 |
Photo by “gotbrimmed” and released under Creative Commons. Original Image available here. |
The Register has an editorial today about the California Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act (discussed by me here), and as I expected, they have no argument except “watch out for animal “rights” activists! They’re CRAZY!”:
Because animal-rights protesters are generally loud, obnoxious, uncompromising or naked (and sometimes all four at once), we tend to equate them with the colorful but harmless characters hoisting cardboard signs along the Venice Beach boardwalk.
But the animal-rights movement is far from harmless. And since California seems to be the current animal-rights Ground Zero, it’s worth considering what the movement stands for.
Don’t confuse animal “rights” with animal “welfare,” a more mainstream movement concerned with puppy and kitten populations. Animal-rights activism is more about protest, pressure and raising hell than actual animal care. And the groups pushing the Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act are decidedly in the “rights” camp.
The writer goes on from there to denounce animal rights (all non-pet animal welfare, actually) and mock caricature of PETA style protesters. He doesn’t go into economic impact, or issues of company “freedoms” (as many editorials do), it’s just strawmen set up for him to knock down. Very little of the article actually discusses the new law.
In the end, that’s good for those of us fighting for this to make it to the ballot - the arguments on the other side are silly. Then again, many people believe what they read, generally feel guilty about eating meat, and find it much easier to ignore animals than do anything about the problems.
Thank you for posting this! I was so mad after I read that column (not an editorial, by the way — papers themselves write editorials). I actually sent a letter to the editor, but it may not get printed since I live in Illinois. You’re so right about his arguments — very flimsy. And unfortunately you’re right about people believing him. Hopefully they’ll publish a piece that refutes what he said.
Geez, you’d think people realize that when they write in an idiotic way, it just makes people support the other side. I also can’t help but wonder what’s with the “far from harmless” comment. Even if animal rights groups are loud, obnoxious, uncompromising or naked, how, exactly, does that threaten the writer?