Muslim Veg Americans

Islam's animal rights ambassadors

In the stark shadow of 9/11, many otherwise patriotic Americans seem to have forgotten that the U.S. Constitution unequivocally guarantees our right and freedom to practice whatever religion we desire. From the high-profile protests against the “Ground Zero Mosque”* to the knifing of a Muslim cabbie in New York City and the Florida pastor who coordinated (and then cancelled) a Koran bonfire at his church, it's become all too painfully clear that America is afflicted with an advanced case of Islamophobia. Obviously, some of our fellow citizens are mistakenly equating the vast majority of peaceful mainstream Muslims with the comparatively small number of enraged jihadists who indiscriminately kill in Allah's name—turning all Muslims into potential targets of hate crime.

Islam and animal rights share at least one unfortunate commonality: the more extreme elements in both camps top the FBI's list of the most dangerous domestic terrorism threats facing our nation. Of course, the feds specifically bestow this dubious distinction on those who use violent and/or destructive means to achieve their ends, but in some people's minds, anyone who follows the philosophy of either Islam or animal rights is guilty by association of conspiring with the enemy—even if we would (literally) never hurt a fly. In that way, veg Muslims may be doubly suspect in a society that's still reeling from the traumatic impact of a shocking mass-murder nine years after the fact.

As an American and a human being, it sickens me to see anyone persecuted for their spiritual beliefs—as much as seeing animals tortured in factory farms and other industrialized death camps. I therefore feel compelled to stand up for peaceful Muslims, but as a secular agnostic, I would not presume to speak for them. It is in this spirit of solidarity that I present my exclusive interview with blogger, financial analyst and vegetarian American Muslim Fareeda Ahmed.

AR: Where are you from, and where did you grow up?

FA: I'm from New York. I was born in Manhattan and raised mostly in Westchester County, but I also lived in New York City for a number of years because I got my undergraduate degree at Columbia, and then worked at Morgan Stanley. My parents, on the other hand, were both born and raised in Pakistan, and came to the U.S. and got married after my father did his medical residency here. A lot of our family still lives in Pakistan, so I usually make a trip there every year. And I just moved to California last month to get my MBA at Stanford.

9/11 was obviously a pivotal point in American history and our relations with Muslims. Were you by any chance in New York City on September 11th, 2001?

No, at that time I was just 16—going on 17, as the song** goes—and a high school senior in Tarrytown, which is on the Hudson River about a half hour's train ride from the city. The entire school of about 400 students just so happened to be at an assembly that morning, and about 45 minutes into it, the headmaster interrupted to announce that two planes had been deliberately crashed into the Twin Towers. Our proximity to the World Trade Center meant that many of my classmates' parents and family members worked in or around there—my own cousin worked at the time for Morgan Stanley, sometimes in their WTC office—so the shock of that day was particularly personal for us.

How did you feel when you learned that the hijackers were Muslim?

I felt a strong dual connection to America and New York—my country and my home state. I was struck hard by the reality that they had both just been attacked so violently and viciously, while also realizing that this tragedy was going to dramatically change things for Muslims here in America and around the world. For me, and for many others I think, it marked the end of childhood. Speaking as a Muslim, it was the start of being defensive, because I've always been sort of an unwitting diplomat for Pakistan, which I consider a kind of second home. There, I don't have to explain myself for being Muslim, but here, I am constantly reminded that I follow a different religious faith from most Americans. And to complicate matters, Pakistan has a reputation as a hiding place for some of Al Qaeda's most wanted. Even though it's one of America's strongest allies in the War on Terror, and Pakistani soldiers and civilians die every day in the fight against Al Qaeda, the associations Americans have with Pakistan are often negative, unfortunately.

It seems like many Americans these days believe that Muslims, even those born and raised here, are somehow sympathetic to or supportive of the terrorists—like they're secretly celebrating when Americans are killed. Do you ever experience divided loyalties between your country and religion?

Not only do I not sympathize with people who commit acts of terror in the name of Islam, but it affects me directly because I lived in Manhattan, and worked in places like Times Square and the New York Stock Exchange that are among the top terrorist targets in the U.S. I worked at Morgan Stanley for four years, which had more office space in the WTC on 9/11 than any other company, and a lot of my co-workers had horrifying stories about surviving the attack. This past May, I took my father to see a play on the same day that a car bomb almost went off in Times Square. The theatre was only one block from where the bomb would have exploded, and the show ended just an hour before it was set to detonate, meaning my father and I could have been killed if the attack had been successfully carried out. So when I hear, for example, that Iran may be developing nuclear weapons, I don't sympathize with the Iranian government. Instead, as an American and a person who could potentially be on the receiving end of those missiles, I feel the same fear that anyone else would. But being Muslim in America, there's the added dimension of not being allowed to feel that way because we're so misunderstood.

Do you feel life has gotten more difficult for Muslim Americans in the wake of 9/11?

Faisal Shahzad, the would-be “Times Square Bomber,” really ruined the accepted profile of Muslim terrorists as being from some foreign country. He was an American citizen with a wife and kids and a good job, so now people think that any Muslim—even their friendly mild-mannered neighbors—could be part of a covert sleeper cell. Otherwise, there were ups and downs over the years since 2001, but overall, things appeared to be improving for us. Then last month everything suddenly came to a head. Right after 9/11, people seemed curious about and only slightly distrustful of Muslims, but now many people just seem to jump to conclusions without even trying to get the facts. If there is a silver lining here, though, it's that today's rage provides an opportunity for reconciliation, and I know that Americans are basically caring and open-hearted people, so they'll eventually summon their better angels. Inclusiveness and tolerance are core American and Islamic values, and Muslims come from the same religious lineage as Christians and Jews. Realizing our commonalities is ultimately what will unite us in the fight against global terrorism.

Since my blog is about animal issues, let's switch gears and address some. I understand that Islam includes a strong tradition of concern for animal welfare. Can you please speak to that?

Well, there are very specific instructions in the Koran about how Muslims are to treat animals used as resources, whether they are beasts of burden or slaughtered for food. Generally speaking, Muslims must take care to minimize the suffering of other species. An example would be Halal meat standards, which require that butchers follow sacred practices to ensure animals slaughtered for food don't suffer unnecessarily. Integral to Halal methods is that Islam expressly forbids the caging, beating, branding, and mutilation of animals***. Quotes from the Koran about animals leave very little gray area about how Muslims must universally respect other species as fellow sentient beings, and it was partly my interpretation of Islam that led me to become a vegetarian. I mean, when I really started to think about it, eating meat just seemed to conflict with my Muslim sensibilities, which include compassion for all forms of life and ecological stewardship.

