DOCSLIB.ORG

Florida State University College of Criminology and Criminal Justice

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Florida State University College of Criminology and Criminal Justice FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF CRIMINOLOGY AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE CONSTRUCTING ANIMAL RIGHTS ACTIVISM AS A SOCIAL THREAT: CLAIMS-MAKING IN THE NEW YORK TIMES AND IN CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS By JEN GIRGEN A Dissertation submitted to the College of Criminology and Criminal Justice in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Degree Awarded: Spring Semester, 2008 Copyright © 2008 Jen Girgen All Rights Reserved The members of the Committee approve the dissertation of Jen Girgen defended on April 8, 2008. ______________________________ Ted Chiricos Professor Directing Dissertation ______________________________ James Orcutt Outside Committee Member ______________________________ Bruce Bullington Committee Member Approved: __________________________________________________________ Thomas Blomberg, Dean, College of Criminology and Criminal Justice The Office of Graduate Studies has verified and approved the above named committee members. ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Thank you, Dr. Chiricos, for your intellectual guidance, unwavering support, constant encouragement, patience, and friendship. Thank you, Dr. Chiricos, Dr. Bullington, and Dr. Orcutt for serving on my committee and for your very helpful comments and suggestions. Thank you, Mom and Dad. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Tables vi List of Figures vii Abstract viii INTRODUCTION 1 THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIONIST/CLAIMS-MAKING APPROACH TO UNDERSTANDING SOCIAL PROBLEMS 5 FRAMING AND COUNTER-FRAMING 21 MOVEMENTS AND COUNTERMOVEMENTS 27 SOCIAL THREAT-SOCIAL CONTROL THEORY 33 A HISTORY OF ANIMAL RIGHTS 40 A REVIEW OF THE ANIMAL RIGHTS LITERATURE 75 SAMPLING AND CODING 100 CLAIMS-MAKING IN THE NEW YORK TIMES 106 CLAIMS-MAKING IN CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONIES 135 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION 163 APPENDIX A: RESEARCH REVIEWED 166 APPENDIX B: CLAIMS ABOUT ANIMAL USE, ANIMAL USERS, ANIMAL RIGHTS, AND ANIMAL RIGHTS ACTIVISTS, DISTILLED FROM EXTANT STUDIES 176 APPENDIX C: NUMBER OF CLAIMS MADE IN THE NEW YORK TIMES, BY CLAIM CATEGORY, SUB-THEME, AND THEME 181 APPENDIX D: NUMBER OF CLAIMS MADE IN CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONIES, BY CLAIM CATEGORY, SUB-THEME, AND THEME 184 APPENDIX E: DOCUMENTED OCCURRENCES OF CLAIMS IN CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONIES, BY TIME PERIOD (FOR THREE TIME PERIODS) 188 iv REFERENCES 189 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 223 v LIST OF TABLES Table 9.1. Number (and percentage) of claims in each claim theme, by time period. 127 Table 9.2. Number (and percentage) of claims in each sub-theme, by time period. 129 Table 9.3. The relative frequency of claims. 132 Table 10.1. Total number of claims recorded, by year and claim theme. 154 Table 10.2. Percentage of claims in each claim theme, by time period. 160 Table 10.3. The relative frequency of claims. 161 Table A.1. Research reviewed. 166 Table B.1. Claims about animal use, animal users, animal rights, and animal rights activists, distilled from extant studies. 176 Table C.1. Number of claims in the New York Times, by claim category, sub-theme, and theme. 181 Table D.1. Number of claims made in Congressional testimonies, by claim category, sub-theme, and theme. 184 Table E.1. Documented occurrences of claims in Congressional testimonies, by time period. 188 vi LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.1. Expected process. 3 Figure 4.1. Zald and Useem’s Model “A”: Conflict Model Minimal State Involvement. 30 Figure 4.2. Zald and Useem’s Model “D”: Conflict Model State Involvement. 31 Figure 4.3. Hybrid model. 32 Figure 9.1. Number of documents containing anti-animal rights claims vs. those containing no anti-animal rights claims. 123 Figure 9.2. Total anti-animal rights claims per year. 124 Figure 10.1. Total claims per year. 152 Figure 10.2. Total claims per year, by claim theme. 