January
2001
In
the Hot Seat, Part II: Activism
and Controversy
The Satya Interview
With Ingrid Newkirk
|
|
|
Read
Part One of the Satya Interview with Ingrid Newkirk
Ingrid
Newkirk is co-founder and president
of PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals), the world’s
most prominent animal rights organization. PETA has been a major force
in bringing animal rights and vegetarianism into the consciousness of
mainstream America. Much of PETA’s success in exposing the public
to the ubiquity of animal exploitation has been through its eye-catching
and controversial—at times notorious—protests and advertising
campaigns.
Last year PETA launched its anti-dairy campaign, with spoofs on the
industry’s famous “Got Milk?” ads. Two particular ads
sparked heated controversy. The first, “Got Beer?”—aimed
primarily at college-age people—claimed that even a glass of beer
has more nutritional value than a glass of milk. Free bottle-openers
emblazoned with the “Got Beer?” slogan were a hot item and
demand for them exhausted their supply. This campaign outraged members
of Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), an organization that raises
awareness of drunk driving, especially among teenagers. In apparent
solidarity with MADD, it also provoked radio talkshow host Mike Gallagher
to purchase a cow and have him slaughtered on air (see Satya April 2000).
Then there was “Got Prostate Cancer?” which claimed that dairy
consumption is linked to cancer and featured New York City’s Mayor
Rudy Giuliani sporting a milk mustache (Giuliani was diagnosed with
prostate cancer last year). Talkshows and newspapers condemned PETA’s
apparent insensitivity and lack of respect, and Newkirk appeared on
CNN’s show “Crossfire” in which she defended PETA’s
position. Not one to shy away from controversy himself, Giuliani held
a press conference where he voiced his outrage at the use of his image
and condition, then downed a glass of milk in front of cameras.
PETA’s on-going anti-fur advertisements have included images of
famous models who would “rather go naked than wear fur.” Last
year, PETA released a more provocative ad to protest the widespread
use of fur trim. “Fur Trim: Unattractive” features a close-up
of a woman’s crotch with exaggeratedly bushy pubic hair fanning
out from the panty line. Galen Sherwin, President of the National Organization
for Women-NYC, wrote a letter in which she expressed her outrage at
this apparently sexist ad, arguing that it objectifies and degrades
women. Her letter and Newkirk’s response were featured in Ms. Magazine
(“Is This ad Sexist?” April/May 2000).
The following is the second part of a two-part interview (see Part 1,
“PETA at 20 Years,” in November/December’s issue). The
conversation continues in which Newkirk explains to Catherine Clyne
some of PETA’s more controversial campaigns, and talks about what
it’s like to represent such ideas.
On the show “Crossfire” [9/29/00] you were quoted as saying—in
reference to PETA’s “Got Prostate Cancer?” campaign featuring
Mayor Rudy Giuliani—“We are desperate. We don’t have
the advertising budget of the milk people.” Many of our readers
can understand that justification. But one thing you said in the first
part of this interview about PETA’s campaigns is that some people
find it’s not their “cup of tea.” Since PETA is the largest
animal rights group, what’s your response to animal activists who
feel that some of PETA’s campaigns are counter-productive or misrepresent
animal advocates or even the truth?
Well, I don’t know how the ad campaigns can misrepresent the
truth—especially if you look at something like the Giuliani one.
If anyone bothered to look at PETA’s website, for example, which
showed I think 11 studies—but it’s something like 20 now—that
all link milk consumption, like meat consumption, to prostate cancer.
Sadly there’s too much cruelty for us to ever need to invent anything.
The facts are probably far worse and numerous than the ones we put out,
because we do have to temper how appalling things are. There’s
stuff that we can’t show the public, or they’ll turn away.
The thing is, we make them gawk, maybe like a traffic accident that
you have to look at. I think we do embarrass people in our movement
and I’m sorry for that, but there’s a bigger picture. There
are other people who believe in animal rights but don’t have our
style. To them, it’s not comfortable to find that we’ve been
successful in making people stop and pay attention. So people will then
criticize something like the Giuliani ad, and all the other animal advocates
then find themselves having to defend it. To them I say please don’t
bother to defend it. We don’t mind; you don’t have to defend
it. You can simply say ‘look, there are lots of different people—we
would never do that—but let’s talk about what’s wrong
with milk and where veal comes from,’ and put your own spin on
it.
There’s the lovely feeling that people have that they have to defend
us, when they don’t; they simply have to attack the issue in their
own way. No one has to stand behind us; we’ve never asked anyone
to defend the way we get attention. The fact is we are the biggest group
because we succeed in getting attention. If anyone has a better idea
of how to get attention, please do it, because it embarrasses us sometimes
[laughs], but we haven’t found a more successful way. The fact
is we may be doing all sorts of things on a campaign but the one thing
that gets attention is the outrageous thing. It simply goes to prove
to us each time, that that is the thing that’s going to work; and
so we won’t shirk from doing that facet—in addition to all
the other things we do that you never hear about because no one cares.
There is a little bit of hypocrisy in some of the comments—especially
those of non-movement members—about “poor Giuliani.”
To me it’s sort of like in England, where a lot of people are not
in favor of the monarchy anymore, but if you come from Lithuania or
NYC and you attack the queen, we’ll all come out fighting. [laughs]
Everyone in England will rise up and say “how dare you?” And
I think there’s a bit of that with Giuliani. New Yorkers—even
though they’ve made terrible fun of him and didn’t have any
room for him—suddenly thought ‘Oh look, people are attacking
our mayor’ and so they got defensive. That’s understandable,
but you know, the fact is Giuliani has taken money from the dairy industry;
he also took money to promote the circus not too long ago.
