animal rights is more than reducing suffering. It is a vegan position on human-animal relations that says we humans should not use nonhuman animals but respect them as a matter of justice. We at NARA feel we are making headway with our rights-based campaigns and the Irish public are beginning to understand that animal rightists believe that nonhuman animals are rights bearers who rights are frequently and routinely violated. We also would never engage in sexist campaigning like PeTA do".

Asked to comment, Dr. Roger Yates, sociologist and social movement theorist at UCD, said: "It probably would be a serious blow to rights advocates in Ireland if PeTA muddy the waters here with their rhetorical version of animals rights. From the perspective of effective advocacy, it seems logical that it is best for animal rights to be represented by those genuinely committed to rights-based philosophies about human-nonhuman relations. I doubt that Irish animal rights advocates will think that gassing millions of chickens, PeTA's latest 'victory' in Canada in partnership with KFC, has anything to do with animal rights. It is far from certain that such initiatives have much to do even with animal welfare".

"There has been a long standing belief within the animal protection community, at least among animal advocates in the USA and Britain, that animal rights and animal welfare are compatible ideas about the use and treatment of other animals. However, there is growing evidence supporting the contention that traditional animal welfarism and its newer formulations ('new welfarism' - represented by organisations such as PeTA) are antithetical to the aspirations of animal rights advocates", he added.

Contact:

Laura Broxson, spokesperson for NARA – 086 8729 444
Roger Yates (UCD) – 01 716 8586 [mobile 0863912018]

Notes.

[1] Ingrid Newkirk, president of PeTA, endorsed Peter Singer's 2006 collection, In Defense of Animals: The second wave (Blackwell), thus: 'Peter Singer's writings changed my life. I have waited for this book a long time, a quarter of a century in fact...'

[2] http://www.thestar.com/article/497890 http://blog.peta.org/archives/2008/09/here_comes_the.php

[3] http://www.peta.org/feat/abc-striptease/index.asp http://billsnyder.vox.com/library/video/6a00c2251f31f3f21900cd970fc4d04cd5.html

Related Link: http://www.naracampaigns.org

Thursday, October 30, 2008

Omnivore Outreach

I was recently reintroduced to a Vegan Outreach article the group touts called ‘How Vegan?’ by Matt Ball.

VO (Vegan Outreach) is very troublesome, in my opinion. They purport to promote veganism, but fail utterly to acknowledge where veganism even comes from (which seems ridiculous for an organization labeling themselves as such to do.) A search on their website for Donald Watson, who coined the term and defined veganism yields zero results on the date of this publication.

Of course, to recognize Donald Watson, or the Vegan Society would be a further step towards admitting that what they’re advocating isn’t actually veganism.

It’s very clear from VO literature that they’re all about suffering. We must do what we can to reduce animal suffering, even if it means eating or using the animals themselves (as suggested in the article I reference above.)

Imagine if I were to say that to better combat sexism, we should occasionally behave in a sexist manner in order attract more people to the cause.

The fallacy of this is evident, yet VO thoughtlessly makes this specious claim when dealing with veganism (or speciesism).

Isn’t this actually an argument against veganism? That it’s such an unimportant cause that we can at times participate in the system we supposedly oppose, in order to appear more acceptable to the general public? Must we put ourselves down and demean our own activism in this way?

This is patently wrong, just as how VO defines veganism, as some systematic approach to reducing animal suffering. Veganism has virtually nothing to do with suffering. Watson was keen, and the definition of vegan does not mention suffering at all. It is very explicit that animal exploitation is what is to be of concern to vegans. And this is a radical way to deal with the issue: exploitation is the root, and it is the cause of this suffering. To try and combat suffering is to respond to a symptom, but ignore or bypass entirely what’s causing the symptoms…and in all likelihood will only allow the illness to fester.

VO would likely define veganism as a diet. To me, this would be akin to defining feminism as ‘equal pay’. It totally strips away the rich and progressive views that are imbued in feminism -- and veganism.

More thoughtful activists would describe veganism as a lifestyle, but this still misses key points. To me, and others who have spent time reading what Watson wrote, it’s very evident that veganism is most accurately described as a philosophy. It is an outlook or perspective that seeks to actively oppose the exploitation of animals (including humans).

To ignore this is to ignore why veganism was brought about in the first place.  Watson was well aware that even in 1944 vegetarianism was becoming vague. There were vegetarians who ate animal products (dairy, eggs), which undoubtedly led to the deaths of the animals being used, not to mention that the exploitative mentality was also very present.