153 Figure 10.3. Number of “terrorism” claims, per year. 157 Figure 10.4. Percentage of claims aggressive vs. defensive, over time. 158 vii ABSTRACT Since the mid-1970s, the modern U.S. animal rights movement has grown in size and influence. Membership in People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), the world’s largest animal rights organization, for instance, has grown from fewer than 100 members in 1980 (Plous, 1991), to more than 1,800,000 “members and supporters” today (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, n.d.b), and donations to the organization indicate a similar upward trend (Charity Navigator, 2006). At the same time, the influence of the movement has been felt by animal users, consumers, and the government, and continues to be relevant to this day. From early campaigns leading to a considerable decrease in the numbers of animals used in product testing (Jasper and Nelkin, 1992) and a plummet in sales of fur coats (Singer, 2003), to more recent victories including concessions by McDonald’s, Burger King, and other restaurants regarding their animal welfare policies (Martin, 2007), and a spate of initiatives passed at the state level banning or curtailing particular animal uses (Lubinski, 2003), the U.S. animal rights movement has had an effect on business practices, on the law, and on the nation’s consciousness. Additionally, a minority faction of the movement has engaged in crimes in an effort to bring about animal liberation, resulting in millions of dollars in damage to animal use industries (Southern Poverty Law Center, 2002). This research explores the response of animal use industries and their supporters to these objective threats. I argue that opponents of the animal rights movement and their surrogates have responded to this growing and persistent threat by engaging in a campaign of claims- making, the goal and/or effect of which is to construct for the public, policy-makers, and other social control authorities an image of the animal rights movement as a social problem as well as a more serious threat necessitating social control. This project therefore combines key ideas from several different literatures, including claims-making, framing, and social movement and countermovement, and is theoretically grounded in the social threat-social control tradition. I rely on two different sources of claims—one, a sample of items published in the New York Times and the other, a sample of written statements prepared for and presented in Congressional hearings. Claims in these documents were coded and analyzed using a grounded theory approach (Glaser and Strauss, 1967). The project is guided by two different epistemic objectives. First, I examine the nature of the claims put forth by opponents of animal rights and their surrogates. My goal here is not to confirm or debunk the veracity of these claims, but rather, to uncover and understand the kinds of claims serving not only to counter the animal rights movement’s assertions that animal use and abuse is a social problem, but also to construct animal rights as a threat. Second, after analyzing these claims, I offer an assessment of whether, in each sample, such claims-making is consistent with the expectations of social threat-social control theory (Blalock, 1967; Liska, 1992b). Consistent with past research informed by this theory, I expect to find that as the animal rights movement became more threatening to animal users and their supporters, there was a corresponding change in the quantity (e.g., in frequency) and/or quality (e.g., in intensity) of claims made about the movement. The research findings indicate that both primary and secondary claims-makers utilize a variety of claims, framing processes, and rhetorical strategies so as to support the status quo as it concerns animal use. Furthermore, consistent with the expectations of social threat-social viii control theory, in general, in both samples, the findings provide support for the idea that, as time passed and the threats by the animal rights movement increased, the number of claims in defense of animal use and claims constructing animal rights as problematic increased. Particularly noteworthy are the findings of increases in claims constructing