I read this article in Capitalism Magazine yesterday, about how we should be more concerned about eco-terrorism at home, and while I agreed with it, it struck me that the author was entirely forgetting about the eco-terrorists’ cousins, the animal rights terrorists. In many ways, they are much more violent, and their actions retard medical research and thus, all of our lives. Observe:
When the San Francisco Chronicle first reported that animal-rights activists had attacked Sonoma Foie Gras, owner Guillermo Gonzalez and his two partners in a soon-to-open store/bistro Sonoma Saveurs, it seemed it would be only a matter of time before the businessmen caved.
Perhaps the partners could absorb the cost of repairing vandalized machinery and removing nasty graffiti — as in “End Animal Torture.” But foie gras producer Gonzalez, Laurent Manrique and Didier Jaubert also had to pay a very personal price: Activists sent them threats, glued their car locks, invaded their homes and terrorized their families. In the nastiest episode, animal-rights activists videotaped Manrique’s family, including his 2-year-old son, in their home and garden. Then, they sent him the tape.
The column goes on to describe their tactics against medical research companies as well, and how they harass anyone associated with the company doing the research, including outside auditors. Unfortunately, far too many subjects of this harassment either quit or take action to mollify the terrorists. That’s what Gonzalez did. That never helps. They need to be taken head on. But admittedly, it’s hard when you don’t receive the police support you otherwise should.
Read the entire story here.
This entry was posted
on Tuesday, September 30th, 2003 at 11:24 am and is filed under News & Politics.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
5 Responses to “Animal Rights and Eco Terrorists”
September 30th, 2003 at 9:48 pm
ouch…I am President of the County Humane Society. I understand that there are zealots out there, but I am not positive that the animal rights lobby is “retarding” medical advancement. I would rather focus my time on getting the pricks who decide not to care for their dogs, then just leave the starved dead bodies in the sunlight to boil like I have seen.
Of course, I have had people tell me that we are walking our dogs for 23 minutes per day, not 47, and it is only humane if they are walked for at least 47 minutes per day.
crazy.
September 30th, 2003 at 10:11 pm
Dude, being in the humane society isn’t exactly the same thing as Peta, or as those people who would terrorize the Gillette company back in the day, or let animals out of the medical research labs… I mean is it? You don’t have to be a vegetarian to be in the humane society, do you?
October 1st, 2003 at 9:05 pm
it isn’t when you have a conservative businessman running the organization as a business–but that last comment of mine really happened. I DO have crazy people. We have debates…at board meetings…about whether it is humane to cremate or bury a dog after we euthanize it. Can we give dead animals to science? no…that would be inhumane.
I guess I can say that I am not like PETA, etc., but those people exist even at your local humane society.
October 1st, 2003 at 9:16 pm
That’s absurd, calling a means of disposing of a corpse “inhumane”. The thing is dead. It can’t feel pain. I can see arguing against throwing a dead dog in a dumpster, but cremation vs. burial? Come on…
September 30th, 2003 at 6:36 pm
With the return of Kate comes the return of the letter of the day. Today, we are all over T….
Leave a Reply