A Stitch in Haste

As everyone prepares to blog about the Philippines' caving to terrorist threats, let's not forget a related form of terrorist capitulation, as the BBC reports:

Animal rights activists have been blamed for intimidating a building firm into pulling out of a new animal research centre contract in Oxford.

Executives at the Montpellier Group said the company's subsidiary, Walter Lilly and Co, would be withdrawing.  A police probe earlier this year found letters claiming to be from Montpellier bosses urging shareholders to sell or face action from activists.

"They are threatening, they are destroying, they are undermining the lives of people going about their business," [Home Secretary David Blunkett] said.
...
Consultant neurosurgeon at Oxford University Professor Tipu Aziz said: "Animal rights terrorism is the most immediate threat to the British population as I perceive it. ... "Until animal rights extremists are treated as terrorists they will hold hostage the future of British public health."

Perhaps the most amazing part of this story is that, according to Oxford University, "the centre would replace existing sites and would not mean an increase in animal tests." But perhaps the tests would have been more efficient in a modern facility (maybe even sparing a few specimens).  Or maybe the people using the facility would have been more comfortable and productive in their new surroundings.
 
Details, details...
 
Aziz' statement about the magnitude of the animal rights threat may be a bit exaggerated.  The philosophical underpinnings of animal rights terrorists, however, are just as toxic and decrepit as al Qaeda's.  Just as Islamic terrorists are motivated not by love of Islam, but rather by hatred of the West, animal rights terrorists are not motivated by love of animals, but rather by hatred of humans.
 
More on animal rights terrorism from NRO here.

An update to my earlier post on animal rights terrorists, courtesy of the U.K.'s Guardian:

A top adviser to Britain's two most powerful animal rights protest groups caused outrage last night by claiming that the assassination of scientists working in biomedical research would save millions of animals' lives.

To the fury of groups working with animals, Jerry Vlasak, a trauma surgeon and prominent figure in the anti-vivisection movement, told The Observer: 'I think violence is part of the struggle against oppression. If something bad happens to these people [animal researchers], it will discourage others. It is inevitable that violence will be used in the struggle and that it will be effective.'

Vlasak, who likens animal experimentation to the Nazis' treatment of the Jews, said he stood by his claim that: 'I don't think you'd have to kill too many [researchers]. I think for five lives, 10 lives, 15 human lives, we could save a million, 2 million, 10 million non-human lives.

As I said in my previous post on the subject: The philosophical underpinnings of animal rights terrorists are just as toxic and decrepit as al Qaeda's.  Just as Islamic terrorists are motivated not by love of Islam, but rather by hatred of the West, animal rights terrorists are not motivated by love of animals, but rather by hatred of humans.

Hat tip to Kevin Drum.

The New York Times has an update to my previous post and update, on animal rights terrorists:

"It has been an incredible year for us," said Greg Avery, a spokesman for Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty, a group that wages a continuing campaign against Britain's largest research lab, owned by Huntingdon Life Sciences, near Cambridge. "The animal-rights movement is bigger and stronger than it has ever been."

The militants' successes have alarmed investors, scientists and drug manufacturers, who warn that Britain - a dominant force in the pharmaceutical industry- could face a serious drop in biomedical investment if the campaigns are not curtailed.
...
[GlaxoSmithKline] was spending tens of millions of dollars to protect workers and buildings in Britain. The company's legal counsel recently moved out of his house with his children after receiving threats, Mr. Garnier said...adding that several unnamed companies looking to invest had decided against Britain because of the intensity of the animal welfare campaigns.
...
Everyone associated with the lab, including cabdrivers, caterers, delivery workers and bank executives, has become a target.
...
This year, 51 suppliers cut off business relations with Huntingdon, a number that is tallied by the animal welfare groups. The attacks can also be personal. The managing director of the lab, Brian Cass, was beaten by men with baseball bats, and the cars and homes of Huntingdon employees have been vandalized in attacks linked to animal welfare advocates.
...
Mr. Avery said his group was not responsible for any violence, and he defended its right to make life difficult for companies associated with the lab, calling them fair game.