animal rights as a threat, and indicating that increased criminal control of the movement is necessary. This research makes several contributions to the literatures it borrows from. First, this study expands conflict theory’s threat hypothesis by extending it to explain the threat and control of a social movement (whereas, traditionally, this theory has been used to explain control of racial minority threat). Second, this study provides qualitative support for the idea that social control is mobilized by claims-making. Third, by demonstrating how opponents engage in claims-making activities for the purpose of constructing a social movement as a threat, this study provides a unique contribution to the social constructionism/claims-making perspective, which has tended not to examine the use of claims to construct a movement as a problem. Finally, this research is timely, in the sense that it helps explain the current focus of social control authorities on animal rights-motivated crimes and acts of “terrorism.” ix CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION The animal rights movement questions the long-prevailing notion that we may treat animals however we see fit, and, in the process, is an aggressive challenge to thousands of years of human dominion. The movement makes allegations about how people use animals, seeks to establish the various forms of animal exploitation as social problems, and consequently, advocates significant change with respect to the way people behave toward animals. This is epitomized in one of the animal rights movement’s often-cited sound bites, in which it is asserted that “animals are not ours to use for food, clothing, entertainment, experimentation, or any other purpose” (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, n.d.a). As suggested by this statement, animal rights challenges the interests of a wide range of stakeholders, including, but not limited to, those involved with animal agriculture, bio-medical research, fur production, hunting and fishing, rodeos, circuses, zoos, and kennel clubs, as well as those members of the public who are not morally troubled by the idea of using animals to provide for their needs and wants (Munro, 1999:36).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Animal Rights Academy Free University Lecture Series Jan
    Animal Rights Academy Free University lecture series Jan. 10– June 27, 2013 (6 months) *** 24 weeks of films and lectures and discussion in review Goals of this course/film, lecture series • To provide an opportunity for sustained reflection on AR issues • To remedy the absence of a course on AR philosophy in Toronto • To provide free education to the public • To encourage independent rational thought on controversial issues • To strengthen and broaden the local AR community • To provide an opportunity for local thinkers to disseminate their views Films shown • The Witness (must see, Youtube) • Peaceable Kingdom (must see) • Earthlings (must see) • The Call of Life (must see) • The Plague Dogs (animation, fiction, Youtube) • Ikiru (by Kurosawae, fiction) • Fantastic Planet (animation, fiction, Youtube) • The Superior Human (must see, Youtube) • Distrinct 9 (fiction) • I Am an Animal (about PETA, Youtube) • Project Nim • A Delicate Balance: Deep Trouble (fish) • The Rise of the Planet of the Apes (fiction) • Maximum Tolerated Dose (must see) • Cat City (feral cats) • Behind the Mask (must see) • The Mad Cowboy, (must see, Youtube) • Cave of Forgotten Dreams • Star Trek Voyager episode: Scientific Method • River of Waste (environment, Youtube) • Our Daily Bread (factory farm documentary, Youtube) • Vegucated (must see) • Bold Native (fiction, Youtube) • The Meatrix (short animation, Youtube) • The Stork is a Bird of War (short animation, Youtube) Films we did not see but should have • The Skin Trade (fur trade) • Lolita (about marine mammal captivity) • Moon Bear (Animals Asia) • The Ghosts in Our Machine (just came out) • The Animals Film (similar to Earthlings, Youtube) • Speciesism (not out yet) • Animals are not ours to eat (Peta) Films we did not see (cont’d) • How I Became an Elephant • Green: the Movie (online) • Sharkwater • The Cove • selected short videos on the theme of non- violence (e.g.
