Animal Rights // Current

Return of the shac

Part 2

gooma2
added this
9 months ago
|
1 comment

Pro-Animal Cruelty Activists and their Million Dollar Campaigns of Misinformation

...
Due to a drop in support for heinous cruelty and slavery of our animal comrades suffering in laboratories, biomedical industry front group "The Foundation for Biomedical Research" has started a campaign to spread lies about the significance of the torture of nonhumans to humans.

Aside from the fact that these millions of dollars could be going to actual human based methods that could save lives- the campaign itself doesn't even have a shred of realism in it. Part of it involves putting up bill boards that say:

"Ever had leprosy? Thanks to animal research, you won’t."

Here's a little bit on how treatments for leprosy were developed. The first leprosy wonder-drug that worked in other animals quickly became useless in humans due to a resistance to its effectiveness. Another, clofazimine, found successes in vitro, so nonhuman animal suffering was not needed (even though they used them anyways). Rifamycin also showed promise in in vitro studies aside from it beig used in other animals. The need for nonhuman animals in the discovery of these drugs is completely fabricated.

Let's not forget that vivisection only ever came about due to the rule of the Catholic church and their insistence on making human cadaver dissection and other methods illegal. Oh so scientific!

Also keep in mind that the majority of animal testing is not done to cure diseases. It involves force feeding puppies household cleaning products or opening the heads of monkeys to record from brain cells. Animal testing is done to make money, to protect corporations from chemical and product toxicity suits, and to fulfill research interests of real life mad scientists will to learn what they wish to learn at any cost to human or nonhuman animal life.

On the bright side, the animal research medical-industrial complex is terrified. They're losing support every day and people are waking up to the reality of the cruel nature of nonhuman animal research as well as the detrimental effects it has on humans and the ecosystem. We must remain strong during this time as many of us do not have millions of dollars for bill boards. But, we do have the truth, solidarity, and compassion on our side. Keep it out there. Don't stop.

Other entries or news stories on this (see original link for links):

Please write about this as well. Feel free to add your link to the comments section and I will edit this entry to post it here.

http://arphilosophia.blogspot.com/2009/11/pro-animal-cruelty-activists-and-their.html... Due to a drop in support for heinous cruelty and slavery of our animal comrades... more

animalia_libero
added this
13 days ago
|
44 comments

Massachusetts General Hospital Urged to Stop Killing Sheep

It’s one of the last facilities in the country still using animals in Advanced... more

ajrmy
added this
17 days ago
|
1 comment

San Francisco votes to ban cat declawing

By a 9-2 vote, San Francisco's Board of Supervisors passed a measure Tuesday making it... more

KSirys
added this
18 days ago
|
180 comments

500,000 animals to be slaughtered at religious festival in Nepal

"Plans to sacrifice more than 500,000 animals during a two-day religious festival in... more

Chod77
added this
18 days ago
|
5 comments

Animals are stupid

Excerpt: "In a recent interview with Larry King, celebrity chef Anthony Bourdain... more

lookatmypix
added this
21 days ago
|
7 comments

Industial Killing of Cats and Dogs on your dime....does it bother you yet!?

WARNING: CONTENT WILL BE DISTURBING TO MANY VIEWERS many people could care less about... more

ksutherland27
added this
23 days ago
|
2 comments

Undercover Investigation Reveals Cows Suffer for Land O'Lakes

A new undercover investigation inside a Land O'Lakes supplier facility in Pennsylvania has revealed routine neglect and cruelty to cows who are milked for the Fortune 250 company's products. Over the course of several months, the investigation documented deplorable, filthy conditions for cows on the farm, such as pens that were filled with deep excrement (see video and photos), and cows who suffered from ailments and conditions so severe that they collapsed and became "downers" but were not put out of their misery or given veterinary care in a timely manner, if at all.

Land O'Lakes "inspected" the farm as recently as June 2009 and even noted that there were areas in need of cleaning (including the milking parlor walls!) but approved the facility nonetheless.

Cows on dairy factory farms are not given much more than the numbered tag that is punched through their ears to identify them. Read more about what happened to a few of the cows who lived and died miserably at one such farm.

