Proportionality and the vilification of the animal rights movement
As we do our best to reduce our carbon footprint instead of central heating (which is for wimps…..only joking) we have a woodburning stove on which kettles are boiled and food cooked throughout the winter. For 2 years now old legal papers from injunctions and all manner of cases have helped us to do this lighting a nice warm fire for us all to bask in. Regrettably these papers cannot be recycled due to the confidential information contained within and we are near the end. Yesturday though some of the letters sent to HLS suppliers/customers emerged from the kindling box. Some of these were along the lines of “die scum die” etc and these were put up as part of bundles of evidence as harassment, fair enough although letters sent to some of us were of a similar sentiment.
However many of the letters were very polite and included the address of the sender, hardly in accordance with a criminal mastermind blackmail plot and if anyone felt “harassed” by them then they are delicate souls incapable of living in the real world, or, bare faced liars. All of the letters, however, are supposedly “evidence” of “harassment”. Some quotes from the letters are as follows, all are polite in their entirety, all were addressed to the company not a named individual.
“I would like to take this opportunity to respectfully request that you do all within your capability to ensure your company ceases trading with those nasty people……Thankyou for taking the time to read my letter…..Peace and God’s blessing to you”.
“Please read the leaflet I have enclosed”.
“I urge you to stop dealing with this heinous company”
“Animal tested drugs cause 18000 deaths in the UK every year”
“Please sever ties with HLS, thankyou”
“Why continue to support animal and human suffering to benefit fraudulent drug companies”
It has not been unknown for the police to threaten to arrest people who have written such letters. It’s nice and easy for them as letter writers have honestly given their home addresses and of course the officers concerned can pretend to themselves and the gullible that they are dealing with hardened terrorists rather than an octogenarian bookseller. Of course vivisectionists and all their sympathisers/lackeys in the police, the courts, government and the media will argue that polite letters should only be immune from prosecution if addressed to an MP or a newspaper but we would argue that many companies and their employees should first of all be able to cope with protest letters, secondly they might not be aware of the cruelty inflicted and wish to decide to make a stand against it. After all when some Marsh employees found out that the company they worked for insured HLS they created a huge fuss within the organisation and were utterly outraged. One very good reason why activists should be accessible and kind to workers many of whom may well be supportive of animal rights and potentially become very helpful allies.
It is easy to understand why people argue “rather a rat die than my baby”, this is visceral, it is natural and we empathise after all we too suffer from illness as do our close relatives. However we argue that the same argument could be used on the lines of “rather a murderer die than my baby” or even “rather a dear old retired nonagenarian nurse with Alzeimers die than my baby” it is all utterly unacceptable as all are sentient beings. Futhermore we only know if the results from the rats (or the murderer or the nonagenarian both of whom are adults NOT babies)are accurate once the baby has been given the drug in question, it may work, it may make things worse. Thousands of people die every year as a result of drugs tested as safe on non-human animals which are then toxic for humans. We utterly condemn research on other species and non compliant human subjects even for life threatening conditions on moral and scientific grounds, but we do understand that people want cures for diseases, we do too.
Prevention should also play a part people usually make a choice to eat too much, take illicit drugs, drink alcohol, smoke, use the car rather than walk dangle off of cliffs. Sympathies to all who become ill as a direct or indirect result of lifestyle and addictions, all deserve the best medical and nursing care but to suggest that animals should suffer for our indiscretions is despicable. There is a cure for being too fat it is called “exercise more, eat less” and it works for most people. There is a cure for alcoholism it is called “abstinence”. There is a cure for ACHD it is called “not pumping the little sods full of artificial additives and allowing them to exercise properly” which also works in many cases. There is a cure for not enough land to feed the masses, rivers being polluted with farm animal faeces, antibiotics in the human food chain contributing to “superbugs”, 18% of global warming, BSE, the vast majority of food poisoning and many other social, political, environmental and individual ailments, it is called “veganism”. Need we go on?
What is really galling is the way in which the vivisectors and their sympathisers and the general media rarely debate the use of innocent creatures in the UK to test frivolous products. Now if a group of yobs took a pregnant dog into a busy high street and starting forcing weedkiller down her throat what do you think would happen? Yes people would walk past, others might call the police, others would definitely intervene, they might even use violence after all various forums are full of non animal rights people promising to hurt those who have been found guilty of cruelty to animals http://www.carp.com/carp-forum/viewtopic.php?p=411927 . What if those who called the police were told “it’s legal, write to your MP, get the law changed”? Should they walk on, go home, write and wait for a reply? What if those who intervened and tried to rescue that poor dog were arrested and imprisoned? This is what has happened to the 2 groups of SHAC 7 both in the UK and USA, they tried to intervene and stop a catalogue of atrocities 500 of them committed every single day. The only differences between the gang in the street and HLS workers is closed doors, razorwire and a very thin veneer of respectability please log on to http://www.shac.net/HLS/what_tests.html and look at the papers which have come out of HLS. Vivisectors argue that they only abuse animals if it is absolutely necessary judge for yourself whether testing an artificial sweetener on a monkey, or nicotine on mice, or musk ( a scent for cleaners) on rats, or caramel food colouring on mice is “absolutely necessary” for anything else than utter greed. What HLS do is no better than the horror stories we all hear about when animals are tortured by disturbed or sadistic individuals, only problem is that no RSPCA inspector would ever be able to gain access to HLS without a prior appointment.
Some will argue that they really don’t care, maybe they will only care when for example a food colouring tested on animals is released onto the market and declared as “safe” is actually a carcinogen and directly threatens their miserable life. Indeed some vile creatures (Oxford Gossip….again) have pledged to only use shampoo recently tested on animals notably Proctor and Gambles Herbal Essences. Well we will have no sympathy for them when all their hair drops off and their skin erupts into toxic boils that’s for certain! The phrase “laugh like a drain” might be a more accurate description of our response, but deep down we would still feel sorry for them…..no really. Of course they won’t be able to sue Proctor and Gamble if this does happen because the company has “proven” the safety of the product by forcing it on those weaker than themselves.
A request to all vivisectors and the media; can we please stop the pretence that HLS is some sort of benevolent institution only concerned with saving lives and start to debate the ethics of forcing an artificial sweetener down a monkey’s throat?
Filed under: 1 | Tagged: animal cruelty, Animal Rights, Huntingdon Life Sciences, SHAC, Vivisection | Leave a Comment »