PETA & "Holocaust On Your Dinner Plate"

The European Court of Human Right upheld a German courts decision to ban PETA D's  (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animal, Germany) "Holocaust On Your Plate" campaign.

In November of this year, the European Court of Human Right (ECHR) held that German could, lawfully censor PETA D's campaign which consisted of 7 graphic posters analogizing animal exploitation and their slaughter to that of the Nazi Holocaust.  This has been in the courts since 2004 in Germany.  I have been watching and waiting to see if PETA D who challenged a Berlin regional court's 2004 injunction against the publication of the poster campaign, would decide to take this to Europe's version of our Supreme Court.  The Berlin court rejected PETA D's appeal.  PETA D then brought its case to the Federal Constitutional Court and then onto the ECHR, claiming that "the censorship violated Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights", which guarantees freedom of expression.

Both the Federal Constitutional Court and the ECHR rejected PETA D's claim.  They found that the parties who had sought the injunction against PETA D has been successful in satisfying part (b) of Article 10, which allows the governments to place some limits on free expression, to protect, for example, " the reputation or rights of others."

"Holocaust on Your Plate", was a campaign that consisted of 7 posters, which contained juxtaposed pictures of animals confined, mistreated while alive and then piled up after slaughter in farming operations.  On the other half of the same poster would be the humans, who were confined, mistreated while alive and then piled up after being slaughters during the Holocaust.  Each post included a short text that drew an analogy between the respective pictures.  I think we can all agree that reasonable minds could wildly differ on how to interpret the campaign.  The basic point was to call attention to the parallel between the ugly and very brutal practices that consumers of animal products support, on one hand, and the atrocities that happened during the Holocaust.

I want to believe, for the sake of this blog, that PETA was acting in "good faith."  Their aim was to bring attention to the uglier side of the animal products industry and to make the consumers of that industry really take a good look at what they are supporting via their consumption.  This is rather hard for me of late, due to several campaigns that PETA has undertook.  I think PETA made a huge, strategic mistake in comparing anything to the Holocaust.  Just an epic failure.  I think PETA lost the chance to reach, otherwise reasonable consumers, who would have otherwise been receptive to their message of animal rights and veganism.  Instead, they most likely outraged and offended many.

I do agree with most of what PETA stands for, and for the sake of this blog, will say provisionally, that I believe in their aims.  Some of PETA'S campaigns really make me wonder whether its goal is actually to gain notoriety for the organization itself.  The campaign posters of naked women, usually celebs, with the tag line "I'd rather go naked than wear fur, " which seems likely to appeal to the salacious interests of the public rather than to persuade people of the injustice of confining, torturing, and slaughtering of sentient beings.  Sometimes I just shake my head and roll my eyes.  I think to myself, what the hell were they thinking?

As the grandson of a Holocaust survivor.  I am sensitive to remarks which use the Holocaust to prove a point.  My grandmother survived the camps.  She lost her parents, brothers, sisters and the rest of her extended family.  I normally flinch when I hear people or their actions compared to the Holocaust.  I understand why people are so offended by any comparison to the Holocaust.  In comparing, say President Obama to Hitler, it does in a curious way diminish what Hitler did.  I think most of the offense people feel in Holocaust references comes from feeling this "diminishing"  of what has happened.

The various decisions upholding the German injunction had just this "diminished" flavor.  Comparing the slaughter of a group of humans to the widespread slaughter of nonhuman animals diminishes the worth and status of the humans in question as well as the severity of their tragedy.

I have to disagree with the Germans court premise.  As the Federal Constitutional Court acknowledged, PETA D did not mean to insult the victims and survivors of the Holocaust.  I think it meant instead to suggest that what is happening to animals should serve as a wake up call for consumers and ought to be seen as deeply disturbing to all people who rightly view the Holocaust as an outrageous injustice by humans against other humans.

I feel that PETA should, generally make the argument in terms that are far less threatening to an audience than in this campaign.  Nonetheless, the question that begs to be asked is, was the comparison threatening not because it challenges the worth and dignity of human victims, but rather because it challenges the justice of practices that almost every one of us was trained from early childhood to embrace.  It asks us to rethink the thing that "everyone is doing" and to consider that there may, despite its popularity and culturally accepted norms, be something fundamentally wrong with it.  The question then becomes when people identify themselves or their family members as victims of injustice, they therefore, become offended at the mere suggestion, that they are in fact perpetrating an injustice against other innocent victims.

So while I flinched when I originally saw the posters, I found myself thinking more about the underlying issues associated with this particular campaign.  I have had many discussions with friends about this campaign, PETA and the path it has taken through the courts.  I am still on the fence as to PETA's actions and motives in this campaign and other very controversial ones in the past.  I feel they spent way too much money to design and defend this campaign.  The money could have been spent more wisely and have much more of an educational impact on the audience PETA is trying to reach.

What do you think?  Did PETA go too far?  Do we diminish the suffering of humans by comparing them to nonhuman animals?  Do you think this campaign would have worked?  I am always curious to hear how others feel.  Let me know.