Your one stop for elephant shopping and elephant information

THE REAL ANTI-CIRCUS AGENDA

page 2 of 6

THE RISE OF ANIMAL LIBERATION

After the publication of Peter Singer's landmark treatise on "liberation", groups quickly formed throughout Europe, the United States, Canada, and Australia to promote Singer's ideology. Dumbing down the philosophical underpinnings to "liberation", these groups focused on issues of "cruelty" in animal/man interactions. Early targets were the fur industry, lab animal testing in cosmetics, and farming practices used in the production of veal. Early on liberation groups found a common group with the more mainstream animal welfare societies, particularly the Humane Society, in decrying the continued use of steel leg-hold traps in the harvest of wild furbearers. These early alliances proved fateful and in time liberation ideologues enjoyed increased influence over the agenda of mainstream welfare organizations, ultimately controlling that agenda on the state and local levels.

The avowedly liberation oriented group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA) began to use mainstream mailing lists acquired from Humane organizations to solicit millions of dollars in donations from small pet lovers. At the same time, unbeknownst to those contributors, they served as "spokespeople" for the often violent Animal Liberation Front. In the 1980's exploiting the favorable reputation of organizations like the Humane Society, liberationists began to actively lobby for political legislation endorsing their views. By suggesting that liberation issues like ant-veal farming were animal welfare issues and by generally avoiding discussion of the broader purposes of liberation, PeTA and other like organizations succeeded in drawing support from animal lovers across the political spectrum.

REGULATION

Regulation of animal control, welfare, and safety laws is enforced on the local, state, and federal levels. From country to country, who is charged with enforcement and where the regulations come from varies greatly. So, for example, in the UK most enforcement is ultimately at the national level, while in Australia or Canada most enforcement is at the state level. In the US, broad federal regulation is enhanced by more restrictive state and local regulation. Animal Rights groups have been very successful at promoting state and local regulations particularly on the county or municipal level where laws are frequently passed without much public scrutiny. Of further benefit to liberationists, enforcement on the local and county levels is frequently left to not-for-profit non-governmental animal welfare agencies working under fee-based contract for a city or county. In the US we joke about electing dogcatchers, but more often we hire the SPCA. By controlling animal welfare organizations on the local level, liberationists control regulation. In extreme cases a single liberationist working as a regulatory officer for an animal welfare organization under contract to a city or county can run roughshod over legitimate animal related enterprises within that community.

This article reprinted with permission of the author: B.E.Trumble -- 2005