May 29, 2007 -- The animal rights movement gets a spanking in this scathing documentary that shines a bright light into the dark corners of what the FBI has called the most dangerous terrorist organizations in the country. What is revealed, in addition to the usual bunny huggers, whack jobs and fire bombers is not much of a threat from the activists, but a scary threat to the U.S. Constitution by the government itself. This is a sometimes shocking film with some truly gruesome images, but it should be seen by anyone who loves animals, or who contributes regularly to the Humane Society of the United States, to the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, or to the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals or other large, national animal rights organizations. You need to know where your money is going and for what purpose, because you probably don't. You also need to know what your federal government is doing to erode your freedom of speech.

This documentary consists mostly of talking heads, along with archival video of whales being harpooned, dogs being beaten, skinned animals, laboratory animals, women in fur coats being harassed by angry young men with bullhorns yelling obscenities, corporate leaders being similarly harassed, arson, breaking and entering, vandalism and all sorts of activism by scary true believers. The video, consisting of Internet, TV clips, hand-held camera videos taken by activists and other sources, is of wildly uneven quality. The overall effect, however, is a fairly well-rounded viewpoint of animal activists. Sometimes they come across as reasonable, other times wacko, and other times self-contradictory. It is a mixed bag, but it is fascinating and thought-provoking.

The film tackles a variety of topics, including the difference between animal welfare activists and animal rights activists. According to Patti Strand of the National Animal Interest Alliance, an animal industry and owners group, animal welfare activists support the humane and responsible use of animals, whereas animal rights activists would deny people's ownership of animals or use of them for any purpose, including companionship. Others in the film are depicted as saying that some animal rights activists argue that animals have the same rights as people and that any action to free them is justified.

The film makes a number of attacks against the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). One incident highlighted in the film indicates that two PETA employees picked up a number of animals from an animal shelter and killed them. A PETA spokesman defended the killing of animals by saying it was the humane thing to do. The argument seemed to be that death is better than life for animals forced to live in a cage, or at home with private owners. One of those commenting on this “culture of death” in the film is author P.J. O'Rourke, who noted that PETA hates people, loves animals, but kills them anyway (the Norfolk, VA. shelter reportedly kills over 80 percent of the animals it receives, while some city shelters find homes for that same percentage). O'Rourke said, “We all hate people, but there's got to be a better outlet for this. Can't you just be rude, or acerbic, drink too much or something?” The title of the film is from a gruesome comic book published by PETA for distribution to school children.

Another organization which takes it on the chin is the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). David Martosko of the Center for Consumer Freedom, funded in part by food companies, had a zinger for HSUS (and more for PETA and others). Martosko said, “The Humane Society of the United States has no relationship to any animal shelter anywhere with the name humane society. They don't run a single pound, a single adoption center anywhere ... The money [from donations] goes to a $100 million a year animal rights lobbying group in Washington.” He added that if most people knew that their donations don't go to support their local animal shelter, HSUS donations would dry up and blow away. Former Playboy model Shane Barbie said that HSUS swept into hurricane ravaged New Orleans, got a lot of publicity and donations and left the animals behind. “They left in October, while still asking for money,” Barbie said. This sentiment was echoed by several others on the show, including representatives of the North Shore Animal League, Pooch Heaven, Best Friends Sanctuary and other small groups that actually did rescue a lot of New Orleans animals after Hurricane Katrina, as did the military. HSUS, however, did a better job of public relations than those other groups did, in part, because it was the official lead agency for animal rescue after the disaster. According to the documentary, HSUS was under investigation for how it used the money it raised for the Katrina disaster. Patti Strand of the National Animal Interest Alliance, cited a magazine article saying that HSUS spends more than half of its donations to raise more donations. Randy Warner of 21st Century Cares argued in the film that HSUS, PETA and other large organizations have raised some $10 billion over the last 51 years without much to show for it in the way of improving the lot of abandoned animals in the U.S.

Michael Mountain of Best Friends Sanctuary points up the sad state of abandoned pets in the U.S. with a story of a German couple hiking in the mountains. They found an abandoned cat and her kittens and brought them to the sanctuary. They asked Michael where all the animals at the sanctuary came from. He replied that they came from other animal shelters which had no room for them. He said that most animal shelters have to kill abandoned pets because they lack the resources to take care of them. The German couple was shocked. They said, “You mean in this country they kill abandoned animals?” They said in Germany it is illegal to kill abandoned animals. Neither governments, nor all the animal rights and welfare organizations, nor all their lobbyists and their billions of dollars and all those millions of American animal lovers have managed to solve the relatively simple of problem of abandoned pets.

