From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: PETA in hot water
Date: 15 Dec 92 22:22:43 GMT
Organization: WP Group

Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> Let's clarify the nature of this "exoneration".
rl> 
rl> According to a Washington Post article that I have on my desk at the 
rl> moment, Taub's conviction was overturned when the Maryland Court of
rl> Appeals ruled that state animal cruelty laws do not apply to
rl> federally funded animal experiments.  

From article <mhulsey-151292094620@fatrat.fcs.uga.edu>, by mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey):
mh> Let's clarify your "clarification."
mh>
mh> [various factual claims deleted]

You seem to be ignoring the historical facts.  Taub's conviction 
wasn't overturned on its evidential merits.  It was overturned when 
the Maryland state appeals court ruled that Maryland's anti-cruelty 
statutes didn't apply to federally financed animal experiments.  

Did HHS ever reinstate Taub's funding?

rl> Can you point to a particular newspaper or magazine publisher 
rl> who's misrepresented the facts?
mh> 
mh> First of all, my claim above suggested bias, rather than misrepresentation
mh> of facts.  Surely you know the difference.  You are, as usual, employing
mh> deceitful tactics.

You're entitled to your opinion.

You've claimed that the media is "bambiphilic".  Can you point to a 
particular newspaper or magazine publisher that's misrepresented the 
facts... apart from the _Washingtonian_ magazine?

mh> Taub's final conviction was overturned by the Maryland court of appeals,
mh> and the appeals court also directed the lower court to dismiss all charges
mh> against Taub.
mh> 
mh> The media then repeatedly reported statements by antivivisectionists that
mh> this decision was based on a technicality that did not address the
mh> "charges" against Taub.  This was a serious distortion.
mh> 
mh> The Court of Appeals ruled that federally-funded research did not come
mh> under the jurisdiction of the Maryland State Animal Cruelty Statute.  The
mh> reason given was that Taub was already fully regulated by federal codes. 
mh> The Maryland statute was redundant, and added nothing new. 

Yet Taub had been tried and convicted under the Maryland statute. 

mh> ...
mh> The court's decision addresses issues that support Taub's contention that
mh> he did not treat his animals in a cruel fashion.  The stated bases of the
mh> decision are far from a technicality.

Where did you get your law degree, Martin?  It's logically irrelevant, 
of course, whether you have a law degree or no, but in view of the 
fact that you're a scientist who respects intellectual honesty, it's 
only fitting for you to observe the same standards (vis-a-vis 
credentials) that you expect your opponents to meet.  

--Footnote--

One of PETA's most outspoken critics is Peter Gerone, the director of 
the Delta Regional Primate Center here in Louisiana.  Here's what he 
told a Washington Post reporter who re-investigated the Silver Spring 
Monkey case in 1991: 

    "Today, you'd never see conditions like the Silver 
    Spring Monkeys because people are more conscious of 
    this," says Gerone.  "Ten years ago, there was a lot 
    less consciousness on the part of researchers about how 
    they cared for animals.  The animal rights movement has 
    done a great deal to increase the consciousness of 
    people working with animals." 

[See Carlson, Peter.  "The Great Silver Spring Monkey Debate".
The Washington Post, February 24, 1991.]
-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