Confusion is everywhere

US Magistrate Judge Stephen L. Crocker
US District Court, Western District of Wisconsin120 North Henry Street
P. O. Box 432Madison, WI 53701-0432

Dear Mr. Crocker,

I was in your courtroom during the sentencing of Peter Young and wanted to share my thoughts with you.

I was surprised by Mr. Kelly’s claims that Peter’s acts were instances of civil disobedience and that the churches being set ablaze in the south were not examples of terrorism. In my opinion he was wrong in both cases.

But I also disagree with your claim that Peter’s acts were instances of terrorism. If Peter had left messages behind that threatened the fur farmers, then there would have been an element of terrorism involved.

The mink farmers might have been upset by the events but I am frightened when someone cuts me off in traffic. Neither the other driver nor Peter acted to intentionally frighten me or the farmers. In both cases, our subjective experiences were incidental.

Mr. Kelly’s claims and your response to Peter’s statement illustrate the confusion that surrounds the animal rights movement. Peter released mink. That’s what he did. Calling this terrorism seems to fall into lockstep with the neo-conservative redefining of common terms like “fair and balanced” or “clean air.”

Assistant U.S. Attorney Robert Anderson, or perhaps you, suggested that there are appropriate avenues available for trying to have one’s views heard and perhaps acted upon such as the courts or by lobbying for legislation. This optimistic belief must be based on some misunderstanding of the history of the animal rights movement.

Generally, the courts are closed to those seeking to argue on behalf of animals. Courts have repeatedly reinforced the ruling that a third party has no standing with regard to animal well-being and treatment.

You may be unaware of the overwhelming power of the animal industry lobby. Combined, they are the largest single lobby in the country (Pharma, the largest by far, is a part of this group.) You may be unaware of past congressional efforts to intervene or to expand governmental oversight of the industry. In nearly every case, even in the face of joint resolutions supporting specific actions or changes, the industry has successfully managed to preserve or expand its influence and to limit oversight of animal use. (You might find Monkey Business: The Disturbing Case That Launched the Animal Rights Movement (1993) by Kathy Snow Guillermo of interest regarding the efforts of Congress, or read about the successful eleventh-hour Helms’ amendment to exclude rats, mice, and birds from Animal Welfare Act.)

I once taught my students something similar to what you said about appropriate behavior in a pluralistic society. But I no longer believe this. Having worked on this issue for nearly ten years, I have come to understand that the system is not as you portrayed it or as I once believed it to be; this truly does break my heart.

One of the problems associated with the public’s confusion of the animal rights movement is a lack of education. Few people are able to speak knowledgeably about the body of evidence regarding animal mind. The few weak laws in place to protect animals are outgrowths of a philosophy based on Biblical ideas about our appropriate relationship with animals.

But scientific discovery is painting a picture of animal mind much different from the notion of soulless automatons from which most laws stem. There is much evidence that we share the planet with sensitive thinking beings who have simple desires not too dissimilar from our own.

The knowledge of this, coupled with the knowledge of their suffering on the farms, in the labs, and elsewhere, coupled with the understanding that most of us have no genuine access to the courts and cannot realistically expect to participate in the unlevel legislative system creates frustration and fuels people like Peter to take some direct action to help some of these animals.

Here is the situation confronted by many activists: We believe that the suffering of humans and many other species is of a like kind. We are confronted with a society that implicitly condones gross cruelty. We see no avenue for change in the short term. The immense number of animals used annually, each representing a unique experience of intense fear and frequently intense pain and suffering, confounds full comprehension but is overwhelming in scope.

We ask ourselves what we should do. More letters, more brochures, more peaceful protests, more legislative nibbling while billions suffer annually? All of this is happening. But what should the moral person do? What is our moral responsibility once one accepts that a dog or a monkey kept in a cage and routinely used in painful experiments is frightened and having experiences nearly indistinguishable from those that a human child would have in a similar situation, unable to understand the reasons for the pain and having little or no hope for rescue? What is the reasonable response?

My personal belief is that those who hid Jews from the Nazis and who helped slaves escape to the North were acting appropriately even though they were breaking the law. I believe there are principles that have precedence over the law of any land.

I apologize for the length of my letter, but the issue is simply not so straightforward as you intimated in your courtroom; confusion and ignorance seemed to hold sway. I worry about the future, the issue will not go away; the ever-building body of scientific evidence is compelling. There is little reason other than hubris or bigotry to ignore the suffering of so many or to advise a slow stepwise reduction in their numbers. Economic interests have successfully closed off the traditional avenues of political action.

I believe in the power of education. I urge you to read with an open mind and to ask yourself what you would have done during past historical times of gross oppression and what you believe would have been the ethical course of action.

For a closer look at some of the evidence of animal mind I recommend my on-line essay, “How Like Us Need They Be?” You may read it at: http://www.primatefreedom.com/essays/howmuchlikeus.html

Thank you for your time Judge Crocker; I offer the above in the spirit of frank and informed dialog.

Sincerely,

Rick Bogle