PETA Holocaust Ad Ruled Too Offensive By German Court

BERLIN — Germany's highest court has ruled that a PETA ad campaign comparing animal slaughterhouses to the Holocaust is an offense against human dignity.

The 2003 campaign used eight, 60-square-foot (5.6-sq. meter) panels depicting images of factory farms next to Jewish concentration camp inmates and the slogan "Holocaust on your plate."

The Federal Constitutional Court in Karlsruhe on Thursday ruled that the ad campaign was not protected under freedom of speech laws.

PETA _ People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals _ claimed its goal was to compare Nazi-run concentration camps with contemporary animal abuse.

Paul Spiegel, former president of the Central Council of Jews in Germany, filed the suit against the ad campaign along with several other Jewish organizations.

Comments

[StopGlobalWarmingBeVegan]

07:17 AM on 04/14/2009

PETA rocks!

[Bill Noonan]

06:08 AM on 03/28/2009

what i don't get is what does peta think we should do with al the cows. release them into the wild so they can be mercifully and compassionately eaten by wolves until they are extinct. peta frequently comes across to me as a group that lacks balance and perspective. While needless suffering should be avoided they don't seem to limit their arguments to needless suffering. why is it bad if a deer suffers before dying because of a bullet wound instead of suffering from a bobcats teeth or tooth rot that spreads infection to the brain a very painful death. many of the animals that they say shouldn't be killed by humans are also guarded by humans, who elimanate their predators.

[chamberwindow]

09:52 PM on 03/27/2009

I support PETA.
I do not believe that the death of millions of Jews and billions of animals in much the same fashion is exactly comparable. However, it does make a point about how we give human suffering so much clout in any argument, and ignore the suffering of nonhuman animals despite their highly developed central nervous systems. The fact is, animals are not as aware as humans, but they react to danger and are aware of the possibility of oncoming death. Animals witness their death, which is something no human wishes to experience. So, like humans in concentration camps, nonhuman animals experienced the worst circumstances that could befall any sentient being.
The point many people miss when viewing these emotionally loaded comparisons is the viewer's own biases. It is not unusual for a pet owner to feel grief at the loss of life of his or her pet. Puppy mills and mink fur operations anger and sicken meat eaters and vegetarians alike. It is easy for us to create a double standard for cute cuddly puppies as compared to the juicy steak on our plate. My argument is that there is no difference, just as there is no difference between Jew or non-Jew. Sentient animals suffering for the palette of another species purely based on luxury is by far the most decadent attribute of modern civilization. It is the last frontier of civil rights to defend not just puppies, but also the less aesthetically pleasing steer or sow.

[Vickster]

01:09 AM on 03/29/2009

While other animals react to predation with fight or flight, this doesn't mean they are aware of the possiblity of death. It only means that those individuals who responded in a certain way had the best chance to survive and pass on their genes.

I've read animal rights articles that claimed animals feared the smell of blood because it meant death was near. Meanwhile, there are films of zebras, gazelles and wildebeests grazing next to a lion who is feeding on a member of their herd. This suggest that prey animals evolved to think the smell of blood meant they were safe from predation because a predator wouldn't be hunting while it was feeding.

[mathme]

02:56 PM on 03/31/2009

You're right; even infants flinch at or are terrified of loud sounds-- it doesn't mean that they have a concept of death. The prey animals who were likely to stare in curiosity at an on-coming great cat wouldn't have been long for this world. The ones who are on edge and more likely to flee something unusual or quick moving evolved into what we see on the plains today.

Rats are afraid of anything approaching from above them except for the ones who have been habituated out of it. My pet rats that I bred and raised were never in any danger from a hawk, but they ran from anything that suddenly appeared above them even if they were otherwise trained and comfortable with people.

[CrittersRTasty]

11:59 AM on 03/30/2009

take a look in here and see if you still support PETA
http://www.consumerfreedom.com/pressRelease_detail.cfm/release/258

[mathme]

02:14 PM on 03/31/2009

They're a BIT biased (look at who funds them). I'm not saying it's an out-and-out lie; PETA admits that they euthanize animals. However, when I look at PETA's explanation and the 4 accompanying photos, I see that they're playing the same game. I imagine that the truth lies somewhere in the middle. We know that PETA puts down X number of animals and *at least* some are suffering horribly, though I don't know how much overlap there is between the two populations (executed and suffering) there is on the ven diagram.

[Bubbacus]

01:11 PM on 03/27/2009

PETA should keep to their naked ads. I like those.

[mathme]

02:15 PM on 03/31/2009

I like the girls painted as cats.

[Senf]

02:09 PM on 03/26/2009

Oh PETA! Can't you find a way to support animals without annoying and offending humans?
Your cause is noble, but your methods are tacky.

[Palemoon]

02:07 PM on 03/26/2009

I hate to bring a little education to the German legal system, but the word holocause has been around since the 13th century when it was used to denote the mass killings of anyone. No religions owns the monopoly to the word holocaust.

In contrast, the word Genocide was first coined in 1944 and is directly related to the mass killing of people who the German courts are referring to.

[Spencaa]

05:39 PM on 03/26/2009

The world doesn't conform to your definition and the Holocaust is specifically the Genocide against Jews. Go search it on google.

Despite it's origin, modern day it means only one thing.

[butterfly73]

01:40 AM on 03/27/2009

That's nonsense! Why should it be exclusive to the Jewish population. Again, why should they be considered the ultimate victims?

[butterfly73]

01:47 AM on 03/27/2009

Spencaa,

Look up the word Holocaust in Wikipedia. Go to the section "Etymology and use of the word" you might be enlightened.

For hundreds of years, the word holocaust was used in English to denote massive sacrifices and great slaughters or massacres. During World War II, the word was used to describe Nazi atrocities regardless of whether the victims were Jews or non-Jews. It was only in the 1960s that the term was appropriated by scholars and popular writers to refer exclusively to the genocide of Jews

[butterfly73]

01:38 AM on 03/27/2009

Thank you Palemoon! We are soo worried about being soo politically correct all-the-time that it's stifling. And why is it that any topics having to do with the Jewish plight is soo untouchable. Hello Darfur... palestine, Cuba...? They are not the only victims of our times.

[JnrNorman]

01:18 PM on 03/26/2009

Peta shouldnt be that gross.
In New Hampshire they dissect moose and deer to check
on the health of the herds. They give the meat to poor people.
Id bet that would groos-out Peta.
Id be rinsing and bagging the muscle tissue to help out....

http://video.aol.com/video-detail/the-obama-deception/1757361927