The farm's owner and one of his sons were caught on video electro-shocking cows who were in too much pain to stand up. One of the farmer's sons kicked a cow and jabbed her with the blade of a pocket knife. Both the father and son have now been charged with cruelty to animals.

The dairy industry's standard forms of cruelty also led to suffering for these cows. In order to make milking easier, cows' tails were amputated by tightly binding them with elastic bands, causing the skin and tissue to slowly die and slough off and leaving the animals unable to swat away flies, which, in addition to tormenting the cows, also led to the spread of disease. Tail-docking is unnecessary and cruel, which is why it has been condemned by the American Veterinary Medical Association.

Dairy farmers don’t allow cows―whose pregnancies last for nine months, just like human pregnancies―to spend any significant time with their calves, who are taken from their mothers shortly after birth. Cows are intelligent animals who can remember things for a long time, and they have the capacity to worry about the future.

PETA's investigation also reveals cows and calves who were kept in pens and barns whose floors were covered with deep excrement, which caused foot and hoof problems and fostered the spread of disease. Calves rescued from the farm had pneumonia, "manure scald," ringworm, pinkeye, and parasites. Some cows suffered respiratory distress and had pus-filled nasal discharge streaming down their faces. Abscesses were common on the farm—some of them burst and oozed pus, even as cows were being milked, as can be seen in our video.

World-renowned meat and dairy industry expert Dr. Temple Grandin, after reviewing the footage, said, "The conditions are absolutely atrocious. ... It was obvious that the place was seldom cleaned and ... that many sick animals were not receiving veterinary treatment. ... The dairy manager totally NEGLECTED his animals. ... Many animals suffer greatly."

PETA is calling on Land O'Lakes to implement and enforce a 12-point animal welfare plan to govern all cooperative members' dairy-farming operations, which will eliminate some of the worst abuses to cows raised for their milk. Write to Land O'Lakes President Christopher Policinski now and urge him to implement the plan today. Of course, the best way for you to help prevent cows from suffering these abuses is to go vegan and stop consuming dairy products. Explore our "Vegetarian Starter Kit" for recipes and tips to get started today.A new undercover investigation inside a Land O'Lakes supplier facility in Pennsylvania... more

animalia_libero
added this
24 days ago
|
5 comments

Japan-Still killing Whales-research... Sure.

TOKYO (AP) -- Japan said Monday it has caught 59 whales - one short of the maximum... more

ksutherland27
added this
26 days ago
|
4 comments

Cyrus Mejia | CyrusMejia.com

Not only is Cyrus a dedicated animal advocate being a co-founder of the largest... more

quanta
added this
27 days ago
|
0 comments

Horses With Hair Extensions

A follow-up on Kitty Wigs. Because Animals need more hair. Really.

lolitanimatronic
added this
29 days ago
|
3 comments

The Revolt of Other Animals and the Case for Total Liberation

[go to full link for the images and links because they won't be posted here]

One thing I hear from the anti-animal liberation movement (or those apathetic to it) is that the animal liberation movement is different from other movements because the animals don't come together to rise up against their exploiters. They also claim that the animal liberation movement is unlike that of other human animal struggles because x% of that struggle was the oppressed group (i.e. 50% of the population was women during the suffrage movement). Both of these misconceptions result from both speciesism and an effective campaign to demonize any retaliation from other animals against their captors.

A recent story inspired my entry on this topic: Russian Circus Bear Kills Manager
In short, a bear exploited, demeaned, and undoubtedly beaten into performing for humans on ice skates retaliated against his/her captors. The bear was shot on scene after giving fatal injuries to their exploiter.

In reading this story, others immediately came to mind. The horrid circus elephant attempt at escape in Honalulu. She made it out of the building, and through the gates, but then where was she to escape to? She was shot to death shortly after.

When performing monkeys banded together to attack their trainer in China, who had be imprisoning and beating them, their attack ended there. They were tied to the trainer by their necks and had nowhere to escape to. No one helped them.

