We are indeed “closer to animals than we sometimes think,” but this ridiculous publicity stunt does nothing to help people see that.
- I’m confused. According to the United States Department of Agriculture, PETA is a domestic terrorist organisation:
B. Terrorist Threat. What terrorist activities have occurred in or around your building/facility in the past 5 years (documented cases)? Please check all that apply.
[ ] Attack from international terrorists
[ ] Attack from domestic special interest terrorists
-[ ] Earth Liberation Front (ELF)
-[ ] Animal Liberation Front (ALF)
-[ ] People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA)
-[ ] Animal Defense League (ADL)
-[ ] Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC)
-[ ] Formal hate group(s) (please specify):
-[ ] Other (please specify): ____________________
[ ] Cyber Attack from a known or unknown source.
- A recent (terrorist) PETA advertising campaign has not just alienated a few animal liberationists – but sparked rage from Fox News.
- Why would a child protest in support of fur-farming? Frankly, disturbing.
- Christmas is coming.
- Interesting to see the emergence of a new field of study and new approach: Critical animal studies.
- I think, as a movement, animal rights can learn a lot from the environmental movement. What fascinates me about this recent interview with James Hansen is his use of a comparison with slavery when discussing climate change. This, of course, echoes some of the internal debate in the broad animal liberation movement.
- Animal law, in summary, means two things. First, the black-letter law itself – in the precedents and the law reports and the statute books – which is very deeply rooted in the welfarist paradigm. And, second, the jurisprudence that underpins – or should underpin – the law. As I see it, no coherent jurisprudential argument can be made for welfarism. Animal law is growing jurisprudentially – and this scares the animal industries. The Director of Research Advocacy at the Oregon Health and Sciences University and Oregon National Primate Research Center, P Michael Conn, has a few problems with animal law courses:
Over half of US law schools now have animal law courses, including many in universities with medical and research programs that utilize animals protected by federal welfare laws. Courses that promote standards for humane animal care and welfare are unlikely to provoke conflict, but programs championing animal rights or “liberation” set up adversarial potential on campuses and pose a serious risk to the future of animal research. The use of the law instead of violence and threats, however, should be acknowledged as a forward step.
According to the course catalogues of 203 law schools listed on the website for the Law School Admissions Council (LSAC.org), 111 (55%) teach an animal law course (B). Of 121 student groups throughout US law schools with a focus on animal law and animal rights, 85 are at schools with an animal law class while 37 are at schools without such a class. Accordingly, animal law, through either coursework or student groups, is being addressed at 148 (73%) of US law schools.
- McDonalds is going free range! Well. 19 stores in New Zealand will buy free range eggs – of 144! No discussion of free range pork. To celebrate, McDonalds held the largest ever egg scramble – with 20,000 eggs and 100 litres of cream – and a side of…pork. Welfarism hits new lows daily. The Coexisting with Nonhuman Animals podcast expresses a few problems with SAFE and others joining in the celebrations, in this excellent analysis.
- Change.org highlights the importance of our use of personal pronouns:
But “it” is wrong. Anyone who has known a dog or cat, for example, knows they certainly are not unthinking, unfeeling, cookie-cutter robots. Each animal has his or her own personality and his or her own memories and experiences and preferences and, yes, absolutely yes, feelings. We know this about the dogs who share our homes, and this truth is no less true for our other fellow animals, the ones to whom most people give nary a second thought.
- Quite often, people ask me if a vegan diet is more expensive. People seem confused by my response that, because beans are cheaper than meat, it’s not. Because, of course, soy is more expensive than dairy – so mustn’t veganism be more expensive than a western standard diet? Brockway Hall deconstructs the myth:
I don’t agree that a vegan diet is necessarily more expensive than a diet that includes animal products. My personal experience is that vegan diets are somewhat less costly than diets that include animal products. For instance, dry beans, lentils, and split peas, are significantly cheaper than cheese, or cuts of flesh from land or sea animals. Soymilk varies in price by brand and retail store, but is often comparable to the price of cow milk. However, reliance on highly processed and prepared foods, including meat analogs and ice cream alternatives—things I eat only occasionally—can quickly drive up the cost of a vegan diet. If you don’t know how to cook, learning to do so can save considerable money while improving the healthfulness of your meals.