Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Oregon daily emerald. (Eugene, Or.) 1920-2012 | View Entire Issue (Nov. 14, 2003)
Newsroom: (541) 346-5511 Suite 300, Erb Memorial Union P.O. Box 3159, Eugene, OR 97403 E-mail: editor@dailyemerald.com Online: www.dailyemerald.com Friday, November 14, 2003 Oregon Daily Emerald COMMENTARY Editor in Chief: Brad Schmidt Managing Editor: Jan Tobias Montry Editorial Editor: Travis Willse Preposterous PETA i suii rememoer mai cool summer uay m July 1988.1 was just a few weeks shy of my sixth birth day. My mom carted my younger brother, Tyler, and me to the Humane Society outlet at the south end of I lillsboro. There, I picked out and adopted a kitten I named "Friskie," a tabby American short hair that still lives at my parents' house. I like l riskie, and I've grown attached to her over the last 15 years, but 1 would give her up if it meant Finding a cure for malaria or Al DS. I'd let her go, too, if it meant finding a cure for cysti nosis (which affects only 600 people nation wide) or fibrodysplasia ossificans progressiva (125 people) or even a disease that afflicts only one person. Why? Because a human life, by virtue of human consciousness, is more valuable than the life of a lower animal. But not everyone sees it that way. "Even if animal tests produced a cure for AIDS, we'd be against it (sic)," Ingrid Newkirk hysterical ly explained in the Sept. 1, 1989, issue of Vogue. Newkirk co-founded and is currently the presi Travis Willse Rivalless wit dent of People for the Rthical Treatment of Ani mals. And the absurdity of her comment is lam entably representative of the group's largely fanatical philosophy and reflects the irrational agenda of many extreme animal rights activists. This column will explore less P ETA's core values, though, and delve more into its history of grossly irresponsible, offensive rhetoric and opportunis tic, radical methods they use that often (somewhat ironically) violate both human decency and intel lectual integrity. (A brief aside is necessary here: 1 accept a so called "animal welfare theory," wherein the use of animals for food, clothing or experimentation is acceptable as long as that use has a functional mo tive and is reasonable. Fxperimenting on rhesus monkeys to find an AIDS vaccine is wholly accept able; senseless torture of backyard dogs is not. fur thermore, I condemn PFTA's methods and those of many radical animal rights activists, as well as many of their philosophies, but I do not de nounce vegetarianism, veganism or any of many other rational practices and ideologies sometimes associated with the animal welfare movement.) Animal testing of medical procedures that ben efit humans is often, simply put, essential. "Most, if not all of the medical advances over the last 50 years have depended, either directly or indirectly, on research done on animals," psy chology Professor Fmerita Barbara Gordon Lickey explained. Certainly all new methods, regardless of how they're developed, have to he tested on animals." But some radical animal rights activists — evi dently unsatisfied with merely verbalizing their displeasure with animal testing — voice their ill reasoned grievances by resorting to indefensible violence. On Oct. 26, 1986, at least one activist broke into, ransacked and defaced Gordon-Lick ey's lab ("Vandals ransack science labs, threaten to strike again soon;" ODE; Oct, 27,1986), inflicting $36,000 in damages. (Ironically, the vandal de stroyed $2,000 of audio tutorial materials used for training technicians and scientists to care for and handle lab animals properly.) In a statement the Animal Liberation f ront de livered to the Associated Press about the incident, the group decried the lab's "torture chambers" and asserted: 'This is just the beginning of our efforts to liberate those oppressed in research concentra tion camps in Oregon. We will not allow this slaughter to continue without resistance. You will hear again from us soon." Just to clarify, ALF is a criminal organization that FBI spokesman Ross Rice said is responsible for more than 600 acts of vandalism. Sharon Nettles, former coordinator of Lugene's PFTA chapter, told the Emerald for the 1986 story that PETA does not condone illegal actions. I Iowever, about the break-in, Nettles gloated, "I'm glad someone did it." Activist Roger Troen, who was eventually con victed of the break-in, is a member of ALF. PFTA came to Troen's undeserved rescue, paying from its tax-exempt war chest his $27,000 of legal fees and $34,900 fine PLTA's connections with ALF are numerous — its major grantees include longtime ALF ringleader and former Earth First! Journal Ed itor Rodney Coronado, who was sentenced in 1995 to 57 months in federal prison for the 1992 arson of a Michigan State University laboratory. Since his release, Coronado has openly admitted to at least six other arsons. PETA's annals are filled not only with granting funds to terrorists but with rhetoric that ranges from offensive to nonsensical. On July 6,2001, a shark attacked and chomped off the right arm of then-8-year-old Jessie Arbogast on the Florida coast. In what Time Magazine dubbed on its cover "Summer of the Shark," mass media tapped into the collective unconscious, talking sharks for months (lost in this brouhaha was the fact that shark attacks actually declined by 13 incidents from the year before). PETA followed suit, unveiling a promotional billboard that asked, "Would you give your right arm to know why sharks attack? Could it be revenge?" According to PETA, "lhe recent injuries suffered by shark attack victims offer us a glimpse into the terrifying experience these fish endure when they are hauled out of their environment only to be pitch-forked back into the water after their fins have been sliced off." Maybe so, by some particularly imaginative and macabre stretch of the mind. But offering a m&mwt Steve Baggs Illustrator bizarrely non sequitur "revenge" theory only chill ingly and opportunistically abuses a human tragedy and unfairly takes advantage of the gullible, further polluting dialogue about impor tant issues with irrationality. Regrettably, this blatant opportunism and de viation from reason is more PETA's rule and less its exception. In summer 2000, a few months after doctors di agnosed New York City then-mayor Rudy Guiliani with prostate cancer, PETA ran a billboard cam paign with ads showing Guiliani sporting a milk mustache. The message? The ad read, "Got Prostate Cancer? Drinking milk contributes to prostate cancer." The