    [Show full text]
  • Disaggregating the Scare from the Greens
    DISAGGREGATING THE SCARE FROM THE GREENS Lee Hall*† INTRODUCTION When the Vermont Law Review graciously asked me to contribute to this Symposium focusing on the tension between national security and fundamental values, specifically for a segment on ecological and animal- related activism as “the threat of unpopular ideas,” it seemed apt to ask a basic question about the title: Why should we come to think of reverence for life or serious concern for the Earth that sustains us as “unpopular ideas”? What we really appear to be saying is that the methods used, condoned, or promoted by certain people are unpopular. So before we proceed further, intimidation should be disaggregated from respect for the environment and its living inhabitants. Two recent and high-profile law-enforcement initiatives have viewed environmental and animal-advocacy groups as threats in the United States. These initiatives are the Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC) prosecution and Operation Backfire. The former prosecution targeted SHAC—a campaign to close one animal-testing firm—and referred also to the underground Animal Liberation Front (ALF).1 The latter prosecution *. Legal director of Friends of Animals, an international animal-rights organization founded in 1957. †. Lee Hall, who can be reached at [email protected], thanks Lydia Fiedler, the Vermont Law School, and Friends of Animals for making it possible to participate in the 2008 Symposium and prepare this Article for publication. 1. See Indictment at 14–16, United States v. Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty USA, Inc., No. 3:04-cr-00373-AET-2 (D.N.J. May 27, 2004), available at http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/nj/press/files/ pdffiles/shacind.pdf (last visited Apr.
    [Show full text]
  • Approaching Nokill
    Approaching No­Kill: Challenges and Solutions for the Los Angeles Animal Services Department Caroline Nasella April 28, 2006 UEP Comps 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary 3 Introduction 4 Chapter I: The Players and Politics Behind the LAAS Controversy 9 Chapter II: Methods 20 Chapter III: Animal Shelters and the Companion­Pet Surplus 26 Chapter IV: The Animal Welfare and Liberation Philosophy 39 Chapter V: What is possible: The San Francisco SPCA And Animal Care and Control Facilities 47 Chapter VI: A Policy Analysis of the Los Angeles Animal Services Department 69 Chapter VII: Recommendations 80 Conclusion 86 Bibliography 89 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This paper is an examination of the Los Angeles Animal Services (LAAS) Department. It looks at the historical, political and philosophical context of the Department. It examines the validity of grievances made by local animal welfare groups against the Department and analyzes the LAAS Department structure and policies. Using a comparative case­study, it identifies the San Francisco animal care facilities as effective models for LAAS. Through an exploration of such themes, this report makes pragmatic policy recommendations for the Department with the goal of lowering shelter euthanasia rates. 3 INTRODUCTION 4 When asked about why activists have targeted LAAS in recent years, cofounder of Animal Defense League – Los Angeles (ADL­LA) Jerry Vlasik argued that the group wanted to focus on one municipal shelter whose reformed policies could translate “throughout the nation”. He believes that if the city goes “no­kill” it will serve as a model for all cities. Vlasik contends that LAAS is not worse than other municipalities.
    [Show full text]
  • An Update on the Head Injury Laboratory
    An ad hoc committee set up in the spring to review the Head Injury Research Laboratory ofthe School of Medicine completed its report on August 2; it is published in this section ofAlmanac starting on page III. Below and onpage!! is the text ofa separate report summarizing recent events surrounding the Laboratory. It was prepared by the Secretary of the University, Dr. Mary Ann Meyers, on August 23. An Update on the Head Injury Laboratory The Head Injury Clinical Research Labora- and training of laboratory personnel, steriliza- declared their belief that the Head Injury Lab tory in the School of Medicine remained in the tion experiments, and the occupational health "has made significant changes and improve- headlines this summer as the federal govern- program in the Head Injury Laboratory. The ments... and that current protocols and facili- ment suspended its funding and President report also stated that the deficiencies in the ties are in compliance"with the NIH guidelines. Sheldon Hackney halted its use of animals in project can be corrected because they are not Upon receiving the report, Dr. Hackney said experiments designed to determine the best part of the research's basic concept or protocal that he was reassured by the committee's find- treatment for human victims oftrauma-caused or its experimental approaches. ings that the treatment ofresearch animals met brain damage. The president's action was taken A University ad hoc committee subsequently NIH standards. But he has also noted that "the in late July in response to concerns raised in a concurred with the NIH reviewers about the lack of cleanliness in the lab, the sub-standard preliminary report bythe National Institutes of scientific merit of the head injury reserch.