Vegetarianism was fundamentally veganism, but this message was being eroded away in order to make it more popular or acceptable. So, Watson envisioned a more consistent and progressive movement, and coined the term ‘vegan’ to label this outlook.

Today as you’ve probably already concluded, veganism faces this exact same problem. Instead of being a vivid and clear message against exploitation, it’s been dumbed-down to a diet – and in VO’s terms, not even a consistent one (as they try to include non-vegan things like honey as being vegan).

Sadly, very few ‘vegan’ groups have any idea where veganism came from, let alone the deep and important message that is trying to be conveyed. (I’ve seen that some even believe that VO or PETA came up with veganism!!)

It seems to me that Vegan Outreach is really Omnivore Outreach, as they seem entirely fixated on farm animals, and how they’re treated and should be treated. And at the end of the day, they’re missing entirely the scope that veganism covers, from the wide array of other animal products such as leather and fur, to free-living animals (who are the ones benefiting from a vegan human society.)

There is so much more to vegan advocacy, and for them to have ‘vegan’ in their name, and this degree of ignorance and divorce from the term itself is nothing less than shameful.

It’s time vegans consider more deeply what this movement is about, and recognize that we’re a part of a serious and important social movement, and by thinking and acting this way, we’ll eventually be accepted as such. I, for one, want to be recognized for more than being an advocate of a ‘diet’. That isn’t veganism.

(Note: I don’t mean to put Watson on a pedestal, hero worship is something I oppose strongly, however he is a handy reference point, and deserves credit for the vision and social movement he initiated.)

Monday, October 27, 2008

Veganism and Religion

There are a few groups out there that try to tie vegetarianism (or sometimes a vegan diet) and religion together, but i'm not sure that it can be very effective..after all, these same books also justify exploiting animals and perhaps play a big role in why animals are treated so poorly. After all, if they don't have souls, and don't go to heaven, and there's no punishment for having your way with them, why not..?

Sure, select animals are spared depending on the religion (Jews and pigs, Hindus and cows), but with the near-exception of Jainism (which is also problematic, but at the other extreme, where they won't euthanize a terminal animal as an example), none of them lay down a comprehensive vegan message.

Here's a recent item from a Canadian outlet that motivated this entry:
TORONTO — It is impossible to eat meat without violence. An animal,
after all, has to be killed before it can be con­sumed. And that means
Jessica Smith, a Hindu, doesn't eat meat.

"It has to do with the Hindu belief in non-violence," the 32-year-old
Toronto resident says. "And reincarnation."
...
In fact, it's an impulse as an­cient as most faiths. The Hebrew Bible,
known as the Old Testament to Chris­tians and considered a holy book
in Islam, for instance, in­structs man to care for creation —
including animals.

So it is not surprising that animal welfare groups are drawing a
connection between religious teachings and animal rights.
--
full story:
http://thechronicleherald.ca/Religion/9009062.html

Friday, October 3, 2008

Irish Group Says No to PETA

I came across this inspiring posting on an Anti-PETA group on Facebook. I'm simply going to reproduce it in its entirety:

Misrepresenting Animal Rights: People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA).

Although Irish organisations and individuals have sought to care for nonhuman animals for many years, animal rights advocacy ~informed by rights-based theory~ is a very recent development in Ireland. Grassroots animal rights advocates in Ireland intend to defend animal rights from the threat of neo-welfarism.

The Literary and Historical Society at UCD are hosting a debate next Wednesday (24th) entitled "The Animal Rights Debate", featuring Mr. Bruce Friedrich of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA). We believe that Mr. Friedrich will be contacting the media in Ireland to publicise this event and PeTA in general. He will characterise himself as an animal rights advocate even though he and his employers reject and marginalise animal rights theory.

We, the grassroots animal advocates of Ireland, we who take rights, animal rights, and animal rights philosophy seriously, are furious about PeTA's distortion of animal rights, and we want no part in it. PeTA is not an animal rights group even though it claims to be (it claims to be the largest AR organisation in the world). This is misleading: PeTA do not promote animal rights beyond using the term as a rhetorical label and they purposely act against animal rights philosophy.

