On Accusations & Terrorism
Print This Post
I feel obliged to comment on the issue of terrorism and the Animal Rights movement. Not the blatantly question-begging nature of labeling property damage “terrorism,” while simultaneously implicitly condoning forcing a beagle into a seemingly endless cocaine-addiction-detox cycle and labeling it “business” or “research,” but the alleged link between above ground organizations such as People For the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and below ground organizations like the Animal Liberation Front (ALF).
The Center for Consumer Freedom and various media outlets accuse PETA of supporting terrorism; others, then, tend to ground their opposition to PETA on this accusation.
An accusation as loaded as “supporting terrorism” has to rely on equally healthy evidence to support the claim. It stands to reason that given our political climate in the age of terror, an individual or group with ties to terrorism would be a priority for agencies like the Department of Homeland Security, for example. The impetus for this agencies’ creation, in fact, was an act of terrorism. Therefore it follows that those organizations who do support terrorism in any substantive way – thus finding some grounds for the accusation of “supporting terrorism” without begging the question – would be investigated and charged if the results of the investigation substantiated the accusation.
When asked about ALF, PETA President Ingrid Newkirk is unequivocal in her response: she will not condemn any individual who rescues a bunny rabbit from a laboratory; however, PETA does not support below ground illegal actions, indeed, to the chagrin of ALF and their advocates.
If, then, “support” is to be defined by encouragement, assistance, corroboration, enablement, or financial aid, the accusation is manifestly baseless. DHS’s (and the FBI’s) non-indictment, ever, of PETA is robust evidence to support this claim.
It isn’t fallacious to argue that a non-indictment suggests the erroneousness of the accusation given that we exist in a time and place where combating terrorism is of paramount importance. Those who “support” terrorism would surely find themselves under scrutiny and removed from the public sphere. PETA has been so scrutinized (because of various reasons, not the least are the accusations themselves) and the results are clear: PETA does not support terrorism.
If we define “support” as non [public] condemnation, given Ms. Newkirk’s position, PETA could be accused of supporting terrorism. As would, however, those who actively pursued full civil rights for black Americans during the 1960′s without simultaneously condemning Martin Luther King, Jr. who, under a covert Counter Intelligence Program known as COINTELPRO, was slotted under the “Black Nationalist Hate Groups” rubric and considered to be a significant domestic threat by the FBI. This analogy follows.
A predictable response will challenge the comparison to human civil rights – “No,” the argument goes, “it’s different because nonhuman animals aren’t human animals.” However,
- that is simply an assertion in need of an argument separating the morality of Animal Rights and the morality of Civil Rights and, more importantly,
- that is quite beside the point: if PETA can be said to be ”supporting terrorism” then using the same logic and kind of evidence so should every other civil rights organization during the 1960′s who didn’t condemn Martin Luther King, Jr. and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference.
Under some scrutiny then this argument is merely a bare assertion fallacy where the premise is assumed to be true simply because the proponent of the position says it is. The point is asserted without really needing to prove its truth value because Animal Rights is a minority position, we are hubristic and need to believe our species is better than all others and because of hard economics – there is a lot of money in the animal exploitation business.
Crossposted @ That Vegan Girl
Respond