Every vegetarian has a personal transformation story about why they chose not to eat animals, so what's yours?

I decided to go vegetarian about two and a half years ago after becoming aware of certain factory farming practices, and then reading up on vegetarianism in the context of Islam at a PETA website which I later wrote a blog post about. I was also informed and influenced by books such as Skinny Bitch and documentaries like Food, Inc. Meanwhile, as I learned more about factory farming, I realized how totally contrary this system is to the spirit of Islam. Bear in mind, Islam doesn't dictate that we Muslims can't eat meat—that's why Halal was invented—so I could have easily purchased Halal meat in the city. Yet I felt, as a Muslim and a human being, that vegetarianism was a more compassionate choice, and that my faith was telling me not to eat animals. There's a passage in the Koran that basically says “Whoever has done an atom's worth of good will see it, and whoever has done an atom's worth of evil will see it,” which means we are all accountable for our individual choices, including how we treat animals. And health-wise, within about three months of phasing meat out of my diet, I looked and felt noticeably better, and had lost a few pounds, so it definitely felt right physically, as well.

Since vegetarianism has had such a positive impact on your life, have you considered taking it to the next level by going vegan? I ask this question as someone who was vegetarian for six years before going vegan, and experienced exponential benefits after abstaining from all animal products.

Veganism makes complete sense to me in theory, and it's certainly the ideal I want to move towards in the future. But at the same time, I've found it so much harder to stop eating dairy than meat. I know that's not a very compelling argument for eating these foods, and that dairy cows and egg-laying chickens still suffer, even if they're not raised on factory farms. I look at both my own life and the history of Islam on a trajectory, with progress building on the foundations laid by previous actions. Consider where Islam came out of, for example. Pre-Islamic Mecca, now Saudi Arabia, during the 6th to 7th centuries was a barbaric place where baby girls were summarily killed at birth. Islam helped create a more civilized society that outlawed some of the harshest practices of that era, including unrestrained cruelty to animals. One of Islam's key philosophical tenets, in my understanding, is that we must work towards a better world step-by-step. It's a question of evolution, and vegetarianism is a more evolved diet than meat-eating. And as you follow that trajectory to its logical conclusion, for me personally, it ultimately leads towards veganism.

Do you have Muslim friends who are also veg?

A few, but not many. It's not like I've sought out other vegetarian Muslims by, say, looking for them on Facebook, though. The ones I do know don't cite Islam as their primary reason for not eating meat: they express the same concerns about ethics, environmentalism and health that other vegetarians do. Also, I have many South Asian vegetarian friends, but they're not necessarily Muslim: they're Hindu, Jain or Buddhist.

Regarding vegetarian advocacy, do you find that meat-eating Muslims are more receptive to the vegetarian message when it comes from a member of their own faith?

Yes, because when I tell them about how the vast difference between industrialized agriculture and Halal standards effectively makes factory farming a sacrilege in Islam, I'm speaking from personal experience. So, out of respect for our traditions, Muslims may be more open than other meat eaters to changing their dietary habits—at least in terms of rejecting factory farm cruelty, if not giving meat up altogether. But many people don't know that at least 98% of the meat produced in the U.S. comes from factory farms, so even when they learn that Islam strictly prohibits the consumption of flesh from tortured animals, they may continue turning a blind eye to avoid being inconvenienced.

What are some of the most popular vegan foods in Muslim culture?

There are about 1.5 billion Muslims in the world, and they're spread across the globe, so food traditions vary quite widely. But vegans can enjoy foods from many different Islamic countries. For example, my family comes from the Punjab region of Pakistan near the Indian border, which specializes in dishes made from rice, vegetables and rich curry sauces. Vegans can also find many delicious options from the Middle East, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Morocco. Personally, my favorite food is probably chhole, which is an Indian/Pakistani dish made with spiced chick peas served warm. As a vegetarian, I can confidently say that I'm definitely not missing meat at all—not even my mom's famous chicken!

* In explanation of my consciously-included quotation marks, fans of The Daily Show may recall a recent episode in which Emmy award-wining host Jon Stewart humorously observed that the “Ground Zero Mosque” would be neither a mosque (but rather a community center) nor located at Ground Zero (but rather two blocks away in a former Burlington Coat Factory outlet).

** From The Sound of Music soundtrack. Here's a YouTube video clip from the movie for those whose memories need jogging.

*** See The Animal Ethics Reader, p. 237.

Anarchy in the UC

Four California activists arrested under the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act

I am an antichrist
I am an anarchist
Don't know what I want
But I know how to get it
I wanna destroy passerby
'Cause I wanna be Anarchy

- The Sex Pistols, from "Anarchy in the UK"


The FBI recently made the first arrests for violations of the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA) by charging four animal rights activists with using threats and physical force to intimidate University of California (UC) biomedical researchers into abandoning their animal experimentation careers. Here are the basic allegations against the accused:

- Holding protests with other activists outside the homes of UC Berkeley and Santa Cruz vivisectors, where they marched and chanted slogans.

- Trying to force their way inside a researcher’s house and throwing an unidentified "object" at him while shouting verbal threats.

- Producing and distributing fliers with the names, addresses and phone numbers of UC animal experimenters. The FBI found the fliers right before the homes of two UC Santa Cruz researchers were firebombed.

Note that the four arrested activists have not been charged with the firebombing, nor for physically injuring anyone, but mainly for actions that could potentially provoke someone to commit acts of violence. While these actions fall within Americans' First Amendment rights, each defendant could spend up to five years behind bars if convicted. Now, if you think the prospective punishment for these crimes seems harsh, it is, relatively speaking: consider, for example, that under California state law, assault and battery is punishable by a stint in jail "not exceeding six months," and the average prison sentence served by a child molester in the U.S. is about three years.

Perhaps sentencing under the AETA is more severe because it is the only law of its kind, in that it applies exclusively to the animal exploitation industry. That is to say, if you used these activists’ exact tactics against, say, the executives of a logging company that was clear-cutting an ancient forest, you would not be penalized as strongly as you would be if your target was a fur farm. No other industry enjoys such legal protection and privilege.

What Happens at UC, Stays at UC

The ktvu.com news article from which I first learned of the activists’ arrest reads like a self-congratulatory FBI press release, and conspicuously fails to mention any of the animal experiments taking place at UC Berkeley/Santa Cruz that so enraged the accused. Referring, for example, to the activists as "extremists" three times in the text is just biased journalism. Sadly, such selectively partisan coverage is typical of the mainstream media, which just loves sensationalistic story arcs with clear-cut heroes, villains and victims (cops, criminals & upstanding citizens), but is consequently incapable of treating this subject in an objective, balanced manner.

