
Liberal Member of Parliament Gerry Byrne of Newfoundland and Labrador wants the federal government to investigate an unusual question of terrorism, the Globe and Mail reported Jan. 26.
Byrne has suggested that the pie thrown at Fisheries Minister Gail Shea during a speech she delivered in Burlington on Monday constitutes an act of terrorism on the part of PETA, the animal rights group that has claimed responsibility for the tofu-cream pie toss.
PETA said the reason for the pieing was to protest the issue of seal slaughter.
The fact that PETA stood by Emily McCoy, the woman charged with the pie assault, shows they believe her act was an appropriate way to voice disagreement. But tossing a pie in a speaker’s face is an unprofessional and ineffective alternative to expressing real dissatisfaction with words.
This spectacle only makes PETA look worse in the public eye, and does little to advance the ethical treatment of animals. While their cause is valuable, the way PETA presents their message is often not an effective way to spread civil awareness.
In this instance and many others, PETA’s publicity stunts go beyond activism to a level of destruction that does verge on terrorism.
Whether sexualizing women in the “I’d rather go naked than wear fur” campaign or creating an advertisement comparing a human beheading aboard a Greyhound bus to the decapitation of chickens, PETA constantly crosses the line and, in the process, undermines their message.
If PETA’s goal was to win a piece of the media share, their mission has been accomplished. But their pie-tossing is only another example of dishonourable tactics that ultimately jeopardize the weight of their message.
PETA’s actions could be described with many of the same phrases used to identity terrorism: they are acts intended to create fear that often disregard public safety and stem from an ideological motive.
But labeling PETA’s aggressive stunts with the same term used for more egregious destruction isn’t fitting considering they might then become backed with the consequences of terrorism, such as detention without charge. This might have the unfortunate side effect of stifling other valuable activist groups.
There’s a difference between political dissent and outright harassment, and PETA has swung too far to the extreme. It’s time they consider the equitable treatment of people, too.
All final editorial decisions are made by the Editor(s)-in-Chief and/or the Managing Editor. Authors should not be contacted, targeted, or harassed under any circumstances. If you have any grievances with this article, please direct your comments to journal_editors@ams.queensu.ca.