Westminster Dog Show?

[Phebe*DD]

Because members of PETA are against anything other allowing animals to roam free and feral. They are as anti-pet ownership as they are anti-fur/leather, etc. ..

Being against pet ownership doesn't make any sense to me at all. I can't be so kind as to think that that PETA has any idea what is good for animals if they're going to claim that pet ownership is wrong. IMO, that's as bad as the HSUS being against dog breeding.

 

[tofu pup]

In a new development today (Thursday) it was learned on good authority that both
women will also be facing federal charges under the AETA (Animal Enterprise
Terrorism Act).

A big 'Thank You' to the Board and membership of the Westminster Kennel Club for not only putting on a wonderful event that showcases dogs--purebred and not--to the American public, but also for standing up for the rights of the pet owning public."

While criminal trespass makes sense, I'm sort of baffled as to how this can be construed as an act of terrorism. Their actions didn't (as far as I can tell) place any person or property (including dogs) in danger, nor can I imagine how they caused financial harm to the WKC. AETA was intended for people who damage facilities, make threats or act to cause bodily harm, and otherwise create financial loss or damage. These two caused a minor disruption, however tasteless, and went quietly when apprehended by security.

I'm also baffled as to how Westminster showcases non-purebred dogs. I'm not saying they should, only that it seems a bit far-fetched to praise them for doing something that is rather outside the realm of their mission.

 

[Sumac3890]

Thanks Ann for being our eyes and ears at Westminster. Happy they quietly got those people out and that they have to pay for their disruption. It is a shame that PETA has gotten so off course with these radicals that have ruined a good thing.

 

[corbinam]

In response to them being charged with violation of the AETA, here's a quote from the wikipedia article concerning the act:

The law prohibits "force, violence, and threats involving animal enterprises"[1] by penalizing damage or interference to animal enterprises or conspiring or attempting to damage or interfere with an animal enterprise.[1] The law does not "prohibit any expressive conduct (including peaceful picketing or other peaceful demonstration) protected from legal prohibition by the First Amendment to the Constitution,"[1]

So it seems to me that if there were "threats" against Westminster, purebred dogs, or anyone showing, they would be justified in being charged. However, if they were demonstrating peacefully, then I'm not sure how this could be relevant.

Problem is, no one really knows what they did...

 

[tofu pup]

From what I understand, they got in as regular evening spectators (bought tickets) with the signs folded up and hidden. At a certain time (while/after the Dobe was being judged) they both ran down onto the floor of the arena (the middle of the ring), unfolded their signs, and held them up for viewing until they were apprehended and escorted out by security.

It is, I suppose, slightly less peaceful than standing around outside the Garden with signs. But we're not talking about firebombing a research lab.

It is possible that they had plans for something violent - if AETA is being pursued, that would explain it. But that's really not PETA's style (they prefer splashy, tasteless demonstrations with naked ladies). Though PETA supports destructive actions (which could be prosecuted under AETA), they've been very careful about not being officially associated with them. Besides, the truly destructive groups like the ALF have much larger fish to fry than a dog show (eg. research labs).

 

[Silaria]

Being against pet ownership doesn't make any sense to me at all. I can't be so kind as to think that that PETA has any idea what is good for animals if they're going to claim that pet ownership is wrong. IMO, that's as bad as the HSUS being against dog breeding.

I think you misunderstand what I mean; one of the faults of text communication.

What I meant was the desire for animals to be treated ethically and with respect, one of the original premises for PETA is a good one. Unfortunately, radicals and extremists, e.g. those who believe no animal should be kept as a pet, have since taking control of PETA and have taken an organization that started with sound premise and perverted it into what we see today.

Its actually rather sad.

 

[sable]

I don't think they deserve jail time, but a hefty fine would be nice, just like they do in the NFL if a player acts up. It would even be nice if a restraining order were to be in place from the judge informing them they are forbidden to attend any events concerning animals.

 

[BarbV]

I think you misunderstand what I mean; one of the faults of text communication.

What I meant was the desire for animals to be treated ethically and with respect, one of the original premises for PETA is a good one. Unfortunately, radicals and extremists, e.g. those who believe no animal should be kept as a pet, have since taking control of PETA and have taken an organization that started with sound premise and perverted it into what we see today.

Its actually rather sad.

Quite true.

Extremists (at least NON-VIOLENT ones) do have a role to play in society. By swinging to the polar opposite, the balance the other side, which hopefully allows the pendulum to swing back towards the middle.

There is a role to play, as long as its done respectfully and without hurt. Case in point....sit-ins back in the 1960's. They worked! They got attention, they raised awareness by getting media attention but caused no real harm.

I believe the bulk of PETA members do not believe in the no-pet philosophy. PETA would be well-served to achieve balance in their policy. Much of what they do is actually good!

 

[Chris]

I think someone should slap them silly simply for being RUDE!