Apparently, the mainstream media mentality holds that merely questioning the ethics and efficacy of biomedical research on animals amounts to rewarding those who took illegal action against it — then, supposedly, the "terrorists win" in some way. That kind of moral blindness misrepresents reality by omission of a crucial perspective. That is to say, even if the vast majority of the populace is disgusted by how the "extremists" expressed themselves, that does not make the cause they speak for any less just or crucial, and yet the media is shirking its responsibility to inform the public about the legally-sanctioned cruelty being perpetrated at public institutions of higher learning under the guise of scientific progress.

To fill in some of the missing facts, here’s a brief overview of UC Berkeley’s animal research program. About 40,000 animals are used in experiments at the school’s Northwest Animal Facility every year. These largely taxpayer-funded projects include, for example, such "medical advances" as implanting electrodes and other devices in the brains of captive and clinically-controlled primates, cats and songbirds. Meanwhile, Berkeley is in the process of building a new $266­-million Center for Biomedical and Health Sciences (complete with an expanded underground vivisection lab) that will more than double the current facility’s size. And remember, Berkeley is only one of ten UC campuses, and hundreds of thousands of animals are killed in research every year throughout the UC system.

Helpless Despair

As an animal advocate, I identify with the arrested activists’ frustrations and motivations, but disagree with their alleged approach because, on a psychological level, actual or perceived threats only galvanize sentiment for those targeted by intimidation while reinforcing existing negative prejudices against the animal advocacy movement. I subscribe to Carol Adams' view that intimidation tactics are driven by traumatic knowledge of the vast scale of animal suffering caused by humanity, and that projecting our subsequent rage onto others is counterproductive and generally unhealthy for everyone involved. I strongly believe that coercion rarely (if ever) brings about a positive outcome, but violence is so ingrained in our society that some people feel making threats is the only way they can effect change in the world.

Yet media bias paradoxically bolsters the "extremist" position by holding a tight spotlight on a small fraction of "outlaw" activists while blacking out the much larger community of law-abiding activists who perform the groundwork of public outreach and education. Mainstream news stories about animal rights "violence" against vivisectors are common, but reporters are nowhere to be found when people gather legally and peacefully at demos against UC’s use of animals. So apparently, animal advocates are only worth paying attention to when we break the law.

Still, it was heartening to see more commendable media coverage last year of other major animal stories, including the Proposition 2 victory in California, the Chino slaughterhouse scandal, and Michael Vick’s conviction for dog fighting. The common thread between these three stories is that they all centered on either enforcing the law or creating new ones. So, in pragmatic terms, working the law rather than breaking it seems to be having a better actual impact on how animals are viewed and treated by humans, especially over the long term.

Deepening Awareness

So we don’t need to threaten or intimidate others to have a real and sustained impact for animals. Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th Dalai Lama, is an excellent exemplar of holistic and peaceful social activism, and right now I’m reading one of his many books, which is entitled Healing Anger: The power of patience from a Buddhist perspective. His teachings about the need to cultivate a disciplined temperament and channel anger appropriately in the face of adversity are based on the Bodhisattva vow, which means dedicating one's life toward the welfare of others. As an example, here is one excerpt that explains our responsibilities to our "enemies" (say, those practicing vivisection):

"One of the reasons there is a need to adopt a strong countermeasure against someone who (causes harm) is that if you let it pass, there is a danger of that person becoming habituated to extremely negative actions, which in the long run will cause that person’s own downfall and is very destructive for the individual himself or herself. Therefore, a strong countermeasure, taken out of compassion or a sense of concern for the other, is necessary. When you are motivated by that realization, then there is a sense of concern as part of your motive for taking that strong measure."

As a Bodhisattva-wannabe, I want to save as many animals as I can and "enlighten" as many people as possible about the need to respect all forms of life. That entails emotionally engaging the anger, outrage and despair I feel over humanity’s crimes against animals, and hopefully taking "strong countermeasures" grounded in kindness that will ultimately (in Buddhist terms) benefit all beings. Basically, in order to stop demonizing people who know not what they do to animals and themselves, I must first reconcile with my own demons, for only universal compassion has the power to transform consciousness.





If you live in the Bay Area and want to join an established grass-roots effort against animal research, check out Berkeley Organization for Animal Advocacy (BOAA) online or attend one of their weekly Wednesday evening meetings.

The Ultimate World War: Animals Against Humans

Sudden increase in animal-on-human attacks may be revenge-motivated, say some scientists

I know it sounds like I'm making this up, but I'm not: some scientists now actually believe that drastically rising incidences of animal-on-human violence around the world are due at least partially to a concerted effort by various members of the animal kingdom to exact vengeance upon humanity for all the atrocities we have committed against them. A radical shift in how animals interact with humans is taking place, they say – and it may be because other species are becoming aware in some new way of their mass-enslavement and victimization by none other than the human race. I have hazy childhood memories of a badly-acted made-for-TV natural disaster movie from the late-seventies in which this was actually the plot: who would've predicted back then that this schlocky premise wouldn't necessarily turn out to be so farfetched after all?!

I learned about this zoogenic conspiracy from a fascinating article entitled “Mad cows (and livid lambs)” that appeared recently in the Telegraph, a British newspaper. Citing the statistically-astonishing rise in animal attacks on humans over the last few years—ranging from elephants, chimpanzees and sharks to dogs, mountain lions and badgers—journalist Will Storr bolsters the assertion that nature may be turning on us by including informed observations from respected field researchers and numerous stories of real-life animal attacks. He also clearly conveys what is perhaps the most crucial component of this equation, which is that modern scientific research overwhelmingly indicates animals are far more intelligent and aware than even most animal lovers had assumed.

Meaning, significantly, that before scientists could even consider the possibility that other species may be revolting against us for destroying their habitats and slaughtering their families en masse, they first had to give animals credit for being smart enough to recognize the cause of their suffering and where to seek retribution. Logically, the theory implies that animals must have complex thoughts and emotions – an intricate inner life from which they respond to the outer world. Someday, when researchers conclusively prove this to be true, it will radically transform humanity's view of animals – and, hopefully, our treatment of them.

