When Pigs Sue

In a new Weekly Standard article, Wesley Smith examines animal rights activists’ long-term goal to overthrow our legal system by giving “personhood” status to animals. And his timing couldn’t be more impeccable: We recently sat in on the Maryland States Bar Association’s “Animal Law” seminar. Two HSUS attorneys spoke, along with a few more (openly) radical advocates.

What’s at stake? Quite a lot.

Current law holds that animals are property. Your car, your house, and your chair can’t sue you. Neither can animals. Animal welfare is enshrined in law to ensure good treatment. But animals aren’t considered people and therefore don’t have standing to be party in a lawsuit, despite PETA’s lamest efforts.

The day’s first speaker was local attorney Sean Day, a hardcore believer in legal “rights” for animals. In fact, Day won’t take any clients who agree with current law that animals are property.

Day’s view was in the minority among speakers, many of whom were simply pointing out how to work within the legal system, as opposed to radicalizing it. Even HSUS’s first speaker stuck to a moderate script of discussing evidence collection during animal seizures.

But later in the day, things got interesting. We were treated to a dandy propaganda-fest from the general counsel for Compassion Over Killing. (Day used to be pro bono counsel for COK.) COK’s counsel went through how animal agriculture is cruel—par for the course. Sharing her panel was an HSUS attorney who seemed moderate by comparison, discussing how HSUS can “get creative” in using current federal law to file lawsuits.

We say “seemed moderate” because that’s the big joke: The variance between HSUS and COK is a distinction without a difference. Consider that Carter Dillard was a COK lawyer before joining HSUS. COK co-founder Paul Shapiro runs HSUS’s farm-animal campaign. Former COK president Miyun Park was an HSUS VP when she stated that HSUS’s goal is to “get rid of the entire [animal agriculture] industry.” COK seems to be a breeding ground (activist mill?) for future HSUS personnel.

The two groups may speak differently in public, but they’re on Team Animal Rights with PETA, ALDF, and others. Birds of a feather fly together. HSUS personnel sat on a panel with a counsel from COK, Farm Sanctuary, and PETA a few years back.  HSUS has actually written about this giving legal “rights” to animals in past fundraising material.

Skeptics might say this just circumstantial and a bit dated. Fortunately, we have the transcript of a panel that HSUS Senior VP Jonthan Lovvorn sat on in 2006. Lovvorn runs HSUS’s legal activism. (You might remember him as a defendant in an ongoing racketeering lawsuit.)

The panel was on animal standing. Lovvorn was joined by his former colleague, Katherine Meyer, and Joyce Tischler, founder of the Animal Legal Defense Fund. We highly advise you read the whole thing, but we’ll print the meatiest parts here.

Here’s Meyer and Lovvorn responding to an audience question about how slow the process of legal change—moving away from the concept of animals as property—was going (emphasis added):

Meyer: Everything everybody is doing is helpful to that cause. This is a movement. We would all like it to go faster. There is a lot to do, but Steve Wise’s books, and the works of other people who are writing about the issues, are very important.

All of the cases that Jonathan [Lovvorn] is handling, cases we are handling for groups, all of it adds up to what David [Cassuto] was saying: we need to make these actions politically incorrect, we have to generate that public outrage. We have to make it politically incorrect to do these things, such as considering animals as property….

With these farming issues—it is very important what HSUS is doing, as are other groups—we about talking about billions of animals. You have to do it incrementally. This is not going to divulge any great secret, but a lot of us here in this room are looking for the right sets of facts to bring those first guardian ad litem cases. This is where we are going. The way you get there is by bringing other cases first. …

Lovvorn: Certainly, the situation with regard to the property status of animals, the courts, Article III, and our ability to get what we want is frustrating. The problem is, right now, no member of Congress would even introduce a resolution saying that animals are not property.

It seems quite clear to us that this crew is united in its outlook, and practical in its means, chipping away slowly. Meyer, Lovvorn, and their ilk all want to eventually be the legal guardians for animals—especially farm animals. The practical effects of this will be for HSUS to sue Old MacDonald on behalf of his ducks and chickens, singing E-I-E-I-O to the tofu bar.

And if you think the animal rights crowd will be satisfied with eliminating meat, milk, and eggs, think again. Some wacky lawyer could sue on behalf of even pets—excuse us, companion animals—to “liberate” them from their human “slaveholders.” We wouldn’t put it past PETA to sue blind people on “behalf” of seeing-eye dogs.

We can joke about how silly it seems, but it is a very real possibility with dedicated people working towards these ends. HSUS had 3 lawyers when Wayne Pacelle took over in 2004. In 2010, Pacelle stated they had “about 50” on staff, not to mention a network of pro bono attorneys.

Can we afford to let them win?

Image © CartoonStock

Let’s All Be Whale Watchers

A theme that has sprouted up in Wayne Pacelle’s seemingly never-ending book tour—it’s gone on for 12 months and counting—is that America needs to develop a “humane economy.” That sounds nice. But what exactly does it mean?

Pacelle refers often to the example of whale watching—businesses used to make money hunting whales but now make money on whale-watching tours. Pacelle calls this particular transition “the superior option morally and economically. It’s a model I hope that other animal-use industries can learn from whale watching so that our nation can build the new, humane economy…”

Note Pacelle’s choice of words. He didn’t say the “leather industry” or the “egg industry.” He said the “animal-use” industries. There’s a big difference. Animal use encompasses, quite literally, every way we use animals commercially. It includes animal agriculture as well as pets. But the number of products that involve animals is astounding. Just take a look at this one humorous cartoon:

In practical terms, Pacelle’s analogy doesn’t seem readily applicable to other parts of the economy. Better alternatives to using whale oil as fuel developed, for example. It’s important that this dynamic exists to fulfill demand.

