I refer to 'Protest and be damned' (Sunday Morning Post, July 20).
The profile of Ingrid Newkirk, president of the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), illustrates the distinction society makes between what it calls cruel and what it accepts as normal, even when the actions are nearly identical and have the same results.
Kick or starve or stab a dog who belongs to your neighbour and you will find yourself before a judge. Starve a hen to increase egg-laying, break her leg while stuffing her into a cage, and slice her throat open and you are an employee of the food production industry.
That the vast majority of us accept this schism - that we pet our cats while dining on spiral-sliced ham - makes us, rather than Ms Newkirk and her staff, the odd ducks. In the strictest sense, either one hates all cruelty to all animals, or one is a hypocrite.
The rolling of the eyes response to Ms Newkirk is our defence against being pulled from our complacency, from our wilful ignorance.
She is clearly dedicated to spurring us to recognise that if our condemnation of cruelty to animals is genuine, we will not make exceptions for some species.