Ingrid Newkirk
As president and co-founder of The People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), you've publicized the appeal for going vegetarian and avoiding fur. The campaigns of PETA have drawn attention around the world for their sexual portrayals of scantily clad women and colorful mockeries of food establishments such as PETA's KFC Cruelty campaign.
While your followers who have managed to donate some 30 million dollars annually believe PETA's campaigns bring us one step closer to real justice for animals, there is still a significant percentage of animal advocates who disagree with this conclusion as well as PETA's tactics and fundamental philosophy.
Some PETA supporters have taken to avoiding any debate for the fear of what they call "infighting." Animal advocates are reluctant to give any energy into responding to disagreement in fear of disrupting the supposed unity of a movement for animals. However, I will remind you that debate and criticism is a lucrative means of exploring the truth. Debate is and has been a sound practice in academia and has been used effectively to learn more about a particular cause, theory, or discipline.
Surely, you would agree the focus of the animal rights movement should be primarily on the animals. For that reason, we owe it to the plight of animals to examine and defend carefully what our campaigns do and whether or not they work.
The purpose of this letter is to humbly request your participation in debating Gary L. Francione, Distinguished Professor of Law and Philosophy at Rutgers University School of Law under my moderation. The invitation has already been accepted by Professor Francione, so the ball is now in your court.
While Francione recognizes the sincerity of your beliefs, the fundamental differences between yours and Francione's approach make for a disagreement of tremendous importance to how rights may be established for animals. Professor Francione's disagreements with PETA's approach and fundamental philosophy are evident in his Six Principles of the Animal Rights Position where he argues:
3. Just as we reject racism, sexism, ageism, and heterosexism, we reject speciesism. The species of a sentient being is no more reason to deny the protection of this basic right than race, sex, age, or sexual orientation is a reason to deny membership in the human moral community to other humans.
This appears to stand in disagreement that a campaign that is sexist in nature cannot be considered an animal rights campaign. Francione has also vocalized disagreement with PETA's campaign tactics in the form of billboards and public demonstrations.
.jpg)
In Francione's work, Rain without Thunder, as well as in his other works in which he clairifies the position of the animal rights position, animals as property, and the difference between animal rights and animal welfare, he calls PETA a "New Welfarist" organization. Francione defines a "New Welfarist" position as one which seeks to abolish the property status of animals with welfare reform. Francione therefore disagrees with PETA's awards to slaughterhouse designers and commendation of KFC Canada for using Controlled-Atmosphere Killing.
These are just a few disagreements which have gradually been gaining the attention of animal advocates everywhere. Individuals including myself have been drawn away from our initial allegiance of PETA for a more logical understanding of why animals are brought to our plate, made into coats, or abused in rodeos. In fact, some of us feel betrayed by PETA. After careful examination of abolitionist approach ideology, some feel PETA has given the public inconsistent and often incorrect information regarding vegetarianism as an ethical response and their euthanasia of "rescued" animals followed by death rates as high as 85-90%.
I am hereby offering you this chance to publicly debate Professor Gary Francione to offer your side of this disagreement. As individuals who care deeply for sentient animals, it is of vital importance we approach the problem of animal use and cruelty with sound ideology and practice. If the perceived sexism and violence of PETA campaigns is misunderstood, I and my readers would like to give you the opportunity to speak on behalf of PETA on the issue of campaigning and animal rights ideology. This interview may be done over the phone or by other means over the Internet. I will be patiently awaiting your reply.
Sincerely
Adam Kochanowicz
National Vegan Examiner
.png)
Comments
I am a believer in Prof. Francione's politics. I have you and the Vegan Freaks to thank for introducing me to his work. I have chosen my side in this debate. With that said, being that you opened the door for me and I think I know where You, Bob, Jenna, and Gary stand, I humbly submit that you may be too biased to moderate. You might be able to put your personal beliefs aside but I think you've aligned yourself publicly with the standpoint on one side of the table only. I do wholeheartedly endorse the idea of a debate between Gary Francione and Ingrid though.
