While the work that PETA does is commendable in many aspects, I often think that they go too far, often infringing upon the rights of others. I have written of this on my blog before. Listening to a PETA spokesperson on a news show say that Michael Vick should not be allowed to make a living in his profession, after having gone to jail and serving 18 months, until he gets a brain scan is absolutely ridiculous.
The spokesperson was annoyed that Vick could receive millions of dollars. He thinks that Vick isn't worthy of such. But the man served his time and has been working with the Humane Society. Who is PETA to deny another a livelihood? If Vick was a garbage collector before doing time should he now not be allowed to collect garbage? Should he not be allowed to make a living in his profession?
Tanya Corona's response was very thoughtful:
I used to be a supporter of PETA many years ago but have not been for awhile precisely because I feel the organization has veered to the side of extremism. To negate Vick the manner in which he makes a living is not the issue; what should be the issue is whether or not he is rehabilitated and this is what should be PETA's concern. Aren't they in the field of educating people and bringing empathy and knowledge to light? To condemn Vick, after he has served his time and possibly learned of the brutality of the sport, is to negate the hopes of what their wishes seem to be: to educate. If they would only stick to their organization's mission statement and cease on the personal vitriol against abusers and judge without finding out whether or not they have been rehabilitated (and I sincerely hope that in Vick's case it is true), they would maintain their respectability as an organization. Unfortunately, the way they are conducting their business and themselves, I believe, they have lost the respect of many, including myself.
What do you think?