Home / Letters To The Editor


Posted On May 1, 2006
printable version email to a friend join our e-mail list


Who's next on Hugs for Puppies' enemies list?

By: David Martosko
Newspaper: The Philadelphia Inquirer

Commentary writer Nick Cooney's claim of concern for "small family farms" and his feigned ignorance about animal-rights terrorism are both laughable ("Farming's true enemy," April 24). Cooney's organization, the oddly named Hugs for Puppies, is the Philadelphia chapter of SHAC - short for Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty. On Nov. 12, 2002, the group publicly announced that "SHAC Philly will now be referred to as Hugs For Puppies. Do not let the innocuous name fool you, we have a serious commitment to animal liberation."

Six SHAC leaders were convicted in March on federal domestic terrorism charges. Their long-standing campaign of violence and intimidation targeted a medical testing company that uses animals to test AIDS and cancer medicines.

Activists with "a serious commitment to animal liberation" shouldn't pretend to care whether chickens are raised on small farms or big ones. Like other militant animal-rights groups, Hugs for Puppies stands for the abolition of all food that comes from animals. Hurting the largest and most visible companies is just a first step. Smaller, family egg farms are on the movement's list of enemies as well.



printable version email to a friend join our e-mail list

Letters

Animal activists can be terrorists
Jonathan Paul is a terrorist. He burned down buildings in order to scare Americans into changing their behavior. read more here »

Paul's Action Was Terrorism
Caroline Paul shouldn't expect much sympathy for her arsonist sibling. Terrorism is terrorism, even if the perpetrator is an animal-rights nut. read more here »

Who's next on Hugs for Puppies' enemies list?
Like other militant animal-rights groups, Hugs for Puppies stands for the abolition of all food that comes from animals. read more here »

OpEds

Hard-boiled animal activists could threaten vaccine supply
In the post-9/11 world, the phrase "national security" conjures up images of dirty bombs, jihadists, white powder and biohazard labels. It should also bring to mind another picture: an egg. read more here »

NO. Wrong to use tax code to punish soft drink makers and industries.
Despite opposition from two-thirds of Americans, President Obama has latched onto exploring one proposal to raise billions of dollars for health care reform through so-called “lifestyle taxes” on soft drinks. read more here »


Copyright © 1997-2009 Center for Consumer Freedom. Tel: 202-463-7112.