The People For The Ethical Treatment Of Animals Case Study

2374 Words 9 Pages
The People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, or PETA, are the most well-known animal rights group in the world. Through campaigns, commercials and advertisements, PETA has grabbed the attention of the public eye, and refuses to let go until their message is fully embraced. On the surface, this doesn’t seem like a bad thing. After all, PETA’s message is pretty clean-cut, and advocates for an issue that many wouldn’t disagree with. On the surface, the organization stands for benefitting animals worldwide. This would be great if PETA wasn’t as twisted as it is. Patty Stran, president of the National Animal Interest Alliance states that “The Animal Rights Movement is moving in an altogether different direction from what the American public …show more content…
To fully understand the problems with PETA, one first needs to be familiar with their goals. Many know that their most basic goal is to lessen, or eliminate animal cruelty. The president herself, Ingrid Newkirk, begins her organization 's introduction with “Do you want animals to suffer? Didn’t think so”. Well, of course not. No one would want a world where animals have to needlessly suffer for our benefit. That’s why we have things like the Animal Welfare Act; According to the Animal Welfare institute, the act has been in place since nineteen sixty-six, and has been amended numerous times since to protect animals in all industries, and applies to “animal carriers, handlers, dealers, breeders, and exhibitors in addition to research laboratories, and sets minimum standards of care that must be provided for animals - including housing, handling, sanitation, food, water, veterinary care and protection from weather extremes”. (Animal Welfare Institute) However, the main issue that many take with PETA comes from the fact that this just isn’t …show more content…
Terrorism. Many aren’t aware of it, but PETA is closely tied to known terrorists, and terrorist organizations. Ray Greek, president of Americans for Medical Advancement and former PETA supporter, states that “One reason I became disillusioned with PETA, even though we both are philosophically on the same page, is that I thought they supported violence. -- PETA’s position on violence has been very wishy-washy; They’ve never come out and actually condemned it. What they have said is that they neither condemn it, nor condone it, but that they understand it”. Professor Brian Levin, director of The Center for the Study of Hate and extremism, elaborates upon this by saying “what they [PETA] are doing is advocating for what they call “direct action”, which is basically vandalism, arson, property damage, and destruction as a means to achieve their reforms. When you use violence and property damage as a way to achieve your reforms, that’s called terrorism”. Jerry Greenwalt, the general manager of The Department of Animal Services in Los Angeles, is no stranger to animal rights protests directed at him, and has stated that “My house has been vandalized, my car has been vandalized, my house has been picketed twice, ugly things have been said over loudspeakers in my neighborhood, and as a matter of fact, My wife had a heart attack after the first protest”. Ted Nugent, rock star and avid

Related Documents