    [Show full text]
  • Journal of Animal Law 2005.01.Pdf
    VOL. I 2005 JOURNAL OF ANIMAL LAW Michigan State University College of Law J O U R N A L O F A N I M A L L A W VOL. I 2005 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION The Gathering Momentum…………………………………………………………………. 1 David Favre ARTICLES & ESSAYS Non-Economic Damages: Where does it get us and how do we get there? ……………….. 7 Sonia Waisman A new movement in tort law seeks to provide money damages to persons losing a companion animal. These non-compensatory damages are highly controversial, and spark a debate as to whether such awards are the best thing for the animals—or for the lawyers. Would a change in the property status of companion animals better solve this important and emotional legal question? Invented Cages: The Plight of Wild Animals in Captivity ………………………………... 23 Anuj Shah & Alyce Miller The rate of private possession of wild animals in the United States has escalated in recent years. Laws at the federal, state, and local levels remain woefully inadequate to the task of addressing the treatment and welfare of the animals themselves and many animals “slip through the cracks,” resulting in abuse, neglect, and often death. This article explores numerous facets of problems inherent in the private possession of exotic animals. The Recent Development of Portugese Law in the Field of Animal Rights ………………. 61 Professor Fernando Arajúo Portugal has had a long and bloody tradition of violence against animals, not the least of which includes Spanish-style bullfighting that has shown itself to be quite resistant to legal, cultural, and social reforms that would respect the right of animals to be free from suffering.
    [Show full text]
  • Seasons in Hell: Charles S. Johnson and the 1930 Liberian Labor Crisis Phillip James Johnson Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College
    Louisiana State University LSU Digital Commons LSU Doctoral Dissertations Graduate School 2004 Seasons in hell: Charles S. Johnson and the 1930 Liberian Labor Crisis Phillip James Johnson Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_dissertations Part of the History Commons Recommended Citation Johnson, Phillip James, "Seasons in hell: Charles S. Johnson and the 1930 Liberian Labor Crisis" (2004). LSU Doctoral Dissertations. 3905. https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_dissertations/3905 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at LSU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in LSU Doctoral Dissertations by an authorized graduate school editor of LSU Digital Commons. For more information, please [email protected]. SEASONS IN HELL: CHARLES S. JOHNSON AND THE 1930 LIBERIAN LABOR CRISIS A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in The Department of History by Phillip James Johnson B. A., University of New Orleans, 1993 M. A., University of New Orleans, 1995 May 2004 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS My first debt of gratitude goes to my wife, Ava Daniel-Johnson, who gave me encouragement through the most difficult of times. The same can be said of my mother, Donna M. Johnson, whose support and understanding over the years no amount of thanks could compensate. The patience, wisdom, and good humor of David H. Culbert, my dissertation adviser, helped enormously during the completion of this project; any student would be wise to follow his example of professionalism.
    [Show full text]
  • “Biomedical Scientists' Recognition and Alleviation of Pain And
    “Biomedical scientists’ recognition and alleviation of pain and distress in laboratory rats and mice” Valerie Parkison, BS Tufts University School of Veterinary Medicine Center for Animals and Public Policy Allen Rutberg, PhD Tufts University School of Veterinary Medicine Center for Animals and Public Policy Jan E. Dizard, PhD Amherst College Department of Anthropology and Sociology Overview Scientific research on animals is a well-publicized ethical debate in our society. In part because of increasing attention to this issue, national legislation regarding laboratory animal welfare was created in 1966 with the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) and has been strengthened in the recent decades with its subsequent amendments, particularly the 1985 Improved Standards for Laboratory Animals. A separate law, the Health Research Extension Act, was also passed in 1985. However, research has shown that these regulations are not implemented uniformly throughout individual laboratories and institutions. Therefore, laboratory animals are not always adequately or equally protected among institutions. This variation is mainly due to the subjective nature of what constitutes proper laboratory animal use. For example, both of the above-mentioned laws require scientists’ to recognize and minimize “pain and distress” in their research animals, but does not provide definitions of these states or directions for minimization. Therefore, because each research institution is left to its own interpretation of the regulations, the laws are difficult to enforce in a standardized manner. If the regulations are to work as intended on a broad scale, the intricacies of applying these welfare regulations must be understood by and represented from the viewpoint of those directly involved – the scientists.
