When did harassment become a valid form of protest? Have we moved so far from the days of protesting itself being illegal to a point where if you are protesting it's ok no matter how you do it. Has what people protest become more important than how they protest. Does it not matter if you are protesting illegally as long as you are right? I mean ok we know that right is relative, but obviously if you feel strongly about your issue it doesn't really matter that other people might not see it that way, because they are obviously they are wrong. If you are protesting you must be right! Right? Wrong.
Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty [Shac] has managed to get Deloitte and Touche to drop Huntingdon Life Sciences as a client. How did they get D&T to do this? By asking nicely? By campaigning the government to change medical testing laws? No, by illegally harassing members of the firm.
The website run by Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (Shac) boasts that a Dutch director of the firm had his windows broken while he slept, and that Italian offices were spray-painted. Police had advised Deloitte staff to change their daily routines...The contact details of 135 managers and their secretaries were sent to more than 8,000 activists, who began to bombard email addresses and disable mobile phones with jamming software capable of dialling a number 500 times an hour...This was followed by demonstrations at the managers' homes, some causing criminal damage according to Deloitte staff, and at the firm's offices...From : The Guardian
This really annoys me. I am sorry but thinking that your issue that you are protesting justifies criminal behaviour just shows how much disregard you have for others. Having an issues does NOT give you more rights. It seems that these days being against something that is perceived as immoral by a group of people (regardless as to the size of the group of people) gives the right to walk over other peoples rights to achieve you goals. The disgusting self importance these people give them selves in thinking that their issue justifies any behaviour they deem necessary appals me. The end does not justify the means. It never did and it never will.
I have the same problems with the May Day Protests. I am never quite sure what they are protesting, because capitalism as a concept can't really be stopped. Green Fairy also has a very good post (no permalink but it's in march) on the pro-life/anti-abortion fundamentalists who have decided that an invasion of personal space and privacy is acceptable and hence its ok to publish pictures of people electing a personal life choice. Obviously this is ok, because they are right and hence the fact its illegal is ok. Right? Wong!
If you don't like something, you are entitled to protest (peacefully). If you don't like something, you are entitled to campaign the government to change the laws. But as matters stand, what all these groups have been doing is illegal. Even worse if you look at there websites, they seem to be proud of their illegal actives.
SHAC's site has some of the worst propaganda I have ever seen
We strongly believe that you are either with us or against us, you either want life or death for the animals inside Huntingdon. The same people who are against us now would have criticised the campaigns against Apartheid, Poll Tax and many other just causes.Well then I am against you. That statement didn't wash with me when Bush said it and it doesn't wash with me when you do. As for justifying your cause by comparing it to other 'just' causes. Well that argument is so weak that it makes me laugh. A fine example of stupidty made coherent. The cause is only just in your eyes. It has no relation to apartheid or poll tax except that its a cause.After emerging from spending 27 years in prison in South Africa while thousands of his fellow campaigners had been massacred by the South African state, Nelson Mandela didnāt go on to state that he thought they had got it wrong and that they should have done things by the parliamentary route, for he knew that those who advocate this are naive fools who achieve nothing.
Have you even read his book? Have you not seen how often he has called for peaceful resolution to world issues repeatedly? And if we are going to quote great men, try Gandhi before saying that protest can't be peaceful
Now personally I have no problem with HLS. A close friend of mine passed away from cancer a month before his 21st birthday. One of the most incredible people I have ever know. If you don't believe in medicine or science thats fine. But I do. If a way could have been found to save my friend could have been found, I would have sacrificed half those animals my self. Their is a lot of interesting information on HLS's Ethics Page that the protesters don't mention. Some research has to be done on animals. Or does SHAC believe testing on humans is more ethical? 82% of the animals used are rodents anyway. Although I have never seen a rat on a anti-animal testing placard. I guess rats just don't make people feel as bad.
I have no problem with people disagreeing with animal testing. I disagree with animal testing for things like cosmetics and beauty products. But for medical research that is conducted clinically for valid research that helps save lives? I would like to check that all these protests don't wear leather, eat meat or buy any pharmaceutical products too. I am sure some of them do, but I doubt all do. Would they rather live in a world of small pox and the plague?
If you are going to protest, then do so in a acceptable and peaceful fashion. I personally agree with medical research on animals. Thats my right. By you protesting illegally you are not giving my views the chance to be heard in proper forum with due process. Being right about an issue doesn't give you rights. And not everyone thinks you are right.
