Beyoncé, Don’t Let PETA Push You Around.

PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) is up to its sneaky tricks again. R&B singer Beyoncé Knowles volunteered to help VH1's Save The Music Foundation by agreeing to have dinner with the highest bidder on Ebay. Unbeknownst to Beyoncé, the highest bidders were members of PETA who were upset with her because she wears fur and because she uses them in the House of Dereon clothing line that she shares with her mother, Tina. The folks from PETA outbid everyone else and then used the dinner to confront Beyoncé as well as her mother and her sister Solange with an in-your-face video about the evils of the fur industry. You can see a video clip of the confrontation here.

This is hardly the first, nor even the most objectionable trick that PETA has played. Perhaps their most disgusting trick occurred in December 2003 when they stood outside of theaters where the Nutcracker Suite was playing and handed out comic book-like leaflets to children whose mothers were wearing fur. These were not just any comics. Oh no! These were comics specially designed to traumatize children at Christmastime and turn them against their mothers. Take a good hard look at the front of the leaflet ! There it is, a picture of a mother with a demonic look in her eyes using a bloody knife to slaughter an innocent rabbit. The cover tells its reader to

"Ask your mommy . . . How many animals she killed to make her fur coat. The sooner she stops wearing fur, the sooner she will be safe."

Now, look at the second page of this PDF to see the back of the leaflet.

Do you have a puppy you take for walks or play with? Or a kitty who likes to chase string? Everyone knows that it's fun to love and play with our animal friends.

But how would you feel if someone took away your kitty or puppy, stomped on their head, and ripped the skin off their bodies? It would make you feel sad, wouldn't it? Why would anyone be so mean? But there are terrible people who cause our furry friends to die that way every day. And guess what? One of those people is your mommy. Your mommy kills animals. I bet you didn't know that. . . .

Ask your mommy how many dead animals she killed to make her fur clothes. Then tell her that you know she paid men to hurt and kill the animals. Everyone knows. And the sooner she stops wearing fur, the sooner animals will be safe. Until then, keep your doggie or kitty friends away from mommy– she's an animal killer!

How would you like your 8 year old boy or girl to be the recipient of this leaflet? Anyone with a sense of decency would say this is despicable. You don't go traumatizing children because you don't like their parents behavior. You don't scare children into thinking their mother is going to kill their doggie or kitty. You don't try to sew seeds of hatred in children toward their parents.

I agree with child psychologist Dr. Carolyn Newberger, who said:

"It's using children in the worst possible way. . . If (the activists) want to legitimately work to protect animals from destruction for fashion, they have every right to. But to do so by targeting children and making them feel their mothers are murderers is absolutely unconscionable.''

Of course, decency is not PETA's strong suit. They truly believe that there is a moral equivalency between animals and human beings. In their world view, human cannibalism is no more odious than eating a hamburger. And they have trivialized the plight of Jews during the Holocaust by equating their extermination to the eating of chickens. In their Holocaust On Your Plate campaign, they claimed:

"like the Jews murdered in concentration camps, animals are terrorized when they are housed in huge filthy warehouses and rounded up for shipment to slaughter. The leather sofa and handbag are the moral equivalent of the lampshades made from the skins of people killed in the death camps."

I guess knowing a bit about PETA's callous attitude toward human life should immunize me from being shocked by their shenanigans. But even I was shocked to read a letter by PETA's president, Ingrid Newkirk, in reaction to an incident in which a bomb strapped to a donkey was exploded in Jerusalem. Fortunately, no people were killed but the donkey lost its life in the bombing. Newkirk was horrified at the incident and sent a letter to Yasser Arafat asking him to refrain from hurting animals in the conflict against Israel. I know, it is hard to believe, but I am not making this up. Newkirk didn't ask Arafat to make sure that no innocent civilians were hurt. She didn't even ask him to do everything possible to make sure future bombs didn't go off where schoolchildren were playing. No– Newkirk's only concern seemed to lay with the dead mule. And if you don't believe me then read her letter which is so proudly displayed on PETA's web site.

So we know PETA is crass, crude, obnoxious, and indifferent to human life. But PETA is also dangerous. PETA wants to stop the use of animals in medical research. If you read through their website you would get the idea that animal studies have done little to advance medical advances in the past. In fact, their website is highly misleading since animal research is instrumental to current medical research and has made important contributions in the past to research in AIDS/HIV, cancer, antibiotics, and organ transplants. Experiments using transgenic mice–i.e. mice inserted with disease-causing human genes– are providing models to help us understand how Alzheimer's disease develops. But PETA wants to stop this research even though it may help pharmaceutical companies develop new therapies against this deadly disease. The following is from PETA's web site:

“Would you support an experiment that would sacrifice 10 animals to save 10,000 people?”

