German Jews attack vegetarian ad campaign

[Husky Corn Star]

18.03.2004 3.25 pm

BERLIN - An animal rights group said on Wednesday it would go ahead with a controversial advertising campaign that likens the slaughter of animals to the murder of Jews under the Nazis despite threats of a legal challenge.

Paul Spiegel, president of the Central Council of Jews, said he would ask prosecutors to raise charges of "inciting racial hatred" against vegetarian group People for Ethical Treatment of Animals (peta) for the adverts called "Holocaust on a plate".

Peta campaign coordinator Matt Prescott said he was aware of the council's views, but added: "We are not willing to end the campaign." He said he was himself a Jew.

The posters, due to be displayed in Stuttgart from Thursday and in 11 European cities at later dates, show pictures of battery hens packed into cages next to historic pictures of emaciated Jewish inmates in Nazi concentration camp bunk beds.

Stuttgart prosecutor Eckhard Maak was quoted on Wednesday as saying Peta should think twice because German law foresaw fines or up to five years in prison for anyone found guilty of belittling or denying the Holocaust.

Maak said if the campaign went ahead "then you can expect the police won't shut their eyes", according to an advance copy of an interview due to be published in Thursday's Berliner Zeitung newspaper.

Spiegel earlier told the newspaper the Jewish council would press charges if the campaign was launched. He has urged Peta to drop the "disgusting" adverts", saying they were "a violation of human dignity, especially of the Holocaust victims".

Peta officials say the posters are designed to raise public awareness of what they call the maltreatment of animals before they are slaughtered.

- REUTERS


Source: www.nzherald.co.nz (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/latestnewsstory.cfm?storyID=3555456&thesection=news&thesubsection=world)

[Adams]

Interesting. I'm curious to see how this one works out.

[Keehar]

Me too. I don't quite see how PETA would be "belittling or denying the Holocaust", as the opposite seems to be the point of the campaign.

Whether it will make people think or just make them angry, I really don't know either way. I'll be interested to find out.

[Lucy]

Me too. I don't quite see how PETA would be "belittling or denying the Holocaust", as the opposite seems to be the point of the campaign.

I think it's simply because it's the fate of animals (esp. "food" animals) that they're comparing to that of the Jews in the Holocaust. Aside from my own opinion in the matter, I'll say that it's offensive to many to have human suffering comparing to that of animals. Especially regarding the Holocaust, which is considered to be, like, the high-water mark for evil in the 20th century. PeTA has run the same campaign in other places, but people would be especially sensitive to references to the Holocaust in Germany, I think. They'd think that, by definition, comparing animals to humans belittles the suffering of the humans.

P.S. Keehar, is that a picture of Tim off to the side there? :)

[Ariann]

This subject has been brought up on this board before. I feel very strongly that this campaign is one of the more irresponsible PETA has attempted and am thoroughly disgusted by it. To put it on in the U.S. was one thing (still totally offensive, though), but to do so in Germany is simply cruel.

[mountainvegan]

The word holocaust literally means "burnt offering." It is taken from ancient Jewish scripture from the times that people ritually slaughtered animals on an alter, cooked them, and offered them to God in order to please Him. The original term, before it was associated with Nazi actions, is very appropriate for what is on omni plates.

I don't have a problem with it. To me, suffering is suffering, whether it's Irish, Catholic, Jewish, German, bovine, canine, Buddhist, rodent, etc. Stop the goddamn suffering. Period.

[Keehar]

Hey Lucy, yeah that's my Tim-cat, he's lovely isn't he? :smitten:
I agree that it would be offensive to meat-eaters who don't consider themselves to be doing anything wrong to compare them to Nazis. But it seems to me that, given that the organisation is made up of people who regard animals as being equal in value to humans, if they used a lesser example, that would be more belittling. It would be like saying that that level of suffering is more acceptable - or at least, less unacceptable. If they didn't think the holocaust was such a terrible thing, then they wouldn't be using it to put their point across - this shows they hold it in high regard, rather than belittling it. And they're certainly not denying the holocaust happened. I can see what you mean though, and I'm sure that many people will agree. What is your own opinion, btw? :)

I'm sorry if my opinion is offensive to some.

Mountainvegan, you put my (our) point of view across very succinctly!

[Lucy]

What is your own opinion, btw?

My opinion is that Tim is adorable. :heart: I want to pet his little head. Slap some white fur on him and he'd be my Lucy (going on 16 years old this June).

