This is What Radical Animal Rights Activists Consider Free Speech
A California Appeals Court has rejected an appeal against a lawsuit filed by Chiron Corporation seeking damages and other legal remedies against Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty, USA (SHAC) for harassment and invasion of privacy, based on supposed first amendment grounds. Here is what the animal liberationists apparently consider "free speech," as described in the San Francisco Chronicle:
"The court said the animal rights group announced in 2003 that Chiron was a target of its campaign against Huntingdon, and posted the names, addresses, home phones and bank account information of Chiron employees on its Web site.
"In May 2003, the court said, someone went to the homes of company chairman Sean Lance and two other executives in the middle of the night, shouted slogans, left screeching alarms in their yards and took other harassing actions, such as smearing animal feces on a house. The visits were repeated and were accompanied by late-night phone calls and e-mails, the court said.
"After two pipe bombs exploded at Chiron's headquarters in August 2003, the court said, the animal rights group posted links to threatening statements by an organization that claimed responsibility. No one was hurt in the explosions, and damage was minor.
In August 2004, after the suit was filed, about 35 demonstrators went to the home of Chiron's chief lawyer, William Green, and smashed several windows. The organization had previously posted a message instructing members to gather for a 'home demonstration' that weekend, the court said."
Free speech my big toenail. Good for the Court of Appeals.
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 5:18 PM
4 Comments
4 Comments:
Exactly. The ideology of animal liberation accepts no moral distinction between humans and animals. Hence, animal experimentation, to them, is the same as Mengele in the camps. With the exception of Gary Francione, few notable animal rights activists will even condemn these tactics. PETA explicitly refuses to do so.
It is disturbing how they are activistically eroding the distinction between people and animlas. In order to commit gross atrocities such confusion of language and miscategorization was used for instance in Rwanda when the Hutu called the Tutsis cockroaches and in Nazi Germany when Jews were called rats. It is a miltant normalizing of a lie but in this case it seems to be directed against the whole human race.
Raskolnikov: The corruption of language is a constant subtheme here at Secondhand Smoke. Changing language and definitions precedes changes in values and culture. Hence, we see "assisted suicide" called "aid in dying," or "death with dignity." Patients diagnosed as PVS are in danger of being redefined as "dead," an issue that I will have a larger article published about in the near future. Those who we would kill or exploit, we must first dehumanize. Language is the vehicle by which this is accomplished.
The two most prominent animal-liberation philosophers, Peter Singer and Tom Regan, have both condemned the violence perpetrated by some (a small minority) in the movement.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1272372,00.html
http://www.satyamag.com/apr04/regan.html
Leading ecofeminist animal-liberationist Carol J. Adams is a Christian (Master of Divinity) anti-violence activist who makes the connection between violence against humans, especially violence against women, and violence against animals.
http://www.rothtalent.com/speakers/slist/adams
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home