A U.S. District Court judge yesterday considered arguments in a hearing regarding a lawsuit filed by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) against SeaWorld. The complaint seems pretty routine, until one learns that five of the suit's plaintiffs are orcas — also known as killer whales.
PETA is arguing that the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits slavery and involuntary servitude except as punishment for a crime, should apply to the whales currently owned by SeaWorld.
The notion that the orcas are constiutionally protected is ludicrous. While the 13th Amendment does not specify humans in its language, there is no precedent to indicate that the Amendment references anything but human slavery.
If this lawsuit is successful, not only would SeaWorld be affected, but the door would be opened for countless lawsuits against circuses, zoos and even law enforcement organizations using horses and sniffer dogs, a possibility the judge in the case said he is taking into account.
It's doubtful that PETA expects to win this lawsuit. The organization likely intends it to be a symbolic action in "the next frontier of civil rights," as PETA attorney Jeffrey Kerr called it. But the suit fails to fulfill even this purpose and will likely do more to harm animal rights causes than it will to help.
By pursuing this case, PETA is adding to its lengthy history of questionable actions, reinforcing the organization's reputation as a group of extremists.
In 2009, the group criticized President Barack Obama for swatting a fly during a television interview and called the event "the executive insect execution."
PETA has an animated Christmas e-card on its website called "Santa Got Run Over by his Reindeer." It includes lyrics implying that Santa deserves to get run over by Rudolph and the gang for making them work on Christmas Eve and for his penchant for drinking milk.
PETA also has a game on its website called "Mario Kills Tanooki," which lambasts the video game character for his occasional wearing of a raccoon costume, which PETA says promotes fur clothing.
While the online card and game are somewhat tongue-in-cheek, they do nothing but build negative publicity for PETA.
This is not to say PETA does not raise concerns about legitimate issues even outside of the overarching questions of the ethics of using animals for food, fur and leather. Many animals in captivity — either for agriculture or entertainment — are often treated horrifically and in a manner that would give customers pause if the truth were more widely disseminated.
SeaWorld's treatment of the animals used in performances is certainly an issue worthy of activism. However, this activism will go nowhere if it is practiced by an organization that most Americans view as a cadre of extremist provocateurs. If PETA wishes to be effective in improving animal rights, it needs to stop acting like an organization stuck in a state of constant self-parody.