The attacks on the big, national animal rights organizations are summed up by Shane Barbie: “If you are still contributing to HSUS ... or PETA or any of these big corrupt organizations that are just an empty shell, they're another Enron, then you're an idiot.”

The documentary also takes aim at some of the more extreme animal rights organizations, including the Animal Liberation Front (ALF), which has been known to commit vandalism, arson, breaking and entering and other illegal acts. The documentary shows fires set by ALF activists, vandalism, animal releases and some video of animal experimentation shot by ALF activists. There is an interview with owners of a mink farm which said a release of minks by ALF activists cost them $500,000. Both the owners and ALF members said they are not backing down. Several ALF spokesmen are seen in the documentary talking fondly of Molotov Cocktails used to start fires. It seems any illegal activity is justified in the minds of ALF activists. In this regard ALF was compared to anti-abortion extremists who bomb abortion clinics and kill doctors and nurses.

Another group featured in the documentary is Stop Huntington Animal Cruelty (SHAC) a group bent on stopping product testing on animals by Huntington Life Sciences. SHAC activists are highly confrontational. The are shown demonstrating in front of Huntington facilities, as well as banks and other financial institutions connected with Huntington. In one scene, they confront the wife of an executive, pounding on the door of her house and shouting at her with a bullhorn. They seem enraged with the woman. Their tactics seem to work. The Bank of New York dropped Huntington, as did the brokerage firm Charles Schwab. Merritt Clifton, editor of the Animal People News, disputed SHAC's accomplishment, saying all it was doing was driving companies like Huntington to other countries where they could more easily operate in secret with less public or government supervision. Seven SHAC activists, called the SHAC Seven, were convicted of multiple violations of the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act and were sentenced to from one to six years and fines of $1 million.

One of the defendants, Josh Harper, said this is what he was charged with, as part of a talk he gave at a college, it was about what he called “ ... Electronic civil disobedience. You take three sheets of black paper and tape them end to end to end. One end of the paper goes in a fax machine and you dial the number of, say any corporate exploiter that you might have in mind or a financial institution that is supporting, you know, animal cruelty. You dial the fax and once it begins going through, you tape the back end and you tape it to the front end so it runs in a continuous loop.”

Several people in the documentary said they were very concerned by the conviction of the SHAC Seven for what amounted to words on a web page in some cases. In other cases the so-called terrorism was more like a high school prank. If the SHAC Seven can be convicted for saying the wrong thing, then what is to stop the government from convicting anyone for saying any unpopular thing that government officials don't like. It seems as though the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act is being used not to protect the public, but certain narrowly-defined corporate interests. In this particular case, the law is not being used to protect a corporation from property damage or physical harm to its employees, but from social and moral opposition to the company's animal testing policies. Isn't the right to oppose such policies supposed to be protected by the Bill of Rights? the movie asks. The government's use of the Patriot Act to aid the food industry is also touched upon. Actress Margot Kidder hoots about Homeland Security vehicles escorting Buffalo to the slaughter house to protect them from Mike Mease's Buffalo Field Campaign and other activists armed with video cameras. “More money that brains,” she said of the feds.

Several people in the movie said these convictions will not stop the animal rights movement. One of the convicted, Josh Harper, said the conviction would not stop him. In fact, he said, it might lead him to more extreme actions. If he is going to prison for talking, he said, then why not break some windows and do some real damage that might have more tangible results? Harper and some other leaders of SHAC and ALF said a number of things in the film that might lead one to conclude that they might do any kind of illegal action to further their cause, and no law is going to stop them. The film argues that the animal rights movement has had positive impacts on child welfare, and it has led to better legal protection of animals from mistreatment. Several people in the film argue that the cause of animal rights will continue into the future, regardless of attempts to stop it. The animal rights movement, like gay rights and the right to life movement, are all in it for the long haul. This film is a real eye-opener. The theatrical release of this film is scheduled for July 20. It rates a B.

Click here for links to places to buy or rent this movie in video and/or DVD format, or to buy the soundtrack, posters, books, even used videos, games, electronics and lots of other stuff. I suggest you shop at least two of these places before buying anything. Prices seem to vary continuously. For more information on this film, click on this link to The Internet Movie Database. Type in the name of the movie in the search box and press enter. You will be able to find background information on the film, the actors, and links to much more information.

Copyright © 2007 Robert Roten. All rights reserved.
Reproduced with the permission of the copyright holder.

Robert Roten can be reached via e-mail at .