Jereme has a point; the moderator cannot have a bias. It would otherwise influence to line of questioning in favor of one side. Plus, by publicly taking a stand against PETA, I doubt Ingrid will seriously consider your proposal. While I agree that such a debate is necessary and PETA needs to answer some of these questions, I think you shot yourself in the foot here.
The only debate the animal rights community should have right now is if they are going to remain silent while the Animal Liberation Front keeps blowing up cars and homes while everyone else, PeTA, HSUS, Francione, Singer, etc, remain absolutely silent. Where are those that argue that the movement is "anti-violence" to be heard in this respect?
Actually, Denis, if you familiarize yourself with Prof. Francione's work, you will see that that he is a *very* vocal advocate of non-violence.
How helpful is it to tell people you *believe* will never Go Vegan to be something else, such as a vegetarian or a "humane" flesh eater? To a vegan abolitionist it's extremely counterproductive AND deadly to our fellow animal friends. Unfortunately, being that Ingrid panders to folks who love to hear the message that it's okay NOT to be vegan, she (PeTA) and the rest of the animal exploitation enablers get tons of followers which translates into tons of $$$money$$$ to further propagate the lie that one does not have to be vegan to be "humane".
This debate, long since over due, is the best chance our fellow animal friends have for us to finally get the "animal rights" movement on the correct path.
I am curious......what is it that you want from PETA/Ingrid. What is your motivation? Do you want PETA to change? Do you want them to align their work with you? What is it you are hoping to gain from this debate?
Mylène, please educate me. Where has Prof Francione spoken against Vlasak and the ALF in public?
Denis, the ALF is nonviolent. It is against their guidelines to harm any sentient life. The ALF rescues nonhuman animals and destroys inanimate property.
The real perpetrators of violence are those who confine and kill other animals for food, clothing, experimentation, entertainment, and other purposes. Non-vegans, indoctrinated by speciesist ideology, also support this violence (knowingly or unknowingly) through their consumer choices and other actions.
Brandon,
The ALF nonviolent?! What are you talking about?! Their "spokespersons" are calling for people to be killed! Non-violent my foot.
The so called "guidelines" you talk about only say you have to take "all precautions" not to kill... if you kill someone, however, you are free to claim credit as the Animal Liberation Brigade, The Justice Department, or whatever.
So I think your movement should stop the word-play, such as PeTA saying that they "understand the violence", and decide if you are a non-violent movement or not.
"L'Union fait la force"...
Also, how about a re-reading of "Free the Animals" by Ingrid Newkirk!
The ALF is a leaderless resistance movement made up of clandestine activists who take actions in accordance with the guidelines. There are no spokespersons.
The North American Animal Liberation Press Office was formed to offer the media reasons for why some choose to break the law in pursuit of the liberation of other animals.
Contrary to popular belief created by the lies of institutional exploiters, not one human has been ever killed by defenders of nonhuman animals. Meanwhile, billions of nonhuman individuals continue to be tortured and murdered in slaughterhouses, vivisection laboratories, and other horrific places of extreme violence. The animal rights movement has shown incredible restraint.
Brandon,
Now you are talking like the extremist you are.
Today is the one year anniversary of the bombing of David Feldheim and his family at their home in Santa Cruz.
Peter Young came out to celebrate the anniversary and justify the attack. Read the newspapers.
On this anniversary, it would be good for Francione and all of those in the animal right movement that oppose violence to speak up.
Apparently, the animal right movement considers more important to debate if PeTA's nude campaigns are ethical rather than if murdering a family is.
Denis, as I said earlier, all the killing has been on one side only, humans murdering other animals for their flesh, vivisection, and other needless and oppressive practices.
Not one human has ever been killed by a human defender of nonhuman animals. You can continue to characterize animal rights advocates as violent misanthropes, but it's all lies used to distract from the real issues. Animal rights is about ending the injustice of treating animals (nonhuman or human) as property and depriving them of their lives and liberty.
For the record, through Vegan Freaks, I asked Gary Francione to debate me directly rather than dispage Friends of Animals and the people here with whom he had a falling out years ago.