When a mother cow attacked a farmer as he tried to steal her baby (as farmers do), she is labeled as "overprotective" as if there was something strange about her attempts to save her child. This cow was lucky enough not to be identified by the remaining farmers, but only at the cost of killing her captor and devastating his family.

These stories and many others beg the question: How are the animals to rise up against their exploiters (without our help) when every time they do they are met with weapons and immediate punishments of death? We do not speak their language nor they ours so no amount pleading will help (which they do do in their own forms of communication as they cry out from cages, scream in pain, and other noises which are ignored by their exploiters). Letter-writing and pleading doesn't even help us get things done within our own species.

The other point about x-amount of beings being part of a struggle begs the question: Why do only humans count in the percentage? The animals in the movement, while lacking in our weapons and technology, outnumber us. For this reason, their movement should be considered on level with our own as we are all animals. Also, in most other movements, it was NOT the oppressed group acting alone against the oppressor. The oppressed group almost always had allies from outside their demographic which helped make their revolutions a success. Could those suffering in the Holocaust have brought the Nazi war machine down on their own?

Before we judge the plight and worth of other species based on their ability to revolt, we must remember that the cruelty towards our fellow animals is so heinous that it can be compared to every single human struggle that has existed. Factory farms are concentration camps. Female farm animals serve as sex slaves and breeding machines. Animals in entertainment are slaves to their oppressors.
No one is free while others are oppressed.[go to full link for the images and links because they won't be posted here] One... more

animalia_libero
added this
30 days ago
|
3 comments

Rare Blue Whale Washes Ashore In Northern California

A 70-foot, female blue whale that officials believe was struck by a ship has washed... more

knews121
added this
1 month ago
|
7 comments

LG GD900 Crystal makes a very portable fish tank, PETA magnet

Remember the good old days with your virtual pets on your keyring? Well, how about an... more

lordsbassman
added this
1 month ago
|
4 comments

Know Your Rights Booklet for Activists

The Center for Constitutional Rights has a great new legal guide for activists called... more

animalia_libero
added this
1 month ago
|
0 comments

Appellate Court: Encouraging Civil Disobedience is Not Protected Speech

The conviction of the SHAC 7–animal rights activists hit with “terrorism” charges for publishing a website and vocally, unapologetically supporting direct action–has been upheld by a U.S. appellate court. It is a landmark free speech ruling that lowers the threshold of what types of conduct are protected by the First Amendment, and upholds a law that is so broad that it targets civil disobedience as “terrorism.”

As a brief introduction: The “SHAC 7” of Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty ran an effective campaign that had the sole purpose of putting Huntingdon Life Sciences, a notorious animal testing company, out of business. The campaign pressured corporations to sever ties with the lab. The SHAC 7 were never accused of breaking windows or releasing animals from labs, but they supported those who did. They published a website which posted news of both legal and illegal tactics, and supported all of it. The website had also posted names and addresses of individuals connected to the corporations targeted.

The ruling was issued today and, although there are many aspects that deserve attention, I want to walk through what I think are by far the most dangerous and troubling implications of this ruling–those related to the First Amendment:

[PDF of the SHAC appeal ruling]

Supporting and facilitating non-violent civil disobedience is not protected speech.

As part of their campaign, SHAC supporters were emailed about “electronic civil disobedience.” The email and message board posts included instructions on how electronically “sit in” on corporate web sites through emails, faxes and phone calls.

Now, one of the benchmarks in First Amendment law is what is called the Brandenburg standard. It holds that even the most controversial and inflammatory speech is protected as long as it not likely to incite “imminent and lawless action.” That is a very high threshold. In this court ruling—which, to the best of my knowledge and the attorneys I have spoken with is the first of its kind—the written word can be construed as promoting, or resulting in, imminent and lawless action.

To put it more plainly: Vocally supporting civil disobedience, explaining what it involves, and encouraging/facilitating people to take part is not protected speech.

This is so important let me say it again, another way: People who write about civil disobedience and encourage people to take part can be found convicted of a crime even if they do not take part in the civil disobedience.