    [Show full text]
  • Necessary Or Cruel? Brainstorming a Topic to Write
    Enger 1 Marie Enger Andrea Barnes WR 121-024 12 November 2010 Animal Testing: Necessary or Cruel? Brainstorming a topic to write about proved to be quite a challenge. Following the advice of my professor, I attempted to locate a subject of deep interest to me, a subject I could explore, discover, and learn from. As a Zoology major with a Pre-Veterinary option, I thought about what subjects would be handy to know in the future. After a short time scrolling through Google, I carne across the topic of animal testing. One would assume that a young lady with such a passion for animals would have an opinion on such a subject. Surprisingly, I held no such opinion; in fact, upon further examination I realized that I held absolutely no knowledge about animal research whatsoever. I realized that my knowledge of animal testing was limited to the overly opinionated comments of animal research antagonists. These animal rights activists accuse scientists who experiment on animals of being merciless and immoral. I began to wonder why I had only heard about the negative consequences of animal testing. It must be doing something good for the human race if it continues despite constant opposition from animal rights groups and the public. As I join the discussion about animal testing I hope to discover whether or not it should be a means to further medical and scientific progress. The first step to my self-education in the field of animal research was to find a source that could clearly layout all sides of the matter.
    [Show full text]
  • Autobiography of a Revolutionary
    Autobiography of a Revolutionary Roberto Kolechofsky Jews for Animal Rights y membership in the Animal Rights Movement was unpredictable. I did not join the movement. I was cata­ Editors' Note: M pulted into it. I did not go looking for it. I did not know it existed. I turned a page An incorrect identification in a book, I turned a corner in the universe and was confronted with a terrible evil. But now I of affiliation for Roberta know, and my life has changed. An immense Kalechofsky was made in the detour in myself, foremost as a writer, has developed. I ache for myoid themes, the Summer 1989 issue. See page material ofJewish-Christian relations I explored in Bodmin, or the first five centuries of 210 of this issue. Christianity I had come to know so well I could itemize the goods lying on the wharves of Ostia where slaves and animals for the gladiatorial ©Roberta Kalechofsky, 1989 AUTOBIOGRAPHY Fall 1989 233 Between the species Autobiography ofa Revoluti07Ulry combats disembarked from foreign shores, to die place of "knOWledge'; I was raised to believe that for the entertainment of an over-ripe civilization. I God knew everything I did, and everything I did worry about whether I will ever again have time to mattered. That impression of a direct line write about these themes and ages, the centuries between me and God faded as I matured, but which formed my first notions of barbarity, of cru­ enough remained so that when it was evident elties in well-worn traditions. Ah! the blessings of that my husband and I were going to marry an historical framework, even for barbarism.
    [Show full text]
  • Democracy, Dialogue, and the Animal Welfare Act
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by University of Michigan School of Law University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform Volume 51 2018 Beyond Rights and Welfare: Democracy, Dialogue, and the Animal Welfare Act Jessica Eisen Harvard Law School Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjlr Part of the Animal Law Commons, Law and Philosophy Commons, and the Science and Technology Law Commons Recommended Citation Jessica Eisen, Beyond Rights and Welfare: Democracy, Dialogue, and the Animal Welfare Act, 51 U. MICH. J. L. REFORM 469 (2018). Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjlr/vol51/iss3/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform at University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform by an authorized editor of University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. BEYOND RIGHTS AND WELFARE: DEMOCRACY, DIALOGUE, AND THE ANIMAL WELFARE ACT Jessica Eisen* ABSTRACT The primary frameworks through which scholars have conceptualized legal pro- tections for animals—animal “rights” and animal “welfare”—do not account for socio-legal transformation or democratic dialogue as central dynamics of animal law. The animal “rights” approach focuses on the need for limits or boundaries preventing animal use, while the animal “welfare” approach advocates balancing harm to animals against human benefits from animal use. Both approaches rely on abstract accounts of the characteristics animals are thought to share with humans and the legal protections they are owed as a result of those traits.
