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., * . „