Johnny Weir staying in Olympic Village because of anti-fur a

[Animal 0]

Sat Feb 13, 2010 1:15 pm EST

Johnny Weir staying in Olympic Village because of anti-fur activists
By Chris Chase



American figure skater Johnny Weir will stay in the Olympic Village because he's concerned about "very serious threats" from anti-fur activists.

The medal hopeful had planned to stay in a hotel during the Games, but it would have been too difficult to arrange adequate security. Though there are no indications that any of the verbal and written threats from extremists were credible, Weir's decision to stay in the more secure village was an obvious choice.

He's right to take extra precautions during his time in Vancouver. Though the odds of one of these threats actually coming to pass are low, there's no reason for Weir to open himself up to the possibility. For peace of mind alone, staying in a secured Olympic Village is worth it.

At last month's U.S. Nationals, Weir earned the scorn of anti-fur protesters when he wore a white tuft of fox fur on his shoulder. He was defiant in the face of the criticism at first but later relented.

Weir has long been an enemy of animal-rights groups because of his costumes. It was a disappointment when he finally caved to their pressure. It's his job to look flamboyant. There's no need to listen to a small but vocal group who don't like it. Nothing would ever get accomplished if everyone in the world had to sign off on everything first.

Though those making threats to Weir are but an infinitesimal part of the animal-rights groups, they are a stain on the movement. Maybe PETA and Friends of Animals should spend more energy denouncing those who threaten rather than those who wear.

http://sports.yahoo.com/olympics/vancouver/blog/fourth_place_medal/post/Johnny-Weir-staying-in-Olympic-village-because-o?urn=oly,219489

[Animal 0]

LES VÉGÉTARIENS SONT DE PLUS EN PLUS CIBLÉS... ET CE, PAS SEULEMENT AU CANADA OU AUX ÉTATS U.


UK - Warning from the National Beef Council


15 Feb 2010
The National Beef Association has warned international and national government food policy specialists, they must not to be tricked into making flawed decisions on the future of the red meat industry as a result of being misled by flawed science funded by well placed, anti-meat, agitators.
It says policy makers must be aware that livestock and meat production is regularly targeted by influential, and well-funded, vegetarian groups determined to further their cause – and that the funding of unsafe scientific reports is one of their most useful weapons.
"Cash accumulated by campaigning vegetarians is regularly used to attack meat production and tactics very often concentrate on undermining consumer confidence by linking meat eating with fear of disease, like cancer, or generating misplaced concern over the role farmed livestock might play in accelerating climate change," explained NBA director, Kim Haywood."And in this context the Association is worried that apparently plausible scientific contentions advanced as a result of cash paid out by determined anti-livestock farming lobbyists may undermine the integrity of crucial decisions taken by food policy specialists acting at national, EU, and international level."
One example is the failure of the World Cancer Research Fund to immediately acknowledge that a number of, apparently tactical, errors and omissions in its 2007 report have helped to support its case that a link exists between colorectal cancer and meat consumption – even though independent peer review has concluded there is no conclusive evidence of a causal relationship.
Another is the determination to continue to link ruminant animals with accelerating climate change even though the argument that animals eating grass are carbon neutral continues to gain increased scientific acceptance.
"The red meat industry has every reason to be alarmed about the presentation of bad science and the preaching of its flawed conclusions by anti-meat interests," said Ms Haywood.
"And it would be truly worrying if governments, and their advisors, allowed themselves to be influenced by unsound science because they were unaware of mounting evidence that vegetarian bias on red meat issues is corrupting basic scientific principles".
"The UK government has often said that science, not argument and counter-argument by self-interested lobby groups, must guide its decision making but if that is to be the case it must also be sure that the science it uses, on issues like bowel cancer, or greenhouse gas emissions by grazing livestock, is incorruptible."


http://www.meattradenewsdaily.co.uk/news/150210/uk___warning_from_the_national_beef_concil_.aspx

-------------------------