Giuliani hasn’t listened to any of our polite letters asking to
meet with him or showing him scientific studies making the connection;
and then he goes on television guzzling milk and saying, ‘oh, they’re
just talking about a few rats—they don’t know what they’re
talking about.’ I think it probably got him more sympathy than
anything he’s ever done in his political career. So he probably
should thank us for it.
Why did you apologize for the Giuliani ad?
I apologized because so many of our members thought he was hurt,
and at the time I said ‘I don’t believe he is hurt, but I
don’t want to hurt you, and if you think he’s hurt, I’ll
apologize. However, we’re apologizing if we hurt him; we’re
not apologizing for the campaign.’ I think the campaign was a huge
success: more hits in three days than we’ve ever had on our website,
and more requests for vegetarian starter kits than we’ve ever had.
But I said to him ‘if we hurt you, then I am sorry,’ but I
didn’t believe that we actually did.
What about the more “inadvertent” controversies with groups,
like Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) and their negative reaction
to the “Got Beer?” ad, and feminists who feel the fur campaigns,
particularly the “Fur Trim: Unattractive” ad, are exploiting
women? In other words, some people criticize these ads as unnecessarily
alienating groups—even those with whom animal advocates might share
common ground.
I don’t think anyone honestly goes out and has another burger
or buys a fur coat because they don’t like our style. It’s
very hard—we certainly were quite amazed at how upset MADD got.
It was clear that they hadn’t read the campaign materials which
didn’t ask children to drink and didn’t suggest drunk driving.
We have a lot of respect for MADD; but it’s rather odd in a way
that every spring break and every college football game are sponsored
by beer people. And yet when we said ‘hey, there’s more nutrition
in a glass of beer than there is in a glass of milk,’ we got slammed.
I think that they thought, ‘PETA’s a social advocacy group;
they really don’t have any right to use the word beer or to suggest—as
we were—that people of drinking age could drink beer.’
In the end, we collected money from our staff and gave it to MADD, but
they returned the check, which I don’t think is in their interest.
And we invited them to talk about it and they weren’t interested,
which wasn’t in the interest of anybody. So, one does what one
can do, to say ‘you’ve got your job to do, we’ve got
ours.’
The panties thing—I just think it’s a hoot; I think it’s
amusing in its own way. And I don’t think it’s exploitative;
it could be anybody’s crotch. And most people would think ‘Oh
lord, I don’t want that showing.’ Since our exchange, Galen
Sherwin [NOW-NYC’s President] and I have agreed to disagree, we
patched that up.
In raising the awareness of people to the various issues of animal
suffering, via activism, educational campaigns and other methods, would
you say the ends justify the means?
I think that’s too broad a statement because some ends do and
some ends don’t. If it’s anything that’s going to result
in suffering to animals or people, then I don’t think it justifies
the means.
You mean violence?
Yeah; but then again if you could hurt ten people to save 100 people
and there was no option, what would you do? I can’t really address
that.
How do you feel being constantly in a hot seat as the spokesperson
with the message that people love to ridicule or misrepresent?
I feel honored in a way. I’ve passed the point long ago where
I felt frustrated at people or personally upset that people had the
need to do that. It isn’t a personal matter. I’m a human being.
Human beings are slow learners; I’ve certainly been a slow learner
and I’m sure I’m still learning. I have the opportunity to
allow people to ridicule what we do, and me personally, if that’s
what they need to do along the road to embracing a concept. Though in
saying that, I recognize that not everyone will. You know, there are
still people who would [use racial slurs] if they could get away with
it; it’s just that the behavior has become unacceptable. It is
an honor to be able to bear the brunt of that work in progress.
But I do get deeply depressed when people send things in the mail saying
they’re going to hurt animals; people have sent us animal organs
or have left injured animals on the steps. To me, this is the saddest
part—they would’ve probably hurt the animals anyway because
that’s what they’re like. The saddest thing is the realization
that a fellow human being is so inured to suffering that they would
try to hurt another fellow human in that way, by taking it out on the
defenseless.
Are you referring to the situation when radio talkshow host Mike
Gallagher bought a cow and had him slaughtered in response to the “Got
Beer?” ad?
No, I actually think that was pretty good, because the cow was going
to be killed anyway without people realizing it. That cow was doomed.
No death was added as a result of that. However, it did turn a lot of
people away from eating meat that day and that week, and in some cases
forever, because it gave us a platform to argue with Gallagher; we did
countless radio shows and newspaper interviews. And as a result—again—lots
of people asked for the veggie starter kit or about factory farming
for the first time.
But I think he may have learned something. I’m not sure if it’s
true, but he said that in the end, he couldn’t look [as the cow
was being shot]. It may be that he had to confront what happens to animals
every day as a result of his diet.
It’s one thing to brazenly talk about something and it’s
a completely different thing to witness and be a part of it yourself.
Yeah. We had a case where townspeople called us to support them
because they didn’t want a slaughterhouse to be constructed in
their town. They wanted it out of town because otherwise the children
would see it. And we said no. We wrote immediately to the council asking
that they please construct it in the center of town; get it out in the
open, please, where everyone smells it, everyone sees it, the children
know what it is.
What other interests or means of relaxation do you have to help you
cope with the intensity of defending animal rights? How do you keep
your sense of humor?
[Laughing] Well, I have to think of the positive; that’s how
I cope. But I like a good London Times crossword and a cup of tea—that
makes me happy. And I love walking someone else’s dog. I don’t
have the luxury of having a dog myself because I travel too much, but
I love walking and cuddling somebody else’s dog. I just came back
from the shelter today and they let me walk three dogs at lunchtime.
It was great.
To view PETA’s anti-fur ads, visit www.furisdead.com
and www.milk sucks.com to see
the anti-dairy ads. To learn more about PETA, visit www.peta-online.org
or call 757-622-PETA.
