In an opinion piece criticizing Pamela Anderson for opposing the ALS Association’s ice bucket challenge because the organization funds animal testing, the New York Post made no mention of why Ms. Anderson and “39 percent of Americans say medical testing on animals is morally wrong.” In fact, the Post attempts to discredit her by portraying her opposition as merely philosophical while stating that the benefits of animal testing are real.

The movement to ban animal testing isn’t philosophical; it is based on a frantic desire to stop animals from being tortured in labs. In her statement regarding the ALS ice bucket challenge, Ms. Anderson wrote: “In recent experiments funded by the ALS Association, mice had holes drilled into their skulls, were inflicted with crippling illnesses, and were forced to run on an inclined treadmill until they collapsed from exhaustion. Monkeys had chemicals injected into their brains and backs and were later killed and dissected.”

Some scientists maintain that animal research is necessary; others argue that it’s outdated and irrelevant to humans. Animal rights say it’s unjustifiable. But can all sides agree on one thing — that imprisoning animals in small cages for their entire lives, depriving them of everything that comes naturally to them and conducting painful experiments on them constitute torture? When making a decision about whether or not to support animal testing, shouldn’t people be equipped with that baseline knowledge?

If chimpanzees used in medical experiments had the power to switch places with and conduct tests on their captors, wouldn’t the researchers demand to be released on moral grounds? Wouldn’t they hope and pray that others rescue them?  If so, then they should follow the golden rule: Do unto others, animal cutters!

Humans are an arrogant bunch.  We think we are so superior to every other other species that we can do whatever we want to them, but aren’t we the only species that is destroying the planet?

One statement in the NY Post article (inadvertently) acknowledges the need for the animal rights activists like Pamela Anderson: “It’s fine, maybe even admirable, to strip naked to urge humane treatment of pets, combat cruel factory-farming or oppose unnecessary animal testing (as in the cosmetics industry).” The Post editors and mainstream society will eventually oppose all animal testing; they just don’t know it yet.

Over the years, restaurant servers have suggested fish when I told them I’m vegetarian, and many vegetarians have told me they eat fish. Are these people genuinely confused? Do they not see the fish as animals because they look so much different from cows, chickens and pigs? Or do they want the “vegetarian” label without having to give up fish? Whatever their reasons, can we all agree that fish aren’t vegetables?

Unlike vegetables, fish are sentient — able to feel things. When caught on a sharp hook that pierces their faces, they experience pain. When dragged out of their home in nets or by hooks, they suffocate — just as we would if someone held our heads underwater. Why would we inflict that kind of pain on someone? For sport? For a plate of food? Is it really worth it?

While hunting evokes a negative response among many people, fishing does not. In fact, many view it as a wholesome family activity. But it is far from wholesome. Fishing is a blood sport; it is hunting in the water. So, if you oppose hunting, then shouldn’t you oppose fishing and consuming fish? If you’re not convinced that fishing is inhumane, please read more.

When Congress passed the industry-backed Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA) in 2006, the use of “terrorist” to describe animal rights activists became socially acceptable. Peculiar, no? Terrorists use suicide bombs and planes as weapons; activists use cameras and leaflets. Terrorists torture and kill indiscriminately; activists work to reduce suffering and harm. Do ISIS and Hamas look to the animal rights movement for guidance? Are they emulating our tactics? Probably not.

Don’t get me wrong. There are terrorists in the equation — they are the people who terrorize animals in factory farms, in laboratories, on fur farms and in many other windowless buildings that keep the public in the dark. These terrorists attempt to use the AETA to shift attention away from their own atrocities: “Hey – let’s pay members of Congress to pass a law that equates animal activism to terrorism so that the activists become the enemy and we become the victim.”

The animal industries’ use of the word “terrorist” to demonize activists was an exploitation of the public’s fear and vulnerability in a post 9/11 era, and animal abusers in other countries picked up on this approach. In 2013, leaders of the bullfighting business in France described the country’s anti-bullfight association a “terrorist organization” when calling on the government to dissolve it.

Kevin Oliff and Tyler Lang. Photo by Dom Greco

In July, two activists in California, Kevin Olliff and Tyler Lang, were arrested and charged under the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act for allegedly releasing 2,000 mink and foxes from fur farms. Will Potter, author of Green Is the New Red: An Insider’s Account of a Social Movement Under Siege, tells their story.

How do the victims of actual terrorism and their families feel about the use of “terrorist” to describe animal rights activists? And why do people accept this bastardization of the word? Is it simply because they haven’t given it any thought? Or, is it because categorizing activists as terrorists helps people rationalize their own behavior. After all, eating and wearing animals is less egregious than being a terrorist.

Under AETA, anyone who causes the loss of property or profits to institutions that use or sell animals can be prosecuted. The law is vague, and it is unconstitutional because it violates free speech. Eventually, it will be overturned. Learn more about AETA and where it stands now.

Like many other animal rights activists, I’m always thinking about the plight of animals, and I’m always asking people to consider animals in the decisions they make each day. I don’t advocating for animals is all-consuming. Maybe it’s just the way I’m wired. But, every so often, I see abuse that is so extreme that I short circuit – and give up hope.

Photo: sundayworld.com

Today I came across an article – with accompanying video – about live frogs being served as sushi in Japan. I’ve seen the footage of people eating live fish in Japan, but this took a bigger toll on me. Perhaps it’s because the frog footage is more graphic. Whatever the reason, I struggled through the video, put my head in my hands, and had one of those moments when I asked myself, “Humans have been – and always will – monsters, so what’s the point in trying?”

Then I eat a row of cookies, focus on the animals who are counting on us, think about the victories and get back to work.

Whole Foods is selling rabbit meat and whole frozen rabbits in some part of the country, and activists are protesting. One handout reads, “Rabbits are the 3rd most popular furry companion in the U.S. and have unique personalities just like dogs and cats. They enjoy running, jumping, snuggling with other rabbits and form deep bonds with their humans.”

Whole Foods is defending the sale of rabbits, claiming they are treated humanely: “The rabbits will be raised in pens on solid floors with dry bedding to allow them to socialize, hide, climb, forage and play. The rabbits also have to have continuous access to drinking water, feed, gnawing blocks, tunnels and places for seclusion.”

The commercial farming of ANY animal for human consumption is inhumane, and it all has to stop – for the sake of the animals and the environment. In the meantime, why are we be protesting the sale of rabbits at Whole Foods if they do, in fact, have better lives than the broiler chickens being sold at the grocery store down the street? Do we think that companion animals deserve to be spared any more than chickens or cows, or are we simply using the “companion animal” rationale because it might be an effective approach to helping at least a few animals?

In our efforts to ban the slaughter of American horses, activists often use the same “companion animal” rationale. While I don’t think that horses or rabbits deserve to live or die any more than other animals, I will nonetheless be thrilled when the slaughter of horses and sale of rabbit meat are banned. (Please sign change.org petition to Whole Foods). I am grateful to activists who campaign against any form of animal abuse. At the end of the day, we’re probably most effective when we pick the battles that resonate most with ourselves.