1. Rev. Frank and Mary Hoffman's sermon
2. Book Notice
3. This Week's Quotation
4. Commentary
1. Rev. Frank and Mary Hoffman's sermon
The World is Our Classroom - God is Our Teacher - and We Are Tested
http://www.all-creatures.org/sermons97/s28jul91.html
2. Book Notice
But You Kill Ants by John Waddell. This book answers 100
commonly asked questions and concerns about vegetarianism and veganism.
The book also includes a brief review of religions and animals and lists
famous vegetarians, books, and web sites. The book is printed in
Australia by BA Printing and Publishing Services
baprinting@acay.com/au . For
more information, contact the author at
johnwaddell@bigpond.com
3. This Week's Quotation
Concentration camp survivor Elie Wiesel:
"Take sides. Neutrality helps
the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never
the tormented."
4. Commentary
Crackdown on Animal Protectionists - What's Happened to Democracy?
In many Western countries, under to guise of "anti-terrorism,"
governments are increasingly using the power of the state to disrupt and
intimidate animal defenders. In the United Kingdom, after appeals to the
police and to animal protection officers went unheeded, Sara Whitehead
rescued an abused beagle. She was arrested and sentenced to a remarkable
two years in prison, more than for some violent crimes against humans.
Perhaps more ominous has been the prolonged imprisonment of leading
animal advocates in Austria. In May, there were armed raids on 28 animal
advocates and 7 animal protection group offices. Authorities seized
files and computers and arrested 10 people, who were then held without
charge. This happened on the eve of a broad campaign by leading Austrian
animal protection organizations, which obviously has been thoroughly
disrupted.
In the United States, we have seen draconian measures taken against
the "SHAC 7" activists who published names and household addresses of
people who supported the animal testing lab Huntington Life Sciences.
None of the SHAC 7 was involved in violent activities and their web
site, though provocative, did not encourage violence. While I personally
objected to their form of activism, I have been even more disturbed by
our government's response to it, which will likely have a chilling
effect on activists of all stripes.
Such a chilling effect has been magnified by the Animal Enterprises
Terrorism Act, which calls for fines and criminal charges for damaging
or "intimidating" enterprises that use (i.e. harm) animals. It has
always been against the law to damage private property; levying
particularly harsh penalties for those who damage animal enterprises is
an unwarranted political move designed to deter a particular group of
activists. This intent becomes most apparent when one considers that
"intimidate" is a vague term that can government authorities can easily
manipulate. If people shout outside a fur store, "This store must go!"
the proprietor can claim to have felt intimidated, however peaceful the
actions and intent of the demonstrators. To date, nobody has been
charged under AETA, but it remains an effective weapon in the
government's arsenal that could be activated at any time to imprison
nearly anyone who dares to publicly decry animal abuse.
Why have animal advocates been targeted by governments? Animal
advocates, more than most activists, threaten the profits of several
major industries. Meanwhile, industry and corporate interests have
gained increasing power in governments of "democratic" nations. This is
particularly the case in the United States, for at least two reasons. As
attention spans have constricted and politics has become a series of
sound bites, politicians depends increasingly on money for television
advertisements. Corporation-funded PACs can generally outspend private
citizens for this purpose. The problem is particularly acute in
democracies dominated by two parties, which the Electoral College system
in the United States favors. In a parliamentary system, it is much
easier for smaller interest groups have a voice in government. In the
"winner-take-all" arrangement, the two principle ways to influence
policy is to represent a large block of voters or to buy votes
indirectly by making large contributions that can be used for
advertising. Nevertheless, even though the animal protection movement is
relatively small and not wealthy, it could still have a significant
voice if it consistently voted as a block for the candidates with the
best animal protection track records. So far, this has not happened.
Stephen R. Kaufman, M.D.
[Replies are welcomed, and some might be published in this
e-newsletter.]