One of the leading voices in the scientific movement towards getting people to recognize the depth of animal consciousness is vegan ethologist and author Marc Bekoff, who is quoted extensively in the article. Bekoff (a Professor Emeritus of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at the University of Colorado, Boulder who has collaborated with Jane Goodall) says that animals are almost certainly motivated by revenge in some situations. However, judging from the article, he seems to approach cautiously the idea that a pan-species rebellion is underway across the globe.*

But this is precisely what some scientists are suggesting. Gay Bradshaw, a world-renowned elephant expert and director of the Kerulos Centre for Animal Psychology and Trauma Recovery, believes that “What's happening today is extraordinary. Where for centuries, humans and animals lived in relatively peaceful co-existence, there is now hostility and violence.” The evidence presented by Bradshaw and her colleagues that recent elephant rampages are tied to the species' psychological traumatization has gained some notable interest from animal researchers and even the general public. Bradshaw and other researchers simply expanded their perspective beyond marauding gangs of juvenile-delinquent pachyderms as the number and range of animal attacks from across the species spectrum rapidly accelerated.

“Animals have the same capacity that we do, in terms of emotions and what we consider to be high-mindedness and moral integrity,” she said. “In fact, I'd argue they have more, because they haven't done to us what we've done to them. That's a sobering thought. It's amazing that all the animals are as benign as they are. It's amazing their restraint. Why aren't they picking up guns?”

Ironically, this sentiment is consistent with what the National Rifle Association (NRA) suggested could happen in an illustration from one of their fundraising booklets, which I addressed at length in January 2007 right here in this very blog. "Even though the picture is pure fantasy," I wrote, "I think it is an accurate rendering of the NRA's deepest fears: that the future holds wild packs of pissed-off animals roaming the post-McDonald's® wasteland seeking vengeance against their bipedal oppressors. Obviously, once animals are freed, they will kill and enslave humans in retribution. Kind of like the old adage that if we didn’t hunt, eat, experiment on and otherwise torture and kill animals, they’d all either die of starvation or take over the world…"

So it seems I may have gone off a little half-cocked there in mocking the NRA's potentially valid fears. For, as Storr points out in the Telegraph article, "Stories like these remind us that there are millions of beasts armed with teeth and stingers, who can out-sniff, out-run, out-fly, out-fight and out-bite any of us. The eerie truth is that, right now, we're surrounded. As a species, we've been at the top of the food chain for so long, we've forgotten that 'humans' are mere anthropoid apes and, in distant millennia, we had to fight the feral armies to get here. In our hubris, we imagine we're an animal apart."

If it turns out animals are attacking and killing humans as retaliation for our arrogant attitude, my fear is that people will see this as all the more reason to massacre them in even greater numbers. When humans feel in immediate danger, their capacity for reflective thinking basically defaults to the "fight or flight" instinct—it's me or him, us against them—rather than compassion. Consequently, people may not understand or care that we humans are causing this aberrant violence by abusing animals so terribly, and that we might therefore be able to reverse it by treating the planet and its inhabitants decently.

Humans too lash out with lethal force against other humans who they perceive to be oppressing them: we generally call these people terrorists. And what have their horrific suicide bombings and televised beheadings of infidels wrought? Panicked, we Americans forfeited some of our most precious civil liberties in the name of safety, and our President initiated a preemptive war based on falsified claims that has cost thousands of lives, trillions of dollars and our moral standing in the global community. The question is, has all this destruction brought us closer to peace and security or mutual annihilation?

For myself and others, 9/11 was a wake up call that signaled a desperate need to prevent future tragedies by questioning what drives terrorists to take up arms in the first place. Could America's oil-dominated economy (which necessitates a foreign policy of kissing up to Middle Eastern dictatorships) have some role in creating the horrendous living conditions endured by millions in the Persian Gulf? Does our country really respect the peoples of the Middle East, or do we undermine their freedom by financially and politically supporting harsh regimes where dissenters are systematically imprisoned, tortured and executed for speaking truth to power?

Likewise, given all that we do to animals, it should not surprise anyone that they'd want to take revenge on us: the real question here is, do they have the ability to knowingly and collectively strike back at humans based on this motivation? If the answer is yes, then this war between us will only escalate, because it seems unlikely that humanity will be accepting animals as equals on this Earth anytime soon. Therefore, consider: if animals and humans really do start fighting an all-out war against one another, which side will you be on...and, as a human being, will you even have a choice?

* Bekoff's response to this blog entry is included in the Comments section below.

Answering San Francisco Art Institute's False Accusations

Cancellation of video exhibit showing animals being killed provokes reactionary response from SFAI President

On May 8, 2008, The Art Newspaper, a British publication, ran an editorial by San Francisco Art Institute (SFAI) president Chris Bratton entitled "I see a new, pervasive and global condition of fundamentalist violence directed against dissident images and thought". It accused animal rights activists (and specifically IDA) of "demagoguery" and inciting death threats against SFAI employees.

As this is a completely false accusation based on Bratton's fractured and fearful view of animal rights activists, and because IDA is thoroughly dedicated to non-violent advocacy for animals, we posted an online response to his editorial, so readers of The Art Newspaper will know that it was Bratton's mismanagement of the outrage surrounding "Don't Trust Me" that caused the exhibit to be shut down.

Below, read my response to SFAI president Bratton's distorted claims, and get the real story behind the controversy.

I work for In Defense of Animals (IDA), one of the organizations that Chris Bratton accuses of fomenting "fundamentalist violence directed against dissident images and thought." I wrote IDA's alerts about the Adel Abdessemed exhibit sponsored by the San Francisco Art Institute (SFAI), and in no way, shape, or form did I encourage anyone to make violent threats. Nor did I post photos or home addresses of SFAI employees, or "cue...constituents with language meant to incite outrage and 'direct action.'" Check the alerts and see for yourself:

- The "Art" of Animal Cruelty (3/25/08)

- San Francisco Art Institute Suspends Animal Snuff Video Exhibit (3/26/08)

During the writing process, I called SFAI trying to get some background on how Abdessemed obtained his footage, and spoke with their media liaison on the phone. I asked him whether Abdessemed had in any way staged the footage, because I find it hard to believe that crushing animals' skulls in with giant hammers is standard practice on Mexican farms. I strongly felt that the public had a right to know whether these animals were specifically killed for a work of "art."

Though cordial, SFAI's media liaison did not have the answers to my questions, and this was days after the controversy over the exhibit had begun. Why was SFAI's official spokesperson still so completely uninformed at this point about a scandalously violent exhibit the school was sponsoring? All he could tell me was that SFAI had scheduled a public hearing to open up a dialogue; however, they quickly cancelled that meeting after allegedly receiving death threats, a claim that has not yet been substantiated by any concrete evidence.

My interaction with SFAI's spokesperson demonstrated how completely unprepared they were for the public's reaction to the exhibit. I don't know why Bratton is so surprised that people expressed anger towards the Institute's complete lack of interest in addressing legitimate concerns about cruelty to animals. His editorial mentions "a lecture by the artist, well attended and eliciting enthusiastic responses." So, not even one person at that lecture saw fit to inquire about Abdessemed's role in obtaining footage of animals being bludgeoned to death with a sledgehammer? Is the state of contemporary art in the city named for Saint Francis, patron saint of animals, now so amoral that lecture attendees accept it as a given that artists should be able to kill for the sake of creation?