No. Look at it another way: Suppose that the only way to save 10,000 people was to experiment on one mentally challenged orphan. If saving people is the goal, wouldn’t that be worth it? Most people would agree that it would be wrong to sacrifice one human for the “greater good” of others because it would violate that individual’s rights, but when it comes to sacrificing animals, the assumption is that human beings have rights and animals do not. Yet there is no logical reason to deny animals the same rights that protect individual humans from being sacrificed for the common good.

Well, if PETA doesn't want to experiment on animals then that's fine. They shouldn't do experiments on animals–AND they shouldn't be hypocrites by using new treatments that result from animal research. But they should get out of the way and let the scientists do their research in peace so that others can benefit from the fruit of their research. Instead, there is at least circumstantial evidence that they have aided and abetted more extremist organizations that are intent on sabotaging labs where animal experiments take place and intimidating the scientists who work there with terror threats. In 2004, the FBI estimated that extremist groups such as the Animal Liberation Front and the Earth Liberation Front were responsible for 1,100 criminal acts since 1976 with damage estimates over $100 million. (Not all the acts were directed against laboratories. Animal rights extremists have had a diverse range of targets including meat packing plants, lumber plants, a ski facility, and a car dealership.) Some may argue that I use the word "terrorist" too lightly since the animal rights groups have been attacking property and have so far avoided killing people. But I defy you to read Mark Blumberg's account of how the ALF destroyed the research facilities at the University of Iowa and tell me that the punks who did this weren't terrorists. Pay close attention to the email they sent Blumberg stating:

"Let this message be clear to all who victimize the innocent… We're watching. And by axe, drill, or crowbar — we're coming though your door. Stop or be stopped." Later in that document, the brazen and indiscriminate nature of their threat was revealed when, after noting "the established link between violence towards animals and that towards humans," they listed "as a public safety measure" our names, our spouse's names, home addresses and phone numbers, as well as information about our students.

PETA officially denies any relationship with ALF. And as I said before, the evidence tying the two organizations together is circumstantial. But PETA certainly doesn't condemn them either and I can only conclude from this passage on their website that they secretly condone ALF's extremist tactics.

What’s PETA’s position on the Animal Liberation Front (ALF)?

Throughout history, some people have felt the need to break the law in order to fight injustice. The Underground Railroad and the French Resistance are both examples of people breaking the law in order to combat injustice. PETA is a legal activist organization, but we realize that other groups have different methods and we try not to condemn any efforts in behalf of animals in which no one is harmed. "The ALF," which is simply the name adopted by people acting illegally in behalf of animal rights, breaks inanimate objects such as stereotaxic devices and decapitators in order to save lives. It burns empty buildings in which animals are tortured and killed. ALF "raids" have provided proof of horrific cruelty that would not have been discovered or believed otherwise.

So with this in mind, I am hoping that Beyoncé fights back against PETA's underhanded tactics. Personally, I have no use for fur and I really don't care whether the fur industry survives or not. But I do not like seeing PETA's pressure tactics rewarded. If they make gains by accosting Beyoncé at dinner for her support of the fur industry will they next be emboldened to try to accost me for eating meat? (NOTE TO PETA: Expect a punch in the nose if you DARE try to remove a steak from my plate. You don't get my meat away from me unless you pry it from my cold, dead fingers.) And more importantly, will victory in their harassment campaign against the fur industry embolden them to take a more aggressive stance against medical research?

Here is my advice to Beyoncé on how she should fight back.

1. First, watch this video by Penn and Teller. It absolutely destroys PETA's credibility. Admittedly, the video is extreme, but Penn and Teller seem to take the position that they need to abandon subtlety to fight extremists. In any case, their video is brilliant in taking on PETA's BULLSHIT!. I especially loved the part where they took Mary Beth Sweetland, Senior Vice President of PETA, to task for using insulin developed from animal testing to save her life while trying to stop animal research that could save the lives of others.
2. Invite the people from PETA to have dinner with you again. Invite Mary Beth Sweetland to dinner also. But this time it is your turn to stage an ambush. Invite Penn and Teller to dinner. They won't take PETA's Bullshit and I can guarantee you they will rub Mary Beth's hypocrisy in her face.
3. Make a counteroffer to PETA. Tell PETA that you will stop using fur in your clothing line and that you will stop wearing fur as soon as they drop their opposition to animal research. Tell them that they must break any and all ties with the Animal Liberation Front and they must condemn the ALF's tactics on their web site.

This will put PETA on the defensive. Either they will have to give up their opposition to animal research or they will look like extremist whack jobs if they continue to harass you. I predict that they will become even more marginalized then they are if they continue their opposition to animal research in light of such an offer. Now if they are smart they will agree to make a deal with you and reverse their position on animal experimentation and you will have to give up your use of furs. You might not enjoy this sacrifice, but you will be widely hailed as the women who made it safer for scientists to conduct medical research. Who knows Beyoncé? Maybe, just maybe, a cure for cancer or Alzheimer's will be found more quickly because of your sacrifice.