OK, I'm dodging the question. I don't like talking about PeTA because they're so inflammatory. I guess what I'm saying is, if being "in your face" is going to turn some people against you and get other people to start thinking your way, what's the point, really? I don't want to offend people whose lives were blighted by the Holocaust, but I don't want to stop AR activists from doing what they do, either. I think PeTA serves a good purpose, and I appreciate their work, but I can't argue that the Holocaust campaign is a good thing because the whole subject causes people anguish, especially in Germany.

The original term, before it was associated with Nazi actions, is very appropriate for what is on omni plates.

Yes, but PeTA is explicitly using the concept in association with the Nazi actions, not in the sense of a burnt offering. They *know* it's a loaded concept and are using it to get peoples' attention. It's inevitable that people are going to be hurt and offended, and not just because they're meat-eaters, and with that I can't agree. I say they can do whatever they want, and people can have whatever reactions they want to the campaign. Germany has strict laws regarding portrayal and referencing of the Nazi period, and I'm sure PeTA is prepared for the consequences.

[mountainvegan]

Originally posted by Lucy

Yes, but PeTA is explicitly using the concept in association with the Nazi actions, not in the sense of a burnt offering. They *know* it's a loaded concept and are using it to get peoples' attention.

Actually, I think they are using the term in both ways (Nazi action and burnt offering), but I agree that their primary mission is attention. I brought the burnt offering meaning up because many people do not know the background of the word holocaust. Knowing that it means burnt offering is relevant to why it is a unique word in a vegetarian campaign.

Incidentally, a Jewish vegetarian friend of my wife's used to call Thanksgiving "the turkey holocaust" every year. I would think both Jewish and non-Jewish attitudes toward the campaign vary widely depending on personal views of animal suffering and its relative importance.

[Ariann]

Originally posted by mountainvegan
Incidentally, a Jewish vegetarian friend of my wife's used to call Thanksgiving "the turkey holocaust" every year. I would think both Jewish and non-Jewish attitudes toward the campaign vary widely depending on personal views of animal suffering and its relative importance.

I'm a Jew, I'm not a meat-eater, and I take animal suffering very seriously as a result of my religion (my lack of meat-eating also being a result of my religion). However, taking it seriously does not mean I equate it with human suffering. The Torah instructs Jews to cause no unnecessary pain to animals, even to give them a sabbath every week if they are work animals. However, it also makes clear that an animal is not equivalent to a human and the death of one is not spoken of in the same terms as the death of the other. From my personal point of view, I think it is simplistic to say suffering is suffering. It is not. Things that are different are not equal. I wouldn't even begin to compare the value of an animal's life to a human's life. It's not just that a human's life is more important or that an animal's life is not important, simply that their lives are not in the same league.

History is sprinkled with genocide and it's absolutely necessary to reflect on that despicable fact and remember its victims in order to guard ourselves from becoming perpetrators of it. Animals, in my view, should not included in the category of "victims of genocide." We may describe them as victims (although I don't know if that's really apt, either), but the crime committed against them is still a very different one. The supposed parallel seems like a flip way for PETA to desecrate the memory of Holocaust victims. Their hearts may be in the right place, but their actions rarely are.

[mountainvegan]

Being an agnostic Darwinist, I believe humans are merely intelligent apes and do not have any inherent value greater than any other species. Yes, humans have greater capacity to suffer because they are able to and tend to excessively dwell in thought about their suffering, past, and future. Because of this, you can torture most humans much more than most animals. However, that does not mean that animals cannot or do not suffer extreme physical AND psychological pain and torture. An animal's extreme suffering bothers me as much as any human's extreme suffering. So, for me, suffering is suffering is suffering. Human? Nonhuman? I do not care. All unnecessary suffering intentionally inflicted on ANY being is equally wrong to the extent of the intentional unnecessary suffering.

[Keehar]

Aww, we definitely agree about Tim, Lucy! Give your Lucy a stroke from me too. (I don't see any photos of her in the picture thread by the way? Strictly for admiration and comparison!) Sixteen is a great age, it was around then that my older cat Sian (now passed on I'm very sad to say :cry: ) started to demand absolutely everything she wanted, in a very sweet way.

Yes, I'm not sure whether the end result of the campaign will be more people thinking about & (hopefully) agreeing with animal rights or not. I hope that it doesn't just upset people. Whether the campaign is a good thing overall or not, I think, depends on this result. It just feels like such an appropriate comparison to me.

Ariann, you're right. I shouldn't have said it would be offensive to meat-eaters, what I really meant that it would be offensive to people who do not consider animals' suffering to be as important as human suffering. It is here that we disagree, I strongly believe that animals are every bit as deserving of respect, compassion, consideration and so on, as humans.