If I'd been told when I called SFAI that Abdessemed had obtained the footage purely as documentation of a common practice on Mexican farms – and that SFAI planned to communicate this as part of the exhibit – I would have in fact recommended to IDA that we encourage people to support the show by going to see it. Indeed, animal rights activists routinely use video images of animal slaughter to expose violence with the hope that people will change their consumer habits after seeing how terribly animals suffer. Abdessemed's work, however, did just the opposite: removed from any contextualizing description or hint of origin, it implicitly encouraged people to accept humanity's exploitation of animals and the commoditization of their bodies as a supposedly inevitable, inarguable, and natural fact of life—an all too common assumption by society in general.

Judging from his self-congratulatory editorial, Bratton remains in denial about SFAI's role in the show's cancellation and oblivious to the fact that he bungled the handling of this controversy by deliberately obscuring the origins of "Don't Trust Me." Given the utter lack of explanation, is it any wonder that we would assume Abdessemed had in some way set up or provoked the scenes of killing portrayed on six video monitors? Bratton's shock that people would be upset by the intentional killing of animals for "art" indicates how deeply disconnected he is from public sentiment and empathy for the animals who were victimized so that representations of their deaths could be displayed in a gallery.

SFAI has still not fully revealed precisely what role Abdessemed played in obtaining his images. I believe he and SFAI meant to keep the images decontextualized to elicit shock in viewers: if people don't know what exactly they are seeing, their imaginations fill in the void with all sorts of wild speculations, eliciting even greater emotional turmoil. It is also likely that Abdessemed wanted to generate controversy, and he did: now he has bragging rights in the art world to say that his exhibit was the first one in SFAI's 137-year history to be shut down. He can boast that his work is so intense that people couldn't handle it.

Abdessemed seems to enjoy his reputation as a "dangerous" artist. Why else would he pull stunts like painting a picture while hanging upside down in the sky from a cable tied to a helicopter? Well, for the attention, of course, but my impression is he's more showman or provocateur than artist. Notably, animal rights activists were not the only ones who questioned the ethical and aesthetic merit of "Don't Trust Me": members of the art community recognized that Abdessemed sought to shock and upset people with his work, and signed a letter to Bratton condemning the exhibit.

In the end, what I find most offensive about Bratton's argument is that he has linked my advocacy work for animals with "demagoguery" and terroristic threats against people. I take strong exception to that mischaracterization, and want to point out that IDA fully condemns violence as a form of activism. My words and actions are consistent with my values of respect for all species, including human beings.

Keep in mind, however, that SFAI claims they decided to pull the plug on "Don't Trust Me" and cancel the planned public hearing not because of the public's outrage, but in direct response to threats of violence. So, if no one had made these alleged threats and I had just gone about my business of writing more alerts asking people to contact Bratton and let him know how they felt about the show, "Don't Trust Me" might have been on display for its entire scheduled run. So what Bratton is essentially saying is that terrorism works.

Yes, completely ignoring the rational, respectful entreaties of the majority and then caving in to intimidation by a tiny minority of invisible bullies – that's showing them, Bratton! Seeing as how effective these supposed threats were in the success of this campaign, I strongly suspect that more activists will start using these tactics the next time a similar situation arises. But please remember, all you animal rights activists out there, that while threats and violence may appear to result in some form of "victory," they do great damage to our cause in the long run by creating fear and resentment rather than true understanding and transformation of consciousness.

Framing SFAI and the artist as victims allows Bratton to claim the moral high ground and paint all animal rights advocates – regardless of whether our activism is peaceful and law-abiding or potentially violent – as a single undifferentiated mass that will pursue its goals "by any means necessary." In making no distinctions between my alerts and life-threatening emails, Bratton shows he is totally clueless about the diversity of the animal protection movement, and the non-violent strategies used by the majority.

Given Bratton's biased attitude, it does not surprise me that IDA's attempts to reason with SFAI were largely ignored. All we wanted was for SFAI to listen and respond appropriately to our concerns. Had someone initially given me reason to believe that Abdessemed was in no way involved in the killings beyond filming them, the tone of my communications would have been very different. Instead, Bratton irresponsibly insisted on maintaining a tightly-sealed information vacuum.

Lastly, I want to address the charge of "censorship" lodged against those who saw "Don't Trust Me" as a sickening example of "art" in the form of cruelty to animals. This was a publicly-funded exhibit – as a San Franciscan, some portion of my tax dollars was spent to put this work on display. I have the perfect right to say what I think about it, and refuse to censor my writing or apologize for my actions.

In fact, it was actually Bratton, as president of SFAI, who censored Abdessemed's work, for he was the one who ordered it shut down. Rather than standing tall like a strong leader, he laid down on the ground trembling with his hands behind his head at the first sign of trouble, then blamed others for his very obvious inadequacies. If he really believed in the value of Abdessemed's work, Bratton would have done a better job of explaining SFAI's position to the public, and tried harder to defend freedom of artistic expression.

___________________________________________________________________

Addendum: On July 24, 2008, I received this email response from an art critic:

Regarding the Adel Abdessemed exhibition, I have just read that somebody in San Francisco is proposing a bill that would make it a felony who causes suffering to an animal while making art. More censorship coming. Last year, an artwork by Huang Yong-Ping was removed from a major exhibition in Vancouver because flies (I say right, flies) were not being treated right. Now Abdessemed's show has been cancelled altogether. What's next? A touring show of these evil anti-animal-rights artworks under the banner "Degenerate Art"? Where did our freedom go?

Regarding art, I must say, as an art critic that I am, that you have no idea about contemporary art, visual creation or art in general. You have made it clear in your response to the president of the San Francisco Art Institute.

Regarding veganism and food choices, I feel threatened by people like you. Because you are not just trying to "help" abused animals. Your ultimate mission and/or wish is to eradicate all animal consumption and resort to eating vegetables, whether your fellow humans want it or not.

If you all could, you would turn the world into a Vegan Fundamentalist Republic. Our freedom is at stake.

Sincerely,

Bruno LeMieux-Ruibal

But wait, there’s more! After I published his first email (admittedly, without his permission), he wrote to me again three days later:

Ayatollah Mat,

As I thought, dialogue or conversation are not your forte. You'd rather publish private e-mails without asking (so rude), accuse me of things I never said (so wrong) and laugh (so childish) than answer my letter in the same channel as it came, that is- personal and private.