A Man for All Seasons has a fantstic piece of dialogue that talks about breaking laws to chase the devil.
Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down (and you're just the man to do it!), do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!
1. Darn Mad
All I have to say is that people like you are sorry excuses for humans. I have had relatives and close friends die of cancer and other diseases as well but do not now and will never advocate the testing on animals for any reason. What gives us the right as humans to test on another species? I am a peaceful activist who would never dream of harming any one, or doing things illegally, but If I try and speak my mind, My right to freedom of speech I will be treated as a terrorist. It is your kind that has put into place a corrupt government who have used tactics worse than any animal activist group I have ever seen to use terrorism to take away the rights that we are supposedly fighting for. How dare you. I am sickened by what I see today and I support Kevin and his cause. I will not be unheard and will fight with my life for those who cannot fight for themselves. You are a sick person who has no compassion and I hope you end up in a testing facility some day. Your closed mind is going to lead to that. It is thinking like yours that lead to all the atrocities in humanities past. Pay attention because you are just opening the door to another Hitler. I don’t want that to happen Do you? Your comments are just as bad if not worse than the group you are accusing.
2. Joseph Roberts
The argument above is flawed on a number of levels, so allow me to explain. People have been asking the Government for over 100 years to stop using animal testing and it has only accelerated…this is despite overwhelming evidence that animal testing bears no relevance to human conditions!!!
As for the “friend with cancer”, I guess nobody’s told you that scientists can cure over 170 different types of cancer in mice yet none of the “cures” work in Humans…so the fact that a) 82% of Huntingdon’s tests are on rodents AND b) Maybe you should ask a “reputable” group like the Dr Hadwen trust, (www.drhadwentrust.org.uk), what they make of HLS’ “Ethics” Statement…I think you’ll be surprised by the response of the medical experts!
You can also check out their page for some acceptable alternatives which don’t require the use of animals, or humans, because that is their specialist area. However the Dr Hadwen Trust is a charity, which receives no Governmental support or grants, and is funded solely by donations from the public…which is an utterly ridiculous position.
In the last 5 years the UK Government has given £4M in grants to explore alternative methods to animal testing, yet they have spent more than that policing demonstrations against HLS and their associates, but they have donated £100s of Millions to animal research projects which have brought us nothing!
The idea that SHAC are “Anti-Science” is frankly laughable because animal testing has been shown to be utterly irrelevant to human health, as is explained by the experts from Europeans for Medical Progress, (www.curedisease.net), who campaign for the abolition of animal testing on scientific grounds. Now you may decide to dismiss their evidence as “propaganda” but if that is true then why will no vivisector, (animal tester), debate them on the scientific validity of animal experiments in a public forum???
Now moving on to your pitiful attempts to dilute the necessity of the actions being undertaken in the name of “proper” science and ridiculing the showdown between the protesters and HLS…the UK Government clearly supports animal testing, (due to a significant lobby who give substantial financial donations), which means that they will never stop animal testing unless they are forced to!
This means a continuation of the inadequate research which is the reason why there is no cure for cancer, alzheimers, AIDS and all the other terrible diseases that are ravaging our world. The reason scientists like to use animals is because, (in the words of one scientist), “You can prove anything with the animal model…you just have to use the right species”.
Drug companies aren’t interested in cures, they’re interested in treatments and profits. If they can sneak a substance on to the market and make a swift profit from it then when it gets withdrawn because a few hundred people died it doesn’t matter because they profited from it…and any comeback for the deaths is just blamed on the “animal model”!
So maybe you should have done your homework before declaring who is “right” or “wrong”…and as you seem to be such a big proponent of Ghandi maybe you’d like to consider his words before spouting your biased, ill informed nonsense…
“In matters of conscience, the law of the majority has no place” - Mohandas Gandhi
3. Adrian
Sigh.
I’m not sure this is even worth a response in so far I have covered the topic extensively several times.
Point 1 - Violence is not justified because you disagree with my views. You can protest all you want. Just do it legally. You live in a country where you have that right use it.
Point 2 - Animal models do work and have been used successfully and often offer no other alternatives. The rest of your argument is baloney. The reason we don’t have a cure for Aids is that we haven’t found one yet. It has nothing to do with animal modelling one way or the other.
My biased ill informed nonsense is anything but. Maybe you should study some science.