the threat to scientists from animal rights activists

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Liz Ditz <ponytrax () batnet com>
Date: December 3, 2005 7:30:45 PM EST
To: David Farber <dave () farber net>
Subject: the threat to scientists from animal rights activists

For IP if you wish.

Dr. Jerry Vlasak believes that assassinating some scientists to  
intimidate others into abandoning the use of animals in their  
research was morally justified.

Brian O'Connor, a retired Professor of Anatomy and Cell Biology from  
the Indiana University School of Medicine , maintains a blog called  
Animal Crackers,

http://brianoconnor.typepad.com/animal_crackers/

in which he tracks the threat to science (and scientists)  posed by  
Animal Rights (AR) and Animal Liberationist (AL) activists.

==================================
http://brianoconnor.typepad.com/animal_crackers/2005/12/ 
rodney_coronado.html

By openly advocating assassination in behalf of the Animal Rights/ 
Animal Liberationist cause before a nationwide audience, Dr. Vlasak  
made it impossible for other Animal Rights activists to avoid his  
reasoning, which is merely an extension of the logic that flows  
seamlessly from the AR premise — that the life of an animal and that  
of a human are of equal moral value. To the AR/AL True Believer, if  
it immoral or unethical to do something to a human, it is equally so  
to do it to an animal, and to discriminate against an animal simply  
because the animal is "not human" is "speciesism" — a form of  
discrimination that is as much an immoral act as is racism.

To Dr. Vlasak — and many Animal Rights activists — it is not enough  
to sit back passively and claim virtue by not discriminating  
yourself. You have an affirmative moral obligation to animals to  
prevent others from practicing "speciesism." And here in lies the  
rub . . .

Those who have been moved to action have long embraced a wide range  
of "direct actions" designed to terrorize that include vandalism,  
assault, arson and, recently, the use of anti-personnel bombs. But  
they have always claimed the moral high ground by invoking the  
disingenuous argument that their tactics couldn't be considered  
"terror" because nobody has (yet) been killed.

In fact, to hear the public statements of those promoting "direct  
actions," one might believe that killing was off-limits. (Pamelyn  
Ferdin, wife of Dr. Vlasak and President of SHAC-USA, claims that  
what her husband's public advocacy of murder is merely what "many in  
the animal rights movement have said privately (even those who are  
now critical of Dr. Vlasak) that political violence would be morally  
justified on behalf of animal liberation" ["political violence" is  
code for assassination].)

Murder is no longer unthinkable, not since Dr. Vlasak aired his views  
before the Senate and again on 60 Minutes.

Now, violent Animal Rights activists have been drawn into a public  
discussion they've been trying to ignore: what role, if any, should  
assassination play in their game plan?

Other germane posts:

Jerry Vlasak unmasked
http://brianoconnor.typepad.com/animal_crackers/2005/11/ 
jerry_vlasak_un_1.html

60 minutes transcript
http://brianoconnor.typepad.com/animal_crackers/2005/11/ 
first_things_fi.html


**********
Liz Ditz
ponytrax () batnet com

blog: http://lizditz.typepad.com

Success: fall down seven times, stand up eight.

-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as lists-ip () insecure org
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/