Zitat:
Tonight is the HBO premiere of a film about Temple Grandin, who designs slaughterhouses. I regard Grandin as no different than Hermann Goering, the Nazi official who (along with others) designed death camps during WWII. A note of historical interest: the final passage way to the gas chamber at Treblinka was known as the "Road to Heaven." Grandin's ramp that leads cows to the stunning machine is known as the "Stairway to Heaven."

A difference between Grandin and Goering is that Grandin received an award from PETA.

It is interesting that tonight, ARZone is having Bruce Friedrich of PETA as a guest, claiming that he is an "animal rights activist" and that PETA is an "animal rights organization."

I respectfully suggest that if "animal rights" is a meaningful term, neither of these claims is true.

Let us look at some of the evidence:

As I stated, PETA actually gave Grandin a "Visionary" award for her slaughterhouse design efforts. See http://www.peta.org/feat/proggy/2004/winners.html#visionary I regard that as obscene.

PETA gave an award to Whole Foods Market, claiming that it has "consistently done more for animal welfare than any retailer in the industry, requiring that its producers adhere to strict standards." Strict standards? I regard that as deception. The animals sold at Whole Foods are treated in ways that would constitute torture were humans involved. PETA actively encourages the belief that Whole Foods sells "happy meat" and, thereby, encourages consumption of Whole Fooids animal products. See http://www.peta.org/feat/proggy/2004/winners.html#retailer

PETA has tried to discourage advocates from demonstrating in front of Whole Foods to rebut the "happy" meat propaganda, suggesting that they protest "other major food retailers."


PETA kills a large number of the animals it rescues. See this article from Newsweek magazine: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/media/links/p2900/newsweek-magazine.pdf

The stock answer that we hear from PETA is that they have to kill these animals because there are no homes for them. But that is complete nonsense. PETA is pulling in over $30 million dollars annually. PETA has the resources to ensure that it finds home for every animal that it "rescues." Indeed, the great shame of the U.S. mainstream animal movement is that it has hundreds of millions of dollars and yet many healthy animals are being killed every day. There is absolutely no need for this. I should note that there have been phenomenal results reached with relatively little money by the increasingly active "no kill" movement.

In any event, how can a multimillion dollar animal "rights" organization kill ONE healthy animal?

PETA has become an ally with the meat/animal products industries, helping them to identify economically inefficient practices and thereby increasing the production efficiency of institutional exploitation. Please take a look at this essay: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/peta-and-kfc-no-differences-of-opinion-about-how-animals-should-be-treated/#more-144

PETA praises and supports fast-food restaurants. For example, PETA praises McDonald's as "'leading the way' in reforming the practices of fast-food suppliers, in the treatment and killing of
its beef and poultry." (L.A. Times, Feb. 23, 2005, at F2 (quoting Lisa Lange of PETA)). This encourages people to continue to consume animals.

PETA uses sexism and misogyny in its campaigns. If speciesism is wrong because it is like racism and sexism, then we should not use sexism (supposedly) to promote human rights. Does anyone think this:

http://www.peta.org/feat/stateoftheunion10/

is going to do anything for animals.

Would Martin Luther King have had a campaign proclaiming that he'd "rather go naked than sit in the back of the bus"? No, of course not.

PETA claims to be a consistent vegan is a bad thing, a matter of "personal purity," narcissistic cultural fad," and "fanatical obsession." These are the words of Bruce Friedrich. PETA maintains that if we stick with our veganism in situations in which others think that were being too strict and that this turns them off, we have acted immorally and we have an obligation NOT to be vegan in those circumstances: "If you do something that prevents another person from adopting a vegan diet, if your example puts up a barrier where you might have built a bridge, that hurts animals." (“Personal Purity vs. Effective Advocacy,” at http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/animal-rights-debate/endnotes/222.pdf )

Should we, in order to build a bridge to racists, participate in a white power march or fail to object when a racist joke is told in our presence? Should we, in order to have greater influence with our friends on the issue of sexism, go along to a strip club or fail to object when our friends make sexist and misogynistic comments?

PETA does everything it can to make the movement look just plain crazy. In New York Magazine, the following statement appears: "For Singer, and for Newkirk, bestiality is not, in all circumstances, prohibited. “If it isn’t exploitation and abuse, it may not be wrong,”
she has said.
http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/media/links/p3017/the-rise.pdf

One of PETA's leading spokespersons is Pamela Anderson. But PETA had no problem with Anderson promoting the opening of a New York steakhouse/"gentlemen's club" (strip bar). See http://www.tmz.com/2009/04/17/pam-anderson-sells-out-for-strip-steak/ PETA's response: "Pam is not a host but may be attending as an invited guest, and since steakhouses nowadays have some of the best salad bars and veggie
options around, we're sure she'll find plenty to eat should she attend."

[...]

PETA takes positions with respect to the interests of nonhumans that would never be considered as acceptable if applied to humans. That is what speciesism is.

When those who claim to believe in animal rights think that PETA and Bruce Friedrich represent animal rights, they are confused in my judgment. And if the term "animal rights" has now become so amorphous that it can apply to an organization that kills "rescued" animals, gives awards to slaughterhouse designers and "happy" meat peddlers, claims that being a consistent vegan is "fanatical" (as Friedrich himself does), and forms partnerships with industry that make animal exploitation more economically efficient, then I suggest that "animal rights" is a simply meaningless term.