There is a clear line between giving voice to one’s own opinions and inhibiting the rights of others. Earlier this week when Kim Kardashian was flour bombed for being a “fur hag”, that line was clearly breached. Following the assault, PETA issued a statement denying it was involved, but after news broke that Kardashian was probably going to press charges, the animal rights group offered up another statement vilifying the reality star and promising to help pay for the assailant’s legal defense if she asked.

It’s far from a shock PETA would come down on the side of an activist fighting for animal rights, but it is a bit surprising the organization would volunteer to help with the legal fees of someone who so clearly broke the law. Petitioning for a specific cause is more public opinion war than anything else. Casual observers who might be sympathetic to animal rights aren’t likely to feel sympathy toward a woman who recklessly dumped flour on another’s head during a charity function.

According to TMZ, PETA’s statement ends with the spokesman advising Kardashian to “get a life, the very thing that she denies animals.” Here’s the rub though. The mystery assailant overtly interfered with Kardashian’s life. It’s not like she asked to be victimized. She was just going about her business when someone else flour bombed her. If this were simply a crusade or witchhunt started by the reality star, I would understand, but as it is, it’s hard not to at least somewhat feel for Kardashian, regardless of how one feels about fur.

I’ve never purchased fur, nor would I ever, but I’m still not in favor of attacking people who do. There are just better ways to go about making a point.



Can't Miss

Gateway Blend ©copyright 2017