An e-mail exchange with PETA

[Guest guest]

After being accused of being a 'terrorist' and a 'terrorist sympathizer' because of my defense of PETA in a discussion i had with friends i sent an e-mail to PETA themselves. i knew that the people that i was talking to were seriously misinformed about PETA as well as groups like ELF. Not only that but their definitions of terrorism were seriously warped. I just wondered what a spokesperson from PETA its self would have to say to such sad and ignorant accusations.

 

One more thing: I do not condone the destruction of property but it is not 'terrorism'. To call it such is especially perverse in the media climate that we are living with right now.

 

In case anyone cares here are the e-mails( the response from PETA is first in black. My original e-mail is in red at the bottom.):

 

Bodhimind3

Sent from the Internet (Details)

 

 

 

Thank you for your inquiry regarding a recent scurrilous, sensational, and dishonest Fox News report about PETA. Please be assured that PETA is completely nonviolent.

 

Years ago, PETA received photographs and records showing terrible cruelty to animals in laboratories. These were sent to us anonymously by the ALF, and we, in turn, showed them to the U.S. Congress and the press, seeking prosecution of the experimenters and others involved in violations of federal law uncovered by the ALF. As a result, some experiments were stopped altogether, and some laboratories lost their funding. Our president, Ingrid Newkirk, has written a book about the ALF called Free the Animals!

 

We have also provided legal defense on several occasions in our 21-year history for animal protectionists accused of ALF actions and in one case, harassed for speaking about the ELF. Until free speech is dead in this country and the accused no longer entitled to legal defense, such activities are not only legal but at the core of American values. In these cases, each of the individuals were productive members of their communities; in two cases, they were teachers!

 

Unlike PETA’s entirely open charitable mission and programs, those groups and individuals deliberately spreading misstatements about PETA hide behind industry

Berman’s name might sound familiar. In 1995, Berman and Norm-funded front groups with ever-changing names and hidden agendas. The Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF) was founded by Richard Berman, a Washington, D.C., lobbyist who personally takes home hundreds of thousands of dollars a year for such attacks on behalf of the meat, alcohol, and tobacco industries.

 

Brinker, his former boss at Steak and Ale Restaurants, were identified as the special-interest lobbyists who donated the $25,000 that disgraced then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who was hauled before a House ethics committee for influence-peddling over the money.

 

Richard Berman is a spin doctor. For example, he has argued against a Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) initiative to lower the blood alcohol content (BAC) limit for drivers by claiming that the stricter limits would punish responsible social drinkers. He has claimed that U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) warnings about salmonella-related food poisoning are just "whipping up fear over food." And who but a spin doctor could argue that raising the minimum wage would drive the poor and uneducated out of the job market?

 

Here’s how an internal Philip Morris memo described Berman’s spin on tobacco: "His proposed solution would broaden the focus of the ‘smoking issue,’ and expand into the bigger picture of over-regulation." Smoking won’t kill you; over-regulation will.

 

Berman is "a one-man wrecking crew on important issues." His approach has been described as "misleading" and "despicable." Berman has been called "a tobacco company whore," but he’s branched out since then.

 

Using "freedom of choice" as his battle cry, Berman has now taken on PETA and a number of other groups and organizations whose points of view could impact the profits of his clients by waking consumers up. These clients are companies with vested interests in low employee wages, cheap, unhealthy food, and boosting tobacco, soft drink, and alcohol consumption—including Outback Steakhouse, Ruth’s Chris Steakhouse, Cargill Processed Meats, Armour Swift, and Philip Morris, whose product line includes Kraft Foods and everything from Marlboro cigarettes to Oscar Mayer wieners.

 

PETA’s recent successes in gaining fast-food industry concessions for more humane conditions for farmed animals have sent ripples of fear through the food and beverage service industry. About the same time that McDonald’s buckled to PETA’s demands, Richard Berman changed his front group’s name and stepped up his attacks.

 

The key to Berman’s aggressive strategy is, in his own words, "to shoot the messenger ... we’ve got to attack their credibility as spokespersons"—an interesting remark from someone whose background and funding so severely challenge his own credibility.

 

Until January 2001, Berman’s CCF was known as The Guest Choice Network, funded by the Philip Morris tobacco company to the tune of nearly $1 million. CCF and the related Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise, with its founder Alan Gottlieb, a convicted tax felon who spent 10 months in a federal prison, and executive director Ron Arnold, are paid mouthpieces for the industries staunchly opposed to even modest animal and environmental protections. None of the information they "expose" has ever been hidden. Some is made up, some is half-truth, and all that is real (yet mischaracterized) is available in public reports, press accounts, and Internal Revenue Service filings of nonprofit organizations.

 

Everything PETA does is public. As a 501©(3) organization, PETA’s financial records are audited annually by an independent certified public accounting firm, its annual Form 990 tax returns are publicly available from the Internal Revenue Service, and, in accordance with applicable law, PETA makes those returns available upon request. PETA also publishes an annual review of its program accomplishments in accordance with all reasonable standards of charity oversight and makes its audited financial statements available even though there is no requirement for it to do so. Please take a look to read about PETA’s vital work in behalf of animals: http://www.peta.org/feat/ar2001/index.html.

 

PETA works very hard to stop cruelty to animals through pamphlets, billboards, letters, ads, articles, peaceful protests, humane education in schools, and through the operation of our low-cost and no-cost mobile spay/neuter clinic, "SNiP," which altered more than 2,500 animals in its first year of operation alone. In just 16 months, SNiP has saved an estimated 55,000 animals from potential abuse by spaying and neutering 4,000 animals for free or at steep discounts. If you would like more information about PETA’s work to reduce companion animal suffering, please visit HelpingAnimals.com. To read more about our efforts in behalf of all animals, please see our victories page at http://www.peta-online.org/feat/rir/index.html.

 

Thanks again for your inquiry and concern. Your vital support enables us to save more animals from cruelty.

 

Sincerely,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cassandra Thomas

PETA

Customer Service Coordinator

 

The human is the only creature who blushes, or needs to.

                                                       -Mark Twain

 

 

 

 

Bodhimind3 [bodhimind3]

Saturday, December 07, 2002 1:03 AM

info

A Question

 

 

I respect PETA very much and support what PETA does. I do not support violence as a means to solving problems and I am under the impression that PETA has the same stance. I have a question.

 

Does PETA support violence?

 

If not, What do you say to someone who categorizes PETA as a terrorist organization? They may cite the link between PETA and ELF (which i don't consider a 'terrorist' organization either) and call the destruction of ski resorts or some similar event a terrorist act.

 

It is so easy in the cultural and media climate that we live in today to label some one a 'terrorist' or 'extremist', or some other media buzz word to silence a point of view. How can this be addressed and dealt with?