This has dangerous implications far beyond this case. For instance, I wrote about the recent call by mainstream environmental groups for massive non-violent civil disobedience in defense of the environment. Under this reasoning, organizers of that event who published a website aren’t protected by the First Amendment.

[UPDATE: One person had this question, so others might as well: I am not at all saying that simply endorsing civil disobedience is now not protected speech. However, doing so and also facilitating civil disobedience is what the court ruled is not protected. So in the example above, the organizers promoted civil disobedience, encouraged it, set up a website telling people where to go and when, and there were people involved to specifically support those arrested. I think there is a very real danger of that type of conduct being affected by the reasoning presented in this ruling. That is what I had meant by the headline and preceding points.]

Fiery rhetoric is a “true threat” when illegal conduct has taken place in the same campaign.

Another measurement of whether speech is protected by the First Amendment is whether it is a true threat. Throughout the appellate court ruling, the court argued that SHAC’s speech did, in fact, constitute a true threat.... full article at link........The conviction of the SHAC 7–animal rights activists hit with “terrorism”... more

animalia_libero
added this
1 month ago
|
1 comment

Justice Denied: The AETA 4 and You

The following is a letter just released by one of the lawyers defending the AETA 4, Bob Bloom. The letter captures both the absurdity of the charges, and the significance of the case for the animals and all of us. For a blunt and succinct explanation of how far the FBI is willing to go to crush the more effective tactics employed by the animal liberation movement, read on.

-Peter Young
A new client of mine, a young man named Joseph Buddenberg, is one of four principled, dedicated, and non-violent animal rights activists who have been indicted in federal court in San Jose, California under a new federal statute that was intended by Congress to target unlawful and violent conduct.

The statute, effective as of 2008, is known as the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA), and each of the four defendants is facing five years or more in federal prison because they are alleged to have engaged in, literally, picketing at the homes of researchers they believe cause laboratory animals to be subjected to inhumane experimentation that causes suffering, pain, and death.

Congress was cautioned that the statute would be subject to overreaching by the FBI and by prosecutors. Predictably, this case that targets non-violent and non-criminal speech is the very first prosecution the government has chosen to initiate under this new statute. (The statute can be found by Googling 18 U.S.C. 43).

I do not understate or attempt to mis-state the allegations against the defendants. One of the documents I enclose is an affidavit sworn to by the FBI agent in charge of this case. The affidavit sets forth the worst of what the FBI claims the defendants did (in fact, the affidavit mis-states the facts as to one event). As you will see from reading the affidavit, the defendants are accused of identifying and locating animal researchers and then loudly picketing on the sidewalks in front of their homes. The intent was, and is, to stop the torture and other mistreatment of animals by speaking out in a non-violent manner to shame the researchers by exposing them and their conduct to their neighbors.

This kind of activity, speaking out to expose wrongdoers, is the very essence of the First Amendment. But the offending research laboratory, the University of California, is politically very powerful, and it has apparently lobbied federal law enforcement officials to bring this prosecution. The right of non-violent activists working to protect animals is under threat, and the First Amendment rights of all of us are threatened by this prosecution as well, as the animals suffer and die painful deaths every day.

The defendants are all good people, and courageous people. I have come to know Joe, and I can tell you that he cares deeply about protecting innocent creatures and putting an end to the mistreatment and the suffering. He is not a violent person, and he is not a criminal. And he certainly is not a terrorist.

Many animal lovers and civil libertarians believe that this is an extremely important case for a number of reasons. I have been engaged in civil rights law for more than forty years, and I am truly offended by, and worried by, this prosecution. Needless to say, it impacts the four defendants, but it also imperils the rights of all of us, as well as the lab animals who are being subjected to horrific mistreatment.

The case is complex and labor-intensive. It involves a maze of legal questions regarding the constitutionality of the statute, the validity of search warrants, potential issues regarding wiretapping, and other challenging issues, including the intricacies of the law of conspiracy (one of the two counts in the indictment). The facts of the case are also complicated, encompassing some fourteen incidents in at least three counties, and there are literally dozens of witnesses for whom we must prepare............The following is a letter just released by one of the lawyers defending the AETA 4,... more