[IP] the threat to scientists from animal rights activists
Begin forwarded message:
From: Liz Ditz <ponytrax@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: December 3, 2005 7:30:45 PM EST
To: David Farber <dave@xxxxxxxxxx>
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@xxxxxxxxxx
blog: http://lizditz.typepad.com
Success: fall down seven times, stand up eight.
-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/