"The companies involved are valid targets," he said. "Auschwitz would not have existed without people supplying gas, chemicals, food. Every single one of those, big or small, is a cog in that machine."

Auschwitz?

My advice to the British pharmaceutical industry: Come to the U.S.! We know a thing or two about combating terrorists, especially terrorists who seek nothing less than the total destruction of something they deem evil in any degree. We also know about protecting private property and preventing harassment of private citizens.

And we value, even celebrate, the contributions of high-tech industries as much as, if not more than, any other nation. We're especially fond of pharmaceutical development and other biomedical research.

And remember: The philosophical underpinnings of animal rights terrorists are just as toxic and decrepit as al Qaeda's. Just as Islamic terrorists are motivated not by love of Islam, but rather by hatred of the West, animal rights terrorists are not motivated by love of animals, but rather by hatred of humans.

UPDATE: A case in point here, from California, against the very animal rights terrorist group that has been such a threat in the U.K.

Spiked provides a report on how the U.K. government is dropping the ball on fighting animal rights terrorists, who gathered in that country recently to stage a "direct action teach-in" (for background, see my posts here and here):

Few people will challenge activists' arguments head-on, and defend the moral value of animal research. Few people will argue that research that saves human lives and furthers scientific understanding justifies the death and maiming of animals. Instead both government and scientific authorities seem to be embarrassed about the matter, mumbling that they aren't really doing that much research on animals, or that they are looking for ways to try to avoid it.
...
After being lobbied by the Political Animal Lobby, the Labour Party pension fund withdrew its investment from Huntingdon Life Sciences, citing its reasons as 'ethical'. Meanwhile, Oxford University's scientific establishment reacted defensively to protests about its planned animal research facility, saying that it was merely concentrating existing facilities, and emphasising that the new laboratories would help to provide 'the best available conditions of animal welfare and housing'.

When the government stands up for the rights of goldfish, and research scientists pose as defenders of animal welfare, it's hardly surprising if animal rights protesters think that they are on to something.

Notice the parallels between the response to animal rights terrorism and the response to Islamic terrorism: Show any sign of weakness or appeasement, try to "apologize" for doing whatever it was that angered them and suggest that "it's not really all that bad," and what do you get? More terrorism, more demands, more appeasement, etc.

I have posted the following several times before: The philosophical underpinnings of animal rights terrorists are just as toxic and decrepit as al Qaeda's. Just as Islamic terrorists are motivated not by love of Islam, but rather by hatred of the West, animal rights terrorists are not motivated by love of animals, but rather by hatred of humans.

The Spike article echoes my view:

In fact, there is nothing noble about the animal rights cause. Activists tend to spout a fairly mindless brand of misanthropism -- indicated by one photo of a young female activist who had scrawled the word 'terrorist' on her forehead. 'In the end it is all about the animals, not about us, we mean nothing', one of the Kent activists said. ...Here we see activists' contempt for human lives -- if 'we mean nothing', no mouse should suffer to save a man. It is because animal rightists place human health and knowledge so low that they place the guinea pig so high.

If scientific and political authorities stopped jumping at activists' every threat, and started arguing with them, the protesters' cloak of martyrdom would soon start to slip.

Exactly. It's unfortunate that we have to invent this wheel twice, first doing backflips to convince "moderate" Muslims that we're not bigots (those same Muslims who have done essentially nothing to save their own religion from those who slaughter in its name). But now we're also doing the exact same philosophical gymnastics to appease people who would also gladly see you die...in their case for the sake not of jihad but rather for the sake of a lab rat.

Pathetic.

This tactic is sure to save some guinea pigs...somehow.

The grave of an 87-year-old woman whose family has been the target of animal rights protesters has been desecrated. ...Her remains had been dug up.