I want to reiterate though that I really don't want to upset anyone with my view. In particular, I don't want to spoil the lovely, friendly vibe on this wonderful site. I hope no offense has been taken. :worried:

[mountainvegan]

Originally posted by Keehar

I want to reiterate though that I really don't want to upset anyone with my view. In particular, I don't want to spoil the lovely, friendly vibe on this wonderful site. I hope no offense has been taken. :worried:

Ditto. :thumbsup:

[Lucy]

Give your Lucy a stroke from me too. (I don't see any photos of her in the picture thread by the way? Strictly for admiration and comparison!)
When I saw pictures of your Tim and the other Lucy-cat in the "Animal Friends" thread, I wanted to upload a picture but couldn't figure out how. I see the "IMG" button on this message-composition screen right now, but it asks for an http site for my picture, and I don't know how to do that. Maybe it has to do with the fact that I don't have a Vegan Story up. Oh, Dandelion, you are such a stern taskmaster!! I will give Lucy a pet from London Tim and Keehar. What does your screen name (real name?) mean, by the way?

Speaking for myself, I took no offense from any of this. I've only been on these boards for a couple of months, and I've never really seen anyone get all huffy. Yes, there is strong language at times and there are strong opinions, but there is a refreshing lack of prima-donna-ness. Purty nice place here!

[mountainvegan]

Lucy - you can attach a .jpg (picture) file down in the "Attach file:" section of post reply box. Just hit "Browse..." and it will bring up the default path on your computer. Find the file and click the appropriate box to insert the file.

[Lucy]

Hey, MV, thank you! I'm going over to the Animal pics thread and post my pictures. :D

[Wonko The Sane]

PETA is ridiculous. There is no need for this ad campaign. I think their tactics are offensive and immature.

I know why they do the things that they do, but that doesn't make them right. They aren't using images of tortured Jewish prisoners next to battery cages to get a point across. They are doing it to stir up the press, the public and to get attention for their organization. While what they are attempting to accomplish is good, their approach is monsterous. The end doesn't justify the means in this case. It reminds me of a neglected child that does something bad just to get attention. They laugh and rejoice when they get negative attention. That's sick and perverse when it comes at the expense of those tortured souls in that picture.

No one needs to forget what happened in those concentration camps, but using those images to serve their twisted plan is not acceptable. There are plenty of other ways to get the point across without disrespecting and trivializing those poor people's lives. Those were real people that suffered and died at the hands of an evil man. This campaign is the highest form of objectification that I have ever seen.

I've tried to like PETA, but I cannot give my support to an orgnization that uses this kind of shock value to get a point across. I honestly think that PETA gives the general public the absolute wrong impression of the percentage of the public that eats no meat or cares about animals. They don't represent me, because I care about people as much as I care about animals.

Whose mind are they going to change with this campaign? Maybe a few, but it will generate manifold that number in resentment and enforce the already tainted view of what veg*ns and animal lovers are all about.

[redelephant]

Whose mind are they going to change with this campaign? Maybe a few, but it will generate manifold that number in resentment and enforce the already tainted view of what veg*ns and animal lovers are all about.

This is also my concern.

We can look at that poster and say "so true," but other people looking at it, may not only fail to understand, but also to have their minds turned even harder against our movement.:umm:

[mountainvegan]

A point that should be made here regarding this campaign, and to a much greater extent, regarding the attempt to change the minds of individuals and society in general, is that major resentment, friction and resistance are an unfortunate, but realistic, part of significant change, especially if the change is perceived (even falsely perceived) to go against habit, custom, or self-interest.

There is no doubt that this campaign (and many future ones) did / will anger people. In fact, when someone forces us to consider something that we do not agree with (i.e., get our attention and challenge our strongly held beliefs), they will usually cause some form of anger or resentment in us. However, over time, the anger goes away a lot quicker than the issue we were forced to consider. Whether we like it or not, many of us will turn the issue over in our minds and, if a valid point was made, some of us will reconsider and change our minds at a later date, even though we were previously angry that someone or something forced us to reconsider in the first place. This process (resistance, anger, thought) may even happen in several instances before we finally change or accept. It is often necessary because if the challenge, resentment, and friction never happened in the first place, we would have never paid close enough attention to the issue to have changed our minds.

This is not to say that resistance or resentment are necessary in all cases of individual change, but in many cases, such negative reaction is a reality if you are going to effectively create change.