Los Angeles Paying for Security for Animal Control Workers
The threats from animal rights activists against animal control workers have grown so extreme that Los Angeles is paying for special security for them. For example, a smoke bomb was set off in the apartment complex where the head of LA's animal control department lives--a crime acknowledge by the Animal Liberation Front (ALF).
A spokesman for the liberationists state that the better course for LA would just be give in and adopt a "no kill" policy for strays, and then all would be better. Of course, that would be giving into Brown Shirtism, resulting not in peace but increased demands made by terrorists emboldened by their success. Moreover, it is very interesting that these thugs seem to have no trouble with PETA, which has admitted to killing tens of thousands of dogs and cats, with two employees currently up on felony charges in South Carolina for killing animals and throwing them away in dumpsters. Apparently, it isn't the killing that is wrong. It is who is doing the killing.
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 8:11 AM
1 Comments
1 Comments:
No argument that PETA is problematic. But I hope you don't presume the "no-kill" movement is related to PETA or thug action because of this incident. (Check out Nathan Winograd (No Kill Solutions in San Clemente) and Richard Avanzino (Maddie's Fund in Alameda). Both organizations have websites. This is the kind of report I have difficulty believing. Could be because about 5 years ago a report came out of central Oregon that a man hanged a shelter director's dog in retaliation for the shelter killing his pet before he could get there to pick it up. A later report revealed that the shelter director had hanged his own dog. I came to see this as a blatant attempt to discredit the no-kill movment by those who have something to gain from killing -and selling to research labs. It is easy to blame thuggery on the little guy, but in my experience, ALF types don't have a monopoly on that kind of action. Corporate types come closer to cornering the market. That is why it is hard for me to give them the medical research establishment the "moral high ground" it is seeking. I don't readily concede it to anyone, because that closes down debate.
Post a Comment
<< Home