Petition PeTA Regarding Peter Singer

After I had that conversation with the PeTA solicitor who had no idea that PeTA kills healthy animals or promotes animal products, I received e-mails from people who had had similar conversations.

Then Beijing Chris recently wrote a letter to PeTA explaining why he wouldn't be renewing his membership, and I thought that was a stellar idea. Just days later, Roger Yates, Ph.D., started a site petitioning PeTA  to "request that the misrepresentations and mistakes" regarding Peter Singer's Animal Liberation are corrected.

Please read Roger's full post, "Petitioning PeTA," so that you fully understand the purpose of the petition, and of course sign away if you agree. The crux, for me, is:

I suggest – and I claim that this is entirely reasonable – that those who want to make their basic claims rights-based claims should become known as the animal rights movement. Surely those who reject rights-based claims, or those who shy away from them for whatever reason, should have the decency to allow the name to be used by those who take rights seriously rather than use the name ‘rights’ rhetorically.

The reason I have banged on about PeTA so much is to acknowledge their importance. There is little doubt that PeTA are a big voice in the animal protection movement, and in mass media coverage – and there is little doubt that people take on board the message that PeTA are “the largest animal rights group in world”.

However, in terms of what PeTA say philosophically, they are not an animal rights organisation at all.

Also, I recommend writing a letter to PeTA that explains why you are no longer a member, if indeed you're not. I'm not a member because:

• I disagree with their choice of PR stunts.
• They promote animal products.
• They are not an animal rights organization.

But that's me.

Now, my intention for my letter is not an attack on PeTA; it's feedback. I was a several-decade customer who became dissatisfied with the product and services that are PeTA. I am simply letting them know why I am no longer a member. If they get hundreds or thousands of letters, they might alter what they do or how they do it, as any good business would consider after hearing from dissatisfied customers.

Part of my motivation for Thinking Critically About Animal Rights was to take back the term animal rights. I don't think we should have to say "abolitionist" (I even removed one reference to it). I think "animal rights" says it all but it has been co-opted by animal welfare. We can change that. Maybe not overnight, but we can change that.

UPDATE: If you signed the original petition, it has been moved and started over, so please go to the new petition and sign it.  Thanks.

Comments

[Ron]

I agree that your definition of 'animal rights' says it all. Using the term 'abolitionist' clouds and confuses the issue. Therefore, as an outsider viewing this debate, the 2 distinct terms are animal rights vs. animal welfare.

Unlike the 1950s song 'Love and Marriage' where you can't have one without the other, you most certainly can have animal welfare without animal rights.

Ron

[Roger Yates]

For technical reasons, the PeTA petition has been relaunched in a site that needs no registration...

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/PETAPET/signatures.html

Sorry to bother you folks, but....

RY