The new terrorists

The U.K. is finding a growing terror threat at home. This time, it is not from Islamo-fascists. Now, it’s from animal rights groups. The Sunday Herald reports(emphasis added):

The case of Huntingdon Life Sciences (HLS), a drug-testing facility near Cambridge, is one example of how far extremists can go. Last weekend, a “terror list� naming 150 individuals – including 21 children – emerged, most with an indirect link to the company.

If you keep reading the article you find out:

[Robin Webb of the Animal Liberaton Front] rejects the notion that the families of scientists and researchers should not be targets.

“Some say it is morally unacceptable but it is equally unacceptable to use animals in experiments. The children of those scientists are enjoying a lifestyle built on the blood and abuse of innocent animals. Why should they be allowed to close the door on that and sit down and watch TV and enjoy themselves when animals are suffering and dying because of the actions of the family breadwinner? They are a justifiable target for protest.�

How sick is this guy? This is not moral equivallency – it is moral bankruptcy. He doesn’t believe that animals are equal to humans, he believes animals are better than humans.

Don’t think this is a problem limited to England. The Center for Consumer Freedom warns about domestic animal rights terror coming to the U.S.

Jerry Vlasak has been associated with Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (an organization related to PETA). Jerry Vlasak also has connections to SHAC, an organization that has been indicted for terrorism along with seven of its leaders. Here is Vlasak’s view on using terrorism to support the animal rights movement:

“I don’t think you’d have to kill — assassinate — too many,” Vlasak said. “I think for five lives, 10 lives, 15 human lives, we could save a million, two million, 10 million non-human lives.”

He later clarified his statement as reported by The Guardian from a radio interview:

“I am simply saying that it [violence] is a morally acceptable tactic and it may be useful in the struggle for animal liberation.”

Don’t support terrorism. Don’t give money to PETA, PCRM, or SHAC.

  • Beth

    As I dig into my steak tonight, sitting in my leather jacket and shearling slippers, I'll ponder over this tripe. Violence is never the answer, but I agree that it's inane to put animals more important than kids. And to hold the kids accountable for what they see as the sins of the parents is equally idiotic. Kids, entirely unable to defend themselves, are targeted to save Little Bunny FooFoo?! If you targeted their children, not in defense of not defending animals, but in defense of the children their parents targeted, you'd go to jail. That sentence just made about as much sense as ALF's argument.

  • Beth

    As I dig into my steak tonight, sitting in my leather jacket and shearling slippers, I'll ponder over this tripe. Violence is never the answer, but I agree that it's inane to put animals more important than kids. And to hold the kids accountable for what they see as the sins of the parents is equally idiotic. Kids, entirely unable to defend themselves, are targeted to save Little Bunny FooFoo?! If you targeted their children, not in defense of not defending animals, but in defense of the children their parents targeted, you'd go to jail. That sentence just made about as much sense as ALF's argument.

  • As I dig into my steak tonight, sitting in my leather jacket and shearling slippers, I’ll ponder over this tripe.

    Violence is never the answer, but I agree that it’s inane to put animals more important than kids. And to hold the kids accountable for what they see as the sins of the parents is equally idiotic. Kids, entirely unable to defend themselves, are targeted to save Little Bunny FooFoo?!

    If you targeted their children, not in defense of not defending animals, but in defense of the children their parents targeted, you’d go to jail. That sentence just made about as much sense as ALF’s argument.

  • As I dig into my steak tonight, sitting in my leather jacket and shearling slippers, I’ll ponder over this tripe.

    Violence is never the answer, but I agree that it’s inane to put animals more important than kids. And to hold the kids accountable for what they see as the sins of the parents is equally idiotic. Kids, entirely unable to defend themselves, are targeted to save Little Bunny FooFoo?!

    If you targeted their children, not in defense of not defending animals, but in defense of the children their parents targeted, you’d go to jail. That sentence just made about as much sense as ALF’s argument.