Her family's connection to a farm where guinea pigs are bred for research has led to a campaign against them. Police said they were investigating possible links to groups opposed to activities at the farm in Newchurch. Mrs Hammond's family has been the target of protests in recent years because of their connection with the Darley Oaks Farm.
...
Diocesan officials said the damage went "way beyond" petty vandalism. The site has been cordoned off while forensic teams carry out an investigation.

Lichfield MP Michael Fabricant said this was the latest in a long series of attacks by "so-called animal rights activists" on owners, workers, relatives and friends of people associated with Darley Oaks Farm. ..."This is the culmination of a whole series of incidents affecting the Hall family and local villagers," Mr Fabricant said on Friday.
...
The Archdeacon of Lichfield, the Venerable Chris Liley, said those responsible had "violated" a place of peace, adding: "Once that begins to happen, a line has been crossed in civilised society."

As true as ever: The philosophical underpinnings of animal rights terrorists are just as toxic and decrepit as al Qaeda's. Just as Islamic terrorists are motivated not by love of Islam, but rather by hatred of the West, animal rights terrorists are not motivated by love of animals, but rather by hatred of humans.

Related Posts:
The Other Capitulation to Terrorists
More "Other Terrorism"
How to Deal With Animal Rights Terrorists
Animal Rights Terrorists: Lessons Not Learned

There is, quite understandably, much buzz about a quote (or perhaps it's a misquote or a paraphrase or something) from Ingrid Newkirk, co-founder and president of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals:

"Even if animal research resulted in a cure for AIDS, we'd be against it."

On the question of exactly what she said, see here.

I have blogged before about animals rights activists and animal rights terrorists; see the archive below. To summarize: two axioms must always be remembered when discussing issues of animal use, abuse and cruelty:

1. Animals have no "rights." The rights that are infringed when animals suffer are the rights of human beings. Animal cruelty inflicts negative externalities -- quite extreme externalities in fact -- on people of good will (such as myself). It is an entirely proper function of government to quash those externalities by prohibiting such conduct. Stated differently, animal cruelty is not a crime against animals, it is a crime against humanity.

2. Animal rights activists are not motivated by love of animals, but by hatred of humans. This is a hard premise to accept by most people (because most people are not demented), but the Newkirk quote serves as yet further demonstration of it. Elevating animals to the same level as humans is a monstrous enough notion -- to support elevating animals above humans can only be justified by someone who sees, not worth in animals, but anti-worth in humanity. Note also that, statistically speaking, people with AIDS, both domestically and globally, tend to be at or near the bottom of the political and economic power structures. These are the people, not "Big Pharma," not "Republicans," not "Americans," but the weakest and most desperate demographic on the planet, whom Newkirk opposes. These are the people to whom PETA says, in Zuniga-esque fashion, "Screw 'em." (A related observation at Soul of Wit.)

There are bona fide animal rights terrorists who use bona fide violence to further their agenda. That's bad enough. But sometimes words and ideas are more destructive than any pipe bomb. Newkirk's evil viewpoint is a sad example.

Related Posts:
The Other Capitulation to Terrorists
More "Other Terrorism"
How to Deal With Animal Rights Terrorists
Animal Rights Terrorists: Lessons Not Learned
Animal Rights Terrorists: Grave of 87-Year-Old Desecrated

It became necessary to destroy the owls in order to save them:

Federal scientists are planning to shoot a small number of barred owls they say are crowding out the threatened spotted owl in northern California -- an experiment that could lead to killing thousands of the larger owls on the West Coast.

Scientists said the "removal" experiment would be the best way to quickly determine whether barred owls are pushing spotted owls toward extinction. If successful, officials would then consider expanding the program.
...
Some experts, however, say even if the experiment is successful, it will be hard to stop the migration of the barred owls.

"Assuming you find removal is working -- spotted owls move back into their territories -- are you prepared to do that for the next 10,000 years? Because as soon as you stop you're right back where you started," said Eric Forsman, a spotted owl biologist for the U.S. Forest Service.

