PETA Didn’t Do It!
By: Patti Strand Date: 02/11/2012 Category: | Animal Rights Extremism |
Nowadays, in practically every dog publication you pick up you’re likely to find letters to the editor from Ingrid Newkirk, National Director of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, [PETA]. These letters press the same point, that PETA and Ingrid are distressed that rumors continue to circulate about dogs being released from crates and x-pens at dog shows by PETA and other ARAs, and ask that "common sense be restored to the debate over our differences." Some of these pieces state that letting dogs loose to potentially harm themselves runs counter to everything they believe. These pieces also contain thinly-veiled threats of lawsuits if the rumors don’t stop. Others dangle a ... "$500 reward for information leading to the conviction of any person or persons engaging in any such act (releases, attempted or actual poisoning) calculated to cause harm to or the death of any dog or cat at a show."
From all I’ve seen of these letters, one thing seems certain to me: that Ingrid has never shown dogs. Her dream that it might be possible to stop rumors in the world of dogs brings belly laughs, guffaws and tears to the eyes of the anointed! Anyone who has ever tried to stop a rumor in the dog world can certainly relate to her frustration – no matter how strongly they might also believe that these particular rumors are true. Sorry but an offer of $500 from a corporation that rakes in more than $10 million a year is not exactly what most people would call “putting it all on the line.” And the most hilarious part of Ingrid's plea “to restore common sense” is that in order to collect the $500 bonanza, a contender must first prove that the release was “calculated to cause harm.” I’m no attorney but it seems to me that believing in the animal rights doctrine offers a basis for a first amendment defense if, for instance, the liberationist testified that – according to his/her belief system – freeing a crated dog is beneficial rather than harmful.
Ingrid, Ingrid, Ingrid …you’re so clever!!
Cunning as these letters are, though, if Ms. Newkirk really wants to clear PETA’s name of these charges once and for all, she simply needs to advise the purebred dog world of the following fact: Unless you have personally witnessed Ingrid Newkirk, Alex Pacheco and/or Susan Brebner skulking about the dog show set-up area, whoever you imagined you saw, they most definitely were not members of PETA!!!
The reason this would vindicate PETA is because PETA, the organization which claims to have about 350,000 members, instead, has only three members! According to PETA’s certificate of incorporation in Delaware, these members are Alex, Ingrid, and Sue, as mentioned above and they were made, by certificate of amendment on March 12, 1987, to be PETA’s only members. The Amendment certificate lists their three names and addresses following a statement that reads … “The names and addresses of the members of the corporation are as follows …” Further, it says, “The members of the corporation shall also be the exclusive directors thereof …” Additionally … “the direction and management of the affairs of the Corporation, and the control and disposition of its property and funds shall be vested exclusively in the Corporation’s Board of Directors.”
So, to eliminate confusion over who belongs to PETA and who does not, and to prevent backsliding by the dog fancy over issues of mistaken identity, we suggest that PETA conspicuously post 8 X 10 glossy photos (with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one) of these three members in public places such as supermarkets, government buildings, fairgrounds, and in post offices. This would serve notice to the fancy that whoever wears a PETA T-shirt, or screams loudly, “We are with PETA!” and is not in fact one of the three people pictured in the photographs, is an impostor and PETA is not responsible!
It is interesting to note that PETA defends the entire animal rights movement from the charge of crate release, but does not condemn violence when it is committed on behalf of animals. A cynic might surmise from their different levels of concern over crate release vs. violence that some actions damage their fundraising ability more than others. One also might surmise from their actions that PETA views the entire AR movement as one big dummy corporation: their own!
About The Author
All Authors Of This Article: | Patti Strand |