The debate never happened. There far more wrong with PeTA than what's mentioned in the invitation and it's folly to say Ingrid Newkirk experiences ~sincerity.~ PeTA's a manipulative, intrusive, reactionary and dishonest publicity-seeking group. PeTA's continuous assault on the Primarily Primates sanctuary is proof of that, and their on-going lawsuit illustrates that Newkirk lacks integrity.
As a longtime animal rights activists and PETA member, I believe that PETA's tactics and approach have had more of a positive impact on the way people view animals than anyone elses. Having read several of Newkirk's books and visited PETA's Web site many times, I know the issues you raised have already been addressed before. I agree that "infighting" will not help animals, but neither will not taking actions just because they aren't going to entirely stop animal abuse, or because everyone might agree with them. I'd rather Newkirk spend her time trying to reach uninformed meat-eaters than debating with other vegans.
What I find strange with the animal rights movement is the pushing of laws that don't help animals, but actually kill more domestic animals. For example, pushing mandatory spay and neuter in which the data states that .1% of these animals undergoing surgery will die. That sounds small until you realize that that number is 5,580,000 million dogs and cats more than are being euthanized in our shelters today. And then they ban surgeries that save lives like bark softening and tail docking which prevent euthanaisa or injury to the pet. WIth HSUS and PETA killing more dogs they pick up or take control of in raids how can anyone trust or give money to these two groups. By the way ALF is violent and since they have advocated the killing of hunters we don't know how many so called hunting accidents have actually been by the ALF's hands. See the Thomas Paine corner for the latest call to arms by the ALF. The concept of not eating meat for omnivores is also problematic. Not all can be vegan
Some groups say we should elminate or carbon tax all domestic animals because they contribute to global warming. These are flawed studies done to take the heat off of fossil fuels. Gasses from biological sources are generated as the end result of a long chain of natural processes that take green house gasses out of the air. This is just a recycling of components of the air through bodies of animals and plants then back to the air. These gases are taken from the air and from plants. These carbons and methane gases have always been in the air recyling between the earth and the air. When there were 75 to 150 million buffalo roaming this earth we didn't have global warming. Gasses emitted by burning fossil fuel are taking material that has been locked up underground for millions of years and changing it into gasses and adding those gasses to the atmosphere. The animals and plants do not upset the balance of gasses in the air, but releasing gasses from fossil fuels does upset this balance.
ALF actions have not killed anyone.
I think the debate starts here. To say that they may've been responsible for hunting accidents is your feeble attempt at not sticking to the point.
So, Adam Kochanowicz thinks he's doing something by setting up a debate between us & Gary Francoine about PETA?!
What's that in aid of Adam? Can't you just debate instead? What's your actual purpose?
My gut tells me that both Adam & Gary are The Invaders Of The Movement Snatchers. I can smell a lab rat when two are about.
Nice ruse Adam! You can con the sheeple but NOT the activists mate. This is where the ALF lie and not in the fairy stories you attempt to provoke.
Hey, to all the good guys reading, this is what breeds The Invaders/detractors....
Google ~ tribe of hearts and read Invaders Of The Movement Snatchers.
Gary & Adam, read it then come to this table. Leave Ingrid for now. Your vague postions as 'vegans' are far more interesting.
Adam each article that you write is worse than the previous one.
These articles are just becoming reidculous. I am a vegan and an animal rights activist and I can smell an infiltrator a mile away. Francione and this Adam character are merely trying to divert attention away from the real issues. They're not debating scientific invalidity of vivisection, the ethical bankruptcy of animal exploitation - no! They're trying to start a fight with PeTA so they can worm their way in to the animal rights movement. They are both welfarists and apologists dressing themselves up as abolitionists. Hans Ruesch was an abolitionist, Keith Mann, Ronnie Lee, Heather, Greg, Natasha etc are all abolitionists - this is just another smoke screen for another breed of infiltrator. For god's sake, have you not done enough to the movement already?! Having the BUAV, Uncaged and Dr Hadwen Trust to contend with is bad enough but now some jumped up lawyer has to say his piece?! Give us a break and leave the real acitivists and abolitionists to bring about abolition!!!!!
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!