I'm generally sympathetic, ab initio, to the general concept of protecting endangered species, if the endangerment was the direct result of reckless human activity. I'm not sure how an apparently natural migration of barred owls into spotted owl territory is analogous to deforestation and other forms of irresponsible habitat destruction.

Also, isn't it the environmentalists who always warn that ecosystems are "living tapestries" and that if you remove one thread then the whole fabric may collapse? Isn't there just a tad bit of hubris in assuming that it's as easy as shooting 20 barred owls?

Finally, for the animal rights extremists: don't the barred owls have just as much "rights" as the spotted owls? Yet why do I expect not to see any significant protests from PETA and similar organizations?

Eco-politics often trumps eco-wisdom or eco-realism (recall the "10,000 years" quote above). Spotted owls are not only endangered -- lots of animals are -- they are also politically favored. And as we see time and time again in the strictly human realm, political favoritism leads to unwise, wasteful, self-contradicting and sometimes even destructive results.

But eco-politics is merely one application of the Politics of the Warm Fuzzy Feeling. The environmentalists "did something" to save an endangered species. The fact that the "something" was the slaughter of biologically equivalent, but politically subordinate, animals is irrelevant.

Unless of course the barred owl someday becomes endangered itself. I wonder how the environmentalists would respond then.


Go Ahead, Kill Him...


...He Needs His Space.

William Saletan goes PETA hunting:

Racism draws invalid distinctions. PETA does the opposite: It omits valid distinctions. It equates animals, blacks, and whites, because it misunderstands the nature and history of equality. Abuses of blacks, Native Americans, and women were products of a belief in subordinating the inferior, not the powerless. We learned to respect others not for their disabilities but for their abilities. That's why we'll come around eventually -- and only partially -- to animal rights.

I of course agree with Saletan's conclusions but not with his framing. As I've blogged repeatedly, protecting animal welfare and criminalizing animal cruelty are valid societal endeavors not because animals have rights, but because people do.

Animal cruelty not only imposes costs (for lack of a better term) on the animal, but also on those who witness it or contemplate its existence. Animal cruelty generates objective negative externalities so great that they exceed the private benefits to the inflicter of the cruelty. The conduct can, therefore, be curtailed, even in a free society.

Consider the following hypothetical: Assume a private person owns some private property. He can think of three uses for the property: a dance club, a gay bathhouse, or a cockfighting arena.

Recent trends notwithstanding, society has no legitimate authority whatsover to tell the owner that he can only open a dance club if he makes it smoke-free; there are no negative externalities from having competent consenting adults smoking in a private dance club (ignoring state-imposed externalities resulting from socialized health care).

Same for the gay bathhouse. If you have a community full of Robert Borks and Phyllis Schaflys, then a gay sex club might generate negative externalities that some might (and do) claim justify regulation and even prohibition. But those externalities are illegitimate, because they are based on subjective prejudice and bigotry and not on any objective cost. "I don't like it" is simply not a sufficient externality to curtail private consensual conduct. This parallels Saletan's race-based argument: the fact that you are ignorant about gays does not give you a claim to regulate, prohibit or criminalize homosexual conduct, especially on private property.

The same is not true, however, for the cockfighting arena. Just the knowledge that such an activity is happening within a jurisdiction also creates negative externalities sufficient to warrant banning the activity outright. But unlike the gay bathhouse, the cockfighting externalities are objective and demonstrable -- animals feel pain, and reasonable people derive no pleasure from seeing animals in pain. The community outrage is not contingent on personal biases and prejudices -- all normal people are offended by animal cruelty, but not all normal people are offended by gay sex (one might suggest that no normal people are offended by gay sex, but that's another blogpost).

Saletan is fundamentally correct: the more we learn about animals, especially higher animals, the more indignant we will become toward animal cruelty in its various forms. But that is not the same as saying that animals have "rights." They do not -- we do. And in the final analysis, that's just as good, if not better, for the animals themselves.