But listen, I'd rather be hated by intolerants like you than used by ignorants... like you (I see you respect animals, but not humans).

Now, make it public, be in bliss and feel oh-so-good about yourself. Because it's great being you, isn't it? Illuminated and ever right, ready to teach the world and punish the wrong. Yeah.

Peace-

My open response to Mr. LeMieux-Ruibal – for all to see:

So, you were upset that I posted your “personal and private” words on my blog – hey, welcome to the 21^st century! And yet despite this complaint, you have sent me an even juicier email. Methinks thou doth protest too much! So then, I assume you must want me to post the second one, too. Okay, if you insist…

Well, why not, anyway? Sure, you personally offended me, but much more importantly, you’ve insulted all animal advocates, and the movement community has a right to know about that. If you’re really so sure that your opinion of me and other animal advocates is correct, then you should want everyone to know about it – no need whatsoever to hide or be embarrassed, right?

I publicly and proudly proclaimed my perspective on the animals-in-art issue in IDA alerts to SFAI, as well as my detailed response to Bratton’s editorial. You responded to my writing by attacking me personally – a stranger who you don’t even know – yet you call me “rude”? Give me a break!

And claiming that I should take personal attacks as an invitation to converse is the height of hypocrisy. Don’t pull that with me. If you were really interested in “dialogue or conversation,” you would have written a rational explanation of why you believe people should be allowed to kill animals for art. In contrast, declaratively stating (with no analysis to back up your claims) that I “have no idea about contemporary art, visual creation or art in general” and calling me “fundamentalist” are not valid critiques of my work, but merely personal insults. As far as respect is concerned, I reserve that for those who earn it by granting me basic respect, not those who don’t know me yet cast outrageously false aspersions about who I am.

But I certainly don’t “hate” you, as you seem to think: I simply recognize that we hold widely disparate values. That is, I wholly oppose the unnecessary killing of sentient individuals for art, food, etc., and you are in favor of killing sentient individuals for art, food, etc. I am for animal rights, and you are for animal exploitation. I see no need for “dialogue or conversation” about that because you’ve already made up your mind about this issue, and about me – “Ayatollah Mat …Illuminated and ever right, ready to teach the world and punish the wrong.” Clearly, you don't know me, and you don’t want to talk: you want to argue and disagree and call me silly names because you need to convince yourself that you are “right.” Sorry, I’m not about to waste my time playing your head games. I am only indulging you now because some readers may find this exchange amusing and informative.

In conclusion, the wildly stereotypical inaccuracy of your conclusions about me and every other animal rights activist makes your emails unintentionally hilarious, so I continue to post them. Seriously, The Onion should write a story about you! Incidentally, you might want to work on your sarcasm – we’re laughing at you, not with you. Also, there is no such word as “ignorants” – “ignorant” can only be used as an adjective, not a noun, so there is no plural form. Consider gaining a basic command of the English language before accusing any more of us “ignorants” of ignorance.

p.s. For educational purposes, you might try putting a contact button on your blog so people can give you feedback.

You see, the encouragement and constructive criticism I get from readers is important, but what better way to start my day than with a hot steaming mug of blind bigotry and belligerence? Frankly, I think the experience would benefit you – especially as an art critic. My email address is publicly available on my website and blog, so any angry, bitter crank in the world can personally chastise me and belittle my life goals and values any time they feel like it. And yet, while I have your email address, the public does not, and therefore no one else has any way of letting you know what they think of you or your work.

Guess what I’m trying to say, speaking as one devoted to ideals of freedom and liberty, is that avoiding contact with the reading public doesn’t exactly foster interactive free speech…but then, I guess that’s convenient for you, anyway.

Zealously,

Ayatollah Mat Thomas
Chief Grand Poobah, Vegan Fundamentalist Republic
www.animalrighter.org

Tune in now for the semi-interminable continuation and exciting conclusion of this fascinatingly combative ethical/aesthetic discourse (same Brat Time, same Brat Channel) by consulting the comments section directly below! KAPOW!!!

Leaked NRA Pamphlet Targets “Animal Rights Terrorists”

"You can have my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead hands!"
- Former NRA President and Oscar-winning actor Charlton Heston

On December 22nd, a blog called Wonkette.com posted a leaked 27-page fundraising booklet that they said had been produced by the National Rifle Association (NRA). It was such a bizarre piece of propaganda that many thought it a hoax. However, the pamphlet soon proved to be the genuine article—a highly polished draft of “Freedom In Peril: Guarding the 2nd Amendment in the 21st Century”—mysteriously “stolen” from an NRA office.

This NRA pamphlet casts the world’s fate in highly alarmist tones, warning of an imminent and violent clash between a conspiracy of “evil” forces on one side and God-fearing, law-abiding gun owners on the other. The dreaded result: forced disarmament of the entire country, and thus total and irrevocable loss of Freedom, Democracy and Civilization. The NRA’s terrifying demons include shadowy Democrats and their Zionist financiers, mushy-headed “One World Extremists” who want to surrender America to the United Nations, subversive celebrities like Rosie O’Donnell and Katie Couric, the liberal media as a giant devil head coming through the TV screen, and even “Illegal Alien Gangs” of menacing minorities making cryptic hand signs. And, of course, there are also “The Animal Rights Terrorists,” among which are PETA, HSUS and the Fund for Animals.

“The Animal Rights Terrorists”

One can first infer the crimes of the “animal rights terrorists” from the amazing illustration* on page 18, which provides a fascinatingly rich level of visual detail and a priceless glimpse into the minds of NRA leaders. The image is fertile with secret symbols, hidden meanings and subliminal messages.

In the foreground strides a hairy-legged, Birkenstock-wearing hippie gal carrying a flaming torch and a can of gasoline. She sports a tattoo on her arm that has been described in the blogosphere as “a kitty-cat Satan” or “a kitler, a cat that looks like Hitler.” She is cut off at the neck (implying that these underground agitators are able to hide their faces and identities), and her male co-conspirator wields a baseball bat and a snarling black dog on a leash.

In this strange, distorted interpretation of Orwell’s Animal Farm, activists have apparently succeeded in training all the other animals—cattle, pigs, chickens, owls and an incredible land lobster—to fight for their own liberation without needing to be physically controlled. The beasts’ facial expressions are of anger, outrage and resolve: they know what they are doing, their crimes premeditated. The owl is so gung-ho that she’s carrying a clutch of dynamite in her talons, and, significantly, the pig actually seems to be flying. (If the NRA opposes evolution, this might be the reason.)