Take farm animals, on the other hand, which are not threatened as a species as whales are—in fact, they’re bred in large numbers for food. They are domesticated, not wild. And no viable alternative exists for chicken breasts and cheeseburgers. Soy “burgers” don’t cut it, and research into laboratory-grown meat from cultured cells has produced little. (Not to mention that the general public would surely be squeamish about eating laboratory meat.)

Pacelle is vague about the “humane economy,” and understandably so. It’s not just that the humane economy isn’t viable in a practical sense, it’s that the notion is premised on a controversial philosophy.

Pacelle talks in terms of basing the humane economy on “our values.” But really, by “our values” he means his values—which align with PETA’s more than the average American’s. We discussed recently how Pacelle has viewed eating meat and using animal products as “speciesist” behavior—so if you enjoy bacon, you’re like a racist. And he’s also touched on other radical views in the book Bloodties. Here are a few choice quotes:

“I certainly don't plan to have children. I take it as a very serious personal responsibility not to put another consumer on this planet.”

On whether he saw a future without pets: “I wouldn't say that I envision that, no. If I had my personal view perhaps that might take hold. In fact, I don't want to see another cat or dog born. It's not something I strive for, though.”

The first quote is indicative of general economic activity by humans in pessimistic terms—our consumption (really, our presence) is inherently negative.

The second quote indicates the extent to which the “humane economy” would radically overhaul thousands of years of human values in favor of Pacelle’s PETA values. Humans domesticated animals for certain purposes—food, companionship, and labor—but the animal-rights types believe that animal “use” is inherently “abuse.”

But what if whale-watching was the standard for every farm? Would Iowa turn into Old MacDonald’s Petting Zoo? (What’s more likely, since the animals no longer have a use, is that they’ll all be destroyed or die off. “One generation and out,” to quote Pacelle.)

Remember that Wayne Pacelle literally believes that he “speaks for” the animals. But his idea of “animal protection” is different from the average American’s. Pacelle comes from the PETA perspective where animal protection means animal “rights,” while most Americans believe that animal protection means animal welfare.

So we should take his admonishments for a “humane economy” for what they are: Same old wine, brand new bottle.

Graphic: Good.is

HSUS Tucks Tail, Runs Out of Missouri

The news broke early Friday: HSUS’s newest ballot campaign in Missouri is over.

Make no mistake. This is a huge loss for HSUS.

The origin of the campaign is mired in controversy. In 2010, HSUS ran a manipulative campaign for the “Prop B” ballot initiative to supposedly increase standards for dog-breeding operations. HSUS won in a narrow vote that split along rural and urban/suburban lines.

A few months later, the state legislature passed legislation to roll back some of Prop B’s more extreme measures. Despite a lot of noise from HSUS, eventually a deal was reached that satisfied Democrats, Republicans, and local animal welfare advocates.

But not HSUS. It quickly launched the “Your Vote Counts” campaign to amend the Missouri Constitution to make it harder for the legislature to change future ballot initiatives.

The campaign was a case study in misnomers and special interests from the get-go. As one Missouri group pointed out, almost none of the money going into the coffers of “Your Vote Counts” came from Missourians. The vast majority—66 percent—came from HSUS. Really, it should have been called “Your Money Counts.”

So what’s the reason for the campaign suspension? The Saint Louis Beacon has a few:

Dane Waters, campaign director for Your Vote Counts, announced the campaign’s suspension in an interview late Thursday, in response to what he viewed as encouraging comments by [Republican] state House Speaker Steve Tilley. …

Waters with Your Vote Counts said that the campaign had collected about 75 percent of the signatures that it needed to get on this fall’s ballot. But he added that the organizers’ chief aim was to forge a better relationship with the General Assembly, and not necessarily heighten tensions with more initiative-petition drives. …

However, activists in both major parties privately have said that there is a mutual interest in keeping the Your Vote Counts proposal off this year’s ballot, because of concerns over how it might affect turnout among different voter constituencies.

Really? HSUS shut down an entire ballot campaign—one for which it was easily on track to have enough signatures for and into which it had pumped nearly $400,000—because of a few nice words from one state politician? Or because of uncertain voter turnout? (Is anybody ever sure of November turnout in March?)

Color us skeptical.

We’re speculating, but we’d guess that HSUS believed it would lose in November.

For one, the whole campaign was an obviously self-aggrandizing move, driven by the fact that HSUS couldn’t have its way with Prop B. (Never mind that Democrats, Republicans, and local animal welfare groups all agreed on the Prop B reform package.) So on its face it was the genesis of pettiness. A blatant out-of-state power grab wouldn’t have played well in November.

Let’s not overlook the philosophical and practical arguments against HSUS’s push, either. Increasing the influence of direct democracy at the ballot box by reducing legislature oversight has flaws. Just look at California’s “Prop 65” for the havoc largely unchecked special-interest money can wreck.

And last but not least, the whole campaign took on an air of silliness given that HSUS just ranked Missouri as the 6^th best state for “puppy mill” laws.

HSUS’s attempt to strong-arm the Show Me State has had one positive effect. As the Associated Press reported this week, it has united farmers.

2012 appears to be free of HSUS ballot initiatives. But we’re sure they’ll come creeping back soon like a weed. It’s important to use this time of relative rest to prepare and set the tone for the next battle.