    [Show full text]
  • Cause and Effect. the Controversial Credo of a Militant Animal Rights' Activist
    [- Cause and Effect. The controversial credo of a militant animal rights' activist. DR. JERRY VLASAK : Would I advocate taking five guilty vivisectors' lives to save hundreds of millions of innocent animal lives] CBC News and Current Affairs Tue 19 Apr 2005 Time: 22:00 EDT Network: CBC Television PETER MANSBRIDGE (HOST) : - Cause and Effect. The controversial credo of a militant animal rights' activist. DR. JERRY VLASAK : Would I advocate taking five guilty vivisectors' lives to save hundreds of millions of innocent animal lives? Yes, I would. - PETER MANSBRIDGE (HOST) : Canada's seal hunt is under fire once again from animal rights groups, including the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, a group with a reputation for extreme tactics. Now some disturbing words are coming from one of its senior members. While he's been actively defending the lives of animals, he's been talking about taking the lives of people. Peter Gullage reports. PETER GULLAGE (REPORTER) : Early April on the ice off the Magdalen Islands at the front line of the fight against the seal hunt. To American Dr. Jerry Vlasak, a leading member of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, it's a brutal slaughter of innocents. He also crusades against animal testing for medical research. In the past, he advocated the murder of researchers involved in animal testing. DR. JERRY VLASAK : Would I advocate taking five guilty vivisectors' lives to save hundreds of millions of innocent animal lives? Yes, I would. PETER GULLAGE (REPORTER) : But Paul Watson, founder of the Sea Shepherd Society, claims his organization is non-violent and Vlasak's words were taken out of context..
    [Show full text]
  • Between the Species
    1 BETWEEN THE SPECIES Reflections on Tom Regan and the Animal Rights Movement That Once Was Gary L. Francione Board of Governors Distinguished Professor of Law and Nicholas deB. Katzenbach Scholar of Law and Philosophy Rutgers University School of Law New Jersey, U.S.A. Honorary Professor (Philosophy) School of Politics, Philosophy, and Language and Communication Studies University of East Anglia Norwich, U.K. Volume 21, Issue 1 Spring 2018 http://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/bts/ 2 Gary L. Francione The Beginning of a Real Rights Movement Let me set the scene: On July 15, 1985, a group of approxi- mately 100 animal rights activists, one of whom is Tom Regan, have taken over a building at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in Bethesda, Maryland. They are protesting head-injury experiments that are being conducted on baboons at the Uni- versity of Pennsylvania (Penn) Medical School. The protesters have announced that they will occupy the building unless and until the government agrees to at least suspend funding for the lab pending a full investigation. The government is threatening to arrest the protesters if they do not leave. As a large group of exhausted, unwashed, and nervous pro- testors crowded around him in rapt attention in a large but cramped NIH office, fearing their apparently inevitable arrest, Tom calmed and refocused them by recounting the history of nonviolent protest in various social movements and by reas- suring them about how such protest had been crucial to those struggles. Tom was a terrific storyteller, and his tales and his knowledge of social justice movements engaged and energized this group day after day for almost four days straight, helping the protestors regain their courage and understand how what they were doing was important, both as a matter of our opposi- tion to the experiments we were protesting and as part of our greater goal to achieve justice for nonhuman animals.
    [Show full text]