Some Animal Rights Groups Condone Violent Acts

To the editors:

It comes as little surprise that a group of animal rights activists is getting violent--this time mailing razor blades in letters to medical researchers. We have been very fortunate in the United States to have experienced so little violence and terrorism by the animal liberation movement. In Great Britain, where animal rights violence has become commonplace, there have been dozens of incidents annually in recent years: mail and car bombings, razor letters, arsons and violent home demonstrations.

What is surprising is that the leader of the largest "non-violent" animal rights organization in the U.S. should step forward and applaud these latest mailings. Commenting on the razor letters, Ingrid Newkirk, president of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), said, "I hope it frightens [the scientists] out of their careers."

PETA and other large animal rights organizations have tremendous resources, largely from well-meaning contributors who see themselves as being friends of animals. But contributors need to question where their money is actually going. Does the group tacitly condone activist violence? Many groups encourage acts of extremism to advance the movement's agenda, even while remaining less than outspoken on the issue. These groups maintain their innocence when violence occurs, an unfortunate example of the movement's duplicity--where one hand washes the other, yet neither comes clean.

As long as members of these groups view violence as an acceptable means to an end, and their more moderate counterparts encourage them, anyone who contributes to an animal rights cause is helping to underwrite terrorism.