Even though the picture is pure fantasy, I think it is an accurate rendering of the NRA’s deepest fears: that the future holds wild packs of pissed-off animals roaming the post-McDonald’s® wasteland seeking vengeance against their bipedal oppressors. Obviously, once animals are freed, they will murder and enslave humans in retribution: an apocalyptic twist on  the old adage that if we didn’t hunt, eat, experiment on and otherwise torture and kill animals, they’d die of starvation and (I guess) inability or unwillingness to breed.

In the context of this booklet, this picture is clearly meant to scare readers by painting a dark portrait of animal rights activists as “terrorists”: they are, after all, carrying explosives and other implements of destruction (to presumably blow up a vivisection lab, factory farm and Red Lobster® franchise, in that order). Yet looking past the violent overtones, this is a somewhat inspirational and iconic image that uniquely captures (however inadvertently) something of the movement’s essence: that is, the animals are fighting, as equals alongside humans, for their rights. If only this reflected reality, we could end humanity’s enslavement of other species within a generation.

“Freedom’s Enemies”

The text mirrors the distorted conception of animal rights activists depicted in the illustration by lumping all animal rights organizations—from the most mainstream to the most radical—into one category, seamlessly morphing from Constitutionally-protected activism to the most hard-core “terrorist” activities in a single sentence:

“(Animal rights groups) run commercials, print propaganda, stage rallies, infiltrate schools with animal rights material, blow up medical labs, burn down buildings, destroy hunters’ property and poison hunters’ dogs—with enough left over to hire top-dollar lawyers if they get caught.”

The drawing of a Molotov cocktail, some pipe bombs, and an envelope with a razor blade inside sitting in a pool of blood is supposed to be straight out of PETA’s toolbox:

“PETA is linked to a growing network of embedded cells of dangerous people willing to achieve their ends through violence... Many don’t know that PETA wants much more than to take a fishing pole from every child’s hand, take away their pet cats and dogs, ban milk from their breakfast, and shut down all their circuses, zoos and aquariums. PETA wants much more than to take Seeing Eye dogs away from the blind, and take bomb-sniffing dogs away from our airports. PETA wants to stop all medical advancements that use animal research in any way… (Research scientists) receive hate mail, letters loaded with razor blades and rat poison, death threats and bomb threats.”

It seems that America’s precious children are in grave danger of growing up in a world where they might question whether it is ethical to hunt, own or eat animals. Even the great tradition of imprisoning animals and forcing them to perform for our amusement is at stake. The great news for the animal rights movement is that, according to the NRA, we are winning: collectively, animal protection groups comprise a “frightening force” that has already been incredibly effective in achieving our nefarious aims:

“Medical research on the verge of breakthrough screeches to a halt. Our most promising labs are shut down…The antihuman, pro-animal frontal assault is broad and pervasive, spanning from political initiatives to indoctrination of schoolchildren to hunter harassment.”

The “Animal Rights Terrorists” section concludes with a plea “that patriots of financial position pledge to stand with freedom’s fighters forevermore.” Which is the whole point of this booklet, actually. In an introduction called “The Coming Confrontation” on page 3, the NRA’s Executive Vice President and Executive Director claims:

“(The) NRA is the only guaranteed investment for Second Amendment survival, as well as for all the business benefits that come with it. Only the NRA energizes the powerful pro-freedom voting bloc, resulting in election outcomes good for both American gun rights and for American business. Candidates who support the Second Amendment also support you. They're typically pro-business people who fight for free-market issues, from tort and estate tax reform to immigration policy and the global war on terror.... The Second Amendment needs freedom-loving financiers on her side, or she will be drowned in the tsunami of cash flowing from freedom's enemies."

The Real Terrorists

Conspicuously absent from the NRA’s rogues’ gallery of supervillains is al-Qaeda, the global ultraterrorist organization that destroyed the World Trade Center with hijacked airliners, killing thousands of people. You’d think they might have at least merited a chapter called “The Suicide Bombers” or “Allah’s Demonic Army” or something. Interestingly, 9/11 is mentioned only once throughout “Freedom In Peril,” and only in passing.

It’s surprising that the NRA doesn’t take these terrorists seriously. Branding peaceful, nonviolent, law-abiding, and civil-disobedient animal rights protesters as “terrorists” only serves to minimize the real dangers the public faces from actual terrorists, as well as from pro-NRA militias that stockpile weapons but go unchecked by the FBI. Instead, as the booklet points out, the FBI itself has identified “animal rights terrorists” as the number one domestic threat to the U.S., even though animal activists have not caused a single person’s death.

The NRA wholly supports the Bush Administration’s War on Terror in that, like those who framed and passed the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA), they define animal rights activists across the board as “terrorists” because we endanger the profits of corporations that exploit animals. “It’s inevitable that terrorists will infest America for generations to come,” they say, as though we are termites and the NRA is the exterminator. It is definitely ironic that a group whose main mission is to promote the use of deadly weapons calls people working to stop violence “terrorists”—and sad that their sensationalistic attacks have so often succeeded.

“The U.N… (has) already been successful in orchestrating gun bans in once-free countries like England, Australia, Canada and South Africa,” the pamphlet says. So, in the NRA's alternate-reality universe anyway, South Africa was free under Apartheid, which preceded the gun ban in the country, just because everyone could get guns (well, white people, at least). The NRA is especially fond of spreading the myth that banning guns will provoke more violent crimes. Yet guns kill more than 30,000 people a year in the U.S., and Americans are three times as likely as Canadians to be fatally shot. A new Harvard study shows that higher homicide rates occur in states with more gun owners. But it doesn’t matter to the NRA. Danger and death are simply the price Americans must pay for living in a still-free country where the Second Amendment reigns supreme.

Our country faces real threats: global warming, wars (in Afghanistan, Iraq and possibly Iran), corporate hegemony, income inequality, the national debt, a crumbling education system, institutionalized racism and sexism, the Standard American Diet, etc., etc. Instead of recognizing these problems, the NRA creates boogie monsters to distract attention from issues that actually matter. Their hateful invective against all those who challenge their belief system seems like some symptom of collective mental illness.

Cold Dead Hands

Despite the costs, the ideologues at the NRA cling to their fundamentalist interpretation of the Second Amendment: that it means no gun control at all—period. In contrast, most Americans believe that, alongside the “right” to bear arms, we have a more primary right to be safe from violence, and greater gun control would make us safer. Governments have a responsibility to protect their citizens from danger, and most Americans favor limits on gun ownership and use. In a 2004 Gallup poll, 54% of respondents wanted gun laws to be stricter, compared to only 11% who said they should be less strict.

