College Media Network

Animal rights protestors misrepresented

Print this article

Published: Tuesday, December 2, 2008

Updated: Tuesday, December 2, 2008

Editor:

As one of the 16 people cited for “residential picketing,” I strongly object to Alicia Williams’ unsubstantiated claims (“Animal research is clearly worth it,” Dec. 1) about animal research and her deliberate mischaracterization of animal rights activists. Alicia is using fear tactics, trying to frighten readers by portraying peaceful protesters as aggressors. Look at the language she uses to speak about pacifists such as myself: militant, bully, hatred, threat, terrorist tactics.

Terrorist tactics? When did chanting and waving signs become terrorism?

Also, the article uses the term “non-violent animal rights activists” as though there is any other sort. Even the underground Animal Liberation Front, which engages in direct, illegal action to free animals, has never hurt or killed one person, let alone a single animal.

One last point. Your columnist says that difference of opinion does not justify, among other things, anger. I wonder whether she thinks difference of opinion over segregation or over women’s rights ever sparked justified anger. How about different opinions over child labor or ethnic cleansing? I don’t cite these examples to reduce the suffering and injustices experienced by women, children and minorities throughout history to that of lab mice. Rather, I hope to elevate the status of research animals in our public consciousness above that of objects.

Kristina McIntyre
Senior, Anthropology

Comments

33 comments
Your name
Thu Dec 4 2008 17:09
Apologies for the plea bargain? Cause that will be the only way they are getting out of it. The City has to stick it hard especially the first case just to set the presidence so future protestors understand the Law will be obeyed! I don't think anyone owes any of you an apology when your the ones who chose to break the law.
Richard
Thu Dec 4 2008 16:21
To answer Jeremy: How about the fact you are a royal pain in the ass?
The New Yorker
Thu Dec 4 2008 15:44
And Jeremy, as someone who lost a friend in a terrorist attack, and has many friends who lost friends and loved ones, I'm not happy that you are speaking for me. You are a terrorist if you instill fear to get what you want. From your demeanor in the newspaper and on these message boards how am I to believe that your objective is not fear???
The New Yorker
Thu Dec 4 2008 15:42
Wow... First of all, you sent a letter to the editor and expected it to be printed without modification? Seriously?

Jeremy: If you can't express your point in at most two comments, then you've probably lost the argument. Flooding the message board was an interesting tactic, but give it up.

Jeremy, don't put this problem back on our plate. You say, "Yet I don't see any specific course of action(s) that you've outline for me. I just more hyperbole..." Look, you have a problem with animal testing, but it's a requirement BY LAW for every piece of medical equipment used in this country to be tested on an animal. You object to animal testing for disease discovery purposes. The burden is on YOU to propose and help find the alternative. You are an adult now, you can do something other than run around with a banner like you're playing on the school playground. Take the responsibility and help us solve this problem, rather than just objecting to it!

Hippies.
Wed Dec 3 2008 11:26
So let me guess you wear shoes made from all natural hemp, your clothes were made with cotton grown in the middle of the forest as not to disturb animals natural habitats. The computer you are typing on wasn't made with silicon but a soy derivative. The power that runs your computer is from a small hand crank that is turned by hand??




Verify you are human: