ALF Admits London Terrorist Arson
I reported yesterday on the shameful and criminal firebombing of Dr. Edythe London's house. One commentator thought I might have jumped to a conclusion. But the despicable ALF has now bragged about their felonious conduct. From the anonymous press release:
After promising to return if she continued torturing non-human primates in her UCLA laboratory, animal liberationists have again targeted the home of notorious primate vivisector Edythe London. According to the Los Angeles Times, an incendiary device damaged her home today; no one was home at the time. London was targeted by the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) last October for her role in torturing non-human animals to death in outdated and unnecessary experiments; in that incident, tens of thousands of dollars in damage was reported after her home was flooded by a garden hose. The ALF claimed to target London for her sadistic routine of addicting non-human primates to methamphetamine; she has also published data on primate addiction to nicotine, and addicting baby lambs to cocaine...Jerry Vlasak, who has justified murdering researchers, commented:
"London's research is a colossal waste of taxpayer money, and soliciting money from industry groups to study their retail products is considered unethical by most physicians interested in research that might help their patients. Of course, not being a clinician, London appears to have no interest in helping people, but instead derives pleasure in addicting primates to 'Crystal Meth' to further her own personal goals of academic and monetary enrichment. This recent attack should come as no surprise to London; I wouldn't be astonished if she remains a target until she stops her heinous experiments upon these innocent and unconsenting primates."Come on, FBI: Catch these creeps. Come on "mainstream" animal rights groups: Loudly condemn these criminals and cooperate with law enforcement to catch and stop them. The peaceability of your movement is at stake.
Labels: ALF. Animal rights terrorism
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 10:34 AM
4 Comments
4 Comments:
Dear Wesley,
Being disabled myself, I have long appreciated your work for the rights to live and thrive of human beings like me who are not "perfect." However....
First of all, don't get me wrong--I do not condone violence against animal researchers at all. Quite the opposite. It makes no sense to condemn what researchers do to animals while doing the same to the researchers. Just like it is decidedly not "prolife" to harass and kill abortion providers.
But I suspect that maybe these violence advocates and such notoriously inconsistent animal rights advocates as Peter Singer have poisoned you against more serious and empathetic consideration of animal concerns?
If so, that is too bad. Because for many of us, respect for animal lives is of a piece with respect for human lives. The two forms of respect are profoundly interconnected and mutually reinforcing. It has absolutely nothing to do with terrorism or an ablist utilitarian calculus.
From Marysia at the Nonviolent Chice Directory, www.nonviolentchoice.info (I'm a vegetarian, environmentalist, and carer for abandoned animals as well as a disability rights advocate & opponent of medicalized killing)
Hi, Marysia: What a pretty name.
Of course it hasn't. I support animal welfare--which posits a moral duty on the part of humans to treat animals humanely--and animal rights which creates a moral equivalency between humans and animals.
I also believe that making proper use of animals is crucial to human thriving, and is needed in areas such as medical research. Where we can do without it, we should.
The theory of animal rights says being human isn't what gives us value, but the ability to feel pain or to suffer. That closes the door to universal human rights.
So, in my view animal welfare, yes, and a steadily increasing level of humane care for animals. But animal rights, no.
Thanks for writing.
Slaughtering animals is not humane. Nor is testing monkeys (and then killing them) to see the effects of nicotine. We already know that nicotine is bad and that people shouldn't smoke. Why punish monkeys because some people are stupid enough to smoke or do drugs?
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-tobacco9feb09,0,969218.story
Wesley,
"Marysia" is approximately pronounced "Mareesha" in English. It is a very common Polish nickname for "Maria."
You wrote:
"The theory of animal rights says being human isn't what gives us value, but the ability to feel pain or to suffer. That closes the door to universal human rights."
'Tain't necessarily so. There is more than one possible basis for animal rights. Mine certainly isn't that suspect criterion of ability to feel pain because it's always the oppressed who are judged not to feel pain...
One could instead argue that simply because animals exist, and thus have innate value, that they cannot be subjected to violence. Nonviolence is the starting presumption, and can (if at all) be overruled only in certain limited circumstances. If this makes any sense.
I don't think that protecting all humans depends on drawing a complete bright line between us and our kin.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home