PeTA are inspired and influenced by animal welfare ethicist Peter Singer (author of the famous non-rights text, Animal Liberation).[1]

PeTA promotes NO animal rights philosophy on their web sites, eg:
http://www.peta.org/

"Animal Rights" to PeTA is just a slogan – they are not interested in the philosophy of animals rights and they never promote or mention AR philosophers such as Gary Francione [http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/?page_id=52] and Tom Regan [http://www.lib.ncsu.edu/ animalrights/about.html].

Instead, they deliberately misname Singer as an animal rights advocate (see "why Animal Rights?" http://www.peta.org / – the 'learn more' tag links to Animal Liberation, a utilitarian text by a leading utilitarian philosopher. Animal rights is based on deontological ethics).

Laura Broxson, spokesperson of Dublin-based National Animal Rights Association, said: "We are just beginning to make a mark for animal rights in Ireland. The last thing we need is for people to believe that PeTA's childish stunts [2] and sexist campaigning [3] have anything to do with genuine animal rights campaigning. PeTA cheapen and trivialise animal rights. The message from Ireland: we don't want PeTA's silliness".

Speaking about NARA's philosophy, Laura Broxson said: "We say clearly and openly on our web site that we are opposed to rights violations. Animal rights is more than reducing suffering. It is a vegan position on human-animal relations that says we humans should not use nonhuman animals but respect them as a matter of justice. We at NARA feel we are making headway with our rights-based campaigns and the Irish public are beginning to understand that animal rightists believe that nonhuman animals are rights bearers who rights are frequently and routinely violated. We also would never engage in sexist campaigning like PeTA do".

Asked to comment, Dr. Roger Yates, sociologist and social movement theorist at UCD, said: "It probably would be a serious blow to rights advocates in Ireland if PeTA muddy the waters here with their rhetorical version of animals rights. From the perspective of effective advocacy, it seems logical that it is best for animal rights to be represented by those genuinely committed to rights-based philosophies about human-nonhuman relations. I doubt that Irish animal rights advocates will think that gassing millions of chickens, PeTA's latest 'victory' in Canada in partnership with KFC, has anything to do with animal rights. It is far from certain that such initiatives have much to do even with animal welfare".

"There has been a long standing belief within the animal protection community, at least among animal advocates in the USA and Britain, that animal rights and animal welfare are compatible ideas about the use and treatment of other animals. However, there is growing evidence supporting the contention that traditional animal welfarism and its newer formulations ('new welfarism' - represented by organisations such as PeTA) are antithetical to the aspirations of animal rights advocates", he added.

Contact:
Laura Broxson, spokesperson for NARA – 086 8729 444
Roger Yates (UCD)
– 01 716 8586 [mobile 0863912018]

Notes.
[1] Ingrid Newkirk, president of PeTA, endorsed Peter Singer's 2006 collection, In Defense of Animals: The second wave (Blackwell), thus: 'Peter Singer's writings changed my life. I have waited for this book a long time, a quarter of a century in fact...'
[2]
http://www.thestar.com/article/497890
http://blog.peta.org/archives/ 2008/09/here_comes_the.php
[3]
http://www.peta.org/feat/abc-striptease/index.asp
http://billsnyder.vox.com/library/video/ 6a00c2251f31f3f21900cd970fc4d0 4cd5.html

PETA-Style Animal Rights -- Kill the Rabbits in Kelowna!

Welcome to my new blog. Let's get on with it!

From a story here, about the rabbit killings in Kelowna, BC (Canada). Kristian DeJournett, PETA cruelty case worker is quoted as saying:
"[...]we understand that sometimes animals do have to be euthanized"
This is typical rhetoric from PETA. They bob their heads and idiotically refer to themselves as an 'animal rights' group.

What kind of rights are they advocating? The right for these animals to be killed by humans?

Activists in the area are working desperately to stop the killing of these rabbits. (I've emailed one group in the area, who tells me that PETA contacted NO ONE there. They just write up their media release, and send it out without making any contact. Nice. This isn't at all uncommon either, PETA is infamous for just stomping into areas blindly and doing whatever it is they want to do with little consideration for the local activist community.)

And here is PETA, completely undermining the efforts of these activists, and worst of all: JUSTIFYING the killing of these rabbits!!

And to call it 'euthanasia'? Look it up -- you cannot euthanize a healthy animal. It is an act reserved for the terminally ill. The rabbits were getting along fine. PETA is advocating the KILLING these rabbits, if one wants to utilize accurate vernacular. Someone ought to write to PETA and get them to brush up on their reading comprehension skills.

All the best to the groups in Kelowna who are working to save these rabbits..