Archives

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.

After reading our post about a U.K.-based fashion designer who makes purses and iPad cases out of deer skin, Elizabeth Ohlendorf from Sacramento, California, created a Change.org petition demanding that Rosemary Hobrough “Stop killing animals to create purses and other fashion items out of deer/fawn skin/fur.” The petition also calls for a boycott of her online store, RAH & Co. Thank you for taking action, Elizabeth.

Skin is not a fabric, even if taken from animals who were hunted on the grounds of overpopulation. We have an overpopulation of humans too, but no one is using that as a justification to kill us and turn our bodies into purses. Please sign and share the petition.

A fashion designer in the U.K. is making handbags and iPad cases out of deer skin. In response to the justification that the deer are killed anyway to prevent them from starving due to overpopulation, PETA said, ‘Selling bags made of animals who were gunned down while enjoying a natural life… results only in greedy, arrogant deer skin sellers keeping deer alive each year just long enough to kill them so as to sell more deer skin products.’

photo: Daily Mail

In modern day times, why do we regard someone else’s skin as fabric? The skins of cows, mink, fox, rabbits, alligators, snakes, deer and many other animals don’t belong to us. With all of the alternatives available in 2014, shopping at cruelty free companies like Vaute Couture, Brave GentleMan, John Bartlett and MooShoes would be no skin off your back. Please learn more about the inherent cruelty in the fur business.

In the early hours of Wednesday morning, thousands of mink were released from their cages at a Canadian fur farm. The liberation was likely conducted by activists in response to a widely publicized story about the grisly conditions on the farm. The Montreal SPCA, which conducted the investigation that led to the story, said that the dehydrated, thin and sick animals, some of whom had open wounds, were “living in hell.”

Photo: Montreal SPCA

Those who criticize activists for conducting liberations say that the newly-freed animals who manage to escape into nearby areas cannot survive after living in captivity. Even if that is true, a few hours or days of freedom is far better than a lifetime of intensive confinement and abuse followed by death by anal electrocution, gassing or neck-breaking. Learn more about fur farming and join the fight to end it.

His name is Sam Simon, and, in the last months of his life, this Hollywood mogul has been donating a fortune to liberate animals. Today, he bought a fur farm in Southern California and rescued 425 chinchillas from a life of intensive confinement in wire cages: “This is your last day of abuse” and “first day of freedom,” he said to the animals while walking through the fur farm. PETA helped to broker the deal with the fur farm, though the owner was unaware of that. 

Photo: REUTERS/Mike Blake

In June, Mr. Simon freed Sunder, an abused elephant in India, and, before that, he rescued bears being held captive in a Georgia roadside attraction. Simon, who is dying from colorectal cancer, donated $100,000 to the San Diego Humane Society to take care of the newly-released chinchillas until they are adopted. When this animal hero does die, we know exactly where he’s going.