group dropped the cam paign after Guiliani threatened to sue the group. But even worse than its disregard for a single person's suffering is its apparent disregard for and wholesale devaluation of human life. In its Nov. 13, 1983, issue, the Washington Post quoted Newkirk lamenting, "Six million people died in concentration camps, but six billion broil er chickens will die this year in slaughterhouses" (emphasis added). Twenty years later, PFTA pushed the ideological pedal to the rhetorical metal, launching a "Holo caust on Your Plate" campaign to promote a "nonviolent, vegan diet." In the campaign, PETA paraded a massive graphic display wherein images of chickens, pigs and calves were juxtaposed with pictures of near-dead Holocaust victims and piles of human corpses. "Just as the Nazis tried to 'dehumanize' Jews by forcing them to live in filthy, crowded conditions," read PETA's press release detailing the campaign, "animals on today's factory farms are stripped of all that is enjoyable and natural to them and treat ed as nothing more than meat-, egg-, and milk making 'machines.'" The Holocaust, one of the worst abominations in human history (numerically and morally), re fleets humanity's capacity for cruelty. FETA seems to lack the appreciation for human life or decency to see that, out of respect for those who survived * the concentration camps — and moreover, for those who did not — comparisons to the tragedy should be restricted to, well, legitimately compa rable tragedies. Asserting that the death of a chick en is morally equivalent to the wholesale, grotesque slaughter of sentient, conscious beings is an appalling affront to every Jew, Gypsy, homo sexual, person with a disability and other Nazi-la beled "misfit" who resisted de facto murder in the camps for months or years. On its frequently asked questions page, PETA's Web site quotes the celebrated humanitarian Al bert Schweitzer: "Aware of the problems and re sponsibilities an expanded ethic brings with it, said we each must 'live daily from judgment to judgment, deciding each case as it arises, as wisely and mercifully as we can.'" But, as its conduct has illustrated time and time again, FETA lacks the wisdom to participate in a fair and rational discussion of its grievances, and eschews mercy by supporting terrorists and taking unfair advantage of human tragedies whenever it suits its bizarre, misguided agenda. According to nonprofit tax forms filed with the Internal Revenue Service, PETA spent only $6,100 of its $10.9 million budget on animal shelters in fiscal year 1996. It seems, then, that The Price Is Right host Bob Barker — who founded the DJ&T Foundation, an organization that funds low-cost animal clinics to fight animal overpopulation — has done more for Friskie and millions of other animals nationwide than PETA ever has. (Oh, and by the way, don't forget to spay or neuter your pets.) Contact the editorial editor at traviswillse@dailyemerald.com. His opinions do not necessarily represent those of the Emerald. Oregon law: Police can't demand identification Editor's note: This commentary is part of the Emerald's and ASIIO 1-egal Services' ongo ing efforts to assist students through educa tion as well as representation. ASUO Legal Services' attorneys are licensed to practice in _ the state of Oregon. I 1 € WAVV.V ^ COMMENTARY Information dissem inated in this article does not constitute legal advice, and does not create an at torney/client relationship. For legal advice, contact an attorney licensed in your state. You should not make legal hiring decisions based upon brochures, advertising or other promo tional materials. You've probably seen ads and articles in the Emerald saying that you must show ID or give your name whenever asked by a police officer. It's not true. Ilie Ehifwld Quoted. Hi\b)lc$'afety J htefiftf Ai-. *. rector Tom Hicks as saying, 'The police do have the authority to make you give your ID, and if you refuse, they can take you to jail" ("Foot pa trol officers help prevent riots in University area," Sept. 29). Hicks later confirmed that he was misquoted and actually said, "If an officer stops you for a violation, the officer has the au thority to detain you until establishing your identity." That's true. Law enforcement and DPS officers probably don't like the fact that students don't have to give up their names or ID on demand. It makes their jobs more difficult and slows them down. Still, everyone — students and law enforcement — must follow the rules. Now that so many DPS officers have citation authority, it's even more important that students have accurate information about their legal rights and duties. You might give your name or ID because you don't know your options, or you ’ Alsftl In'steVttftfdsk. taWept UD * because you reason that it's easier or better than suffering the consequences of refusing. Generally, an officer cannot require your name or ID even during a lawful stop. You're not re quired to carry ID. Likewise, you're generally not required to show an ID to prove the name you gave is true Oregon law doesn't require you to disclose your name or ID upon an officer's demand. Refusing to give your name or ID or failing to carry ID is gen erally not an offense. The U.S. Supreme Court has previously found other states' laws requiring citi zens to carry or show ID unconstitutional. Sometimes you must carry or present a par ticular form of ID. For instance, you must carry a driver's license when you drive and show it to officers enforcing traffic laws. Otherwise, police can detain you to investigate your iden tity and arrest you for the crime of failing to ' .faWQYbf If an officer stops you on reasonable suspi cion that you committed or are about to com mit a crime, he can ask for your name and ID as pan of his "reasonable inquiry." However, you're not required to answer, and you commit no of fense by refusing to give your name or ID. If you refuse, you should expect to be arrested for the crime the officer thinks you committed, rather than cited and released, but not for refusing to give your name or ID. An officer who suspects you of a non-crimi nal violation can stop and detain you and ask for name and ID. You may legally refuse to give your name and, in that case, you should expea to be detained as long as necessary to establish your identity. Again, your refusal to give your name or ID isn't a separate offense and you can not be legally arrested or jailed for that refusal. Ilona Koleszar is the director of ASUO Legal Services.-.^ » V., * . „