The pamphlet says: “In the minds of those who framed our Constitution, the right to armed self-protection in times of pandemonium was so obvious and innate that it didn’t warrant mention.” In other words, the less the Constitution has to say about something, the more essential it must be to our way of life. Yeah—that makes sense.

It continues: “That’s why the Second Amendment is brief in language but broad in scope, serving as umbrella protection for lawful use of arms in almost any circumstance.” In NRA-speak, that means gun owners have the right to shoot people whenever they personally determine it's justified. One may wonder: what are the limits of these circumstances? Do they include shooting those who challenge strict adherence to a radical interpretation of the Second Amendment?

Such questions are moot to the NRA because they are militantly inflexible about their “right” to own and use guns without restrictions. They are also trying to preserve a way of life that kills people and animals while placeing corporate interests above society's. Part of their intent is to redefine freedom so that it means the freedom to make money from the blood of innocent animals and to make a financial killing selling guns. Firearms are a global multibillion-dollar a year enterprise, one of the biggest moneymaking operations on the planet. The NRA’s connection to the international arms industry gives them a huge financial stake in stopping gun control efforts in the U.S. and abroad.

The political system runs too much these days on money and backroom business deals rather than ethics or trying to improve the state of the world. Increasingly, the pursuit of our “national interest” is becoming the unquestioned protection of corporate profits against any criticism. The NRA and other fanatical pro-business groups will continue to fight for their “right” to go on harming people, animals and the environment, even though in doing so they are violating the rights of billions.

Happiness is a Warm Gun

As one of the world’s most powerful lobbying organizations, the four-million-member NRA has so far been able to block almost all legislative efforts to regulate guns. They literally see themselves as the “guardians” not only of the Second Amendment but of freedom itself. In fact, they believe that without unfettered access to guns, Americans would swiftly lose all of our other freedoms.

Yet in the narrative of “Freedom In Peril,” the NRA (oddly enough) consistently portrays gun owners as helpless victims. All the “good” people in the pictures are fighting a losing battle, under siege by insurmountable forces. The NRA argues that guns will protect our freedom when the time comes. But in this booklet that time has actually come, and guns are shown to be completely useless.

Think about it: What good is granny’s handgun supposed to do against seven commandos with automatic weapons (page 13)? (Incidentally, this illustration is allegedly based on an actual event that took place in post-Katrina New Orleans.) How is a shotgun going to enable that dad perched on his rooftop (page 14) to protect his family from the roving hordes coming up the street filled with overturned cars and burned-out houses? And on the final page, next to the Epilogue, the father seems to have just given up: he’s not even holding a gun, just waiting with his wife and son to be engulfed by the encroaching tidal wave that has crested their driveway.

Obviously, guns cannot protect people from what the NRA seems to believe is coming. Actually, the spread of firearms will only bring about chaos that much quicker. Instead of focusing on causative solutions and preventive measures against society’s collapse, their answer is that everyone should have guns: then we’ll all be safe! The pamphlet warns, “If we do not heed the lesson of Katrina—that survival in disaster is ultimately the responsibility of the individual—the next tragedy will almost certainly include further devastation of American freedoms.”

This directly denies that the government has any responsibility to help its citizens during disasters. It also clearly states the NRA’s core philosophy: that it is every man for himself in this world, especially in times of crisis, so you’d better be packing serious heat if you expect to survive. The NRA embodies the “You’re either with us or with the terrorists” mentality that came into vogue with the post-9/11 posturing of Bush & Co. If you support gun control, then you’re not with the NRA; therefore, by this simplistic and flawed logic, you must be against them and therefore a “terrorist.”

Now What?

The NRA has held a stony silence on the story behind “Freedom In Peril.”** Some commentators speculate that it was intended as a mailer to the group’s rank-and-file, but it seems more likely that it was designed as a special fundraising tool to target wealthy donors. The book's epilogue concludes that “victory can no longer be borne solely by the masses,” which means they’re fishing for more than just $25 yearly donations. If they are scaring people without just cause merely as a cynical ploy for money, then they are insulting their constituency, whether it’s Joe Sixpack or Billy Bob Billionaire. What is scarier is the thought that this isn’t all about money, and that the heads of this powerful organization actually believe we’re on the verge of an all-out social collapse or apocalypse — and that guns, of all things, are the solution.

I hold out hope that this pamphlet doesn’t represent the viewpoint of the majority of NRA members, and that most will be offended by it. Some may revoke their memberships, perhaps realizing the need for a less extreme pro-gun organization that sees the logic in regulations. A blogger and gun owner named Buffalo wrote: “My respect for the NRA decreased to almost nil when I read the pamphlet… This piece of crap tarnishes their image and should shame them.”

For all the talk about firearms, the key issue “Freedom In Peril” raises for the movement is not necessarily the question of gun control, but rather the ubiquitous spread of the perception that animal rights advocates are—by definition—terrorists. We need to counter this stereotype, but in order to do that we must thoroughly understand how our opponents think. “Freedom In Peril” is therefore something of a gift to the animal rights community because it so blatantly lays out how some of the most extreme extremists perceive us. I think it bears very close study.

What would be really amazing is if the animal rights movement could produce something as visually compelling as “Freedom In Peril.” If there are any great artists out there who are interested in collaborating on something like this, please contact me at mathomas@gmail.com.


* It must be noted that the graphic-novelesque design and artwork for this booklet by Arizona-based draftsman Chris Gall are of the highest quality almost throughout, but this is one of my favorite drawings. Given his plethora of high-powered clients and awards, I am curious whether Gall believes the NRA’s ideology or is just prostituting his formidable talent.

** I did a search for “Freedom In Peril” on the NRA website thinking I would find something that tells their side of the story, but instead got a “0 document(s) retrieved” message. So the NRA is basically pretending this brochure doesn’t even exist, and hoping that this will all blow over soon if they just lay low for awhile. Clearly they are embarrassed about being so exposed. (It must be noted that I conducted the same search on the PETA and HSUS websites and came up with zero results, as well.)

Links:

Here are some of the articles and blogs I read in researching this story:

NRA Pamphlet: “Freedom in Peril: Guarding the 2nd Amendment in the 21st Century”

NRA's Graphic Attack on Its Enemies Leaked Onto Internet

NRA already taking shots at the incoming Democratic Congress

NRA Sounds Alarms on Gun Control

The Infidel Sage

Streich(er) One

YOUR NEW REALITY: Weapons Of Mass Information

Wonkette: NRA's Secret Graphic Novel Revealed!

Boing Boing

NRA comic called a hoax, but accusations later withdrawn

NRA Sounds Alarm of Not-So-Imminent Threat

Matthew High

NRA's Purloined Pamphlet Seeks Support of Big Business

AnonymousLefty

Gun Guys