Response to reporting on SHAC sentencing.

Well the mainstream was very muted maybe because of Barrack Obama’s inauguration, maybe because the public may wonder what all the fuss is about, do a bit of research and start questioning the wisdom and morality of forcing pesticides down a beagle’s throat!

Only a couple of responses really… The judge Mr Butterfield stated that companies “had the right to conduct vital biomedical research”, well they do, shame that most of them torture animals instead often for trivial crap such as a something to make salmon a bit pinker, as long as the consumer buys the product and does not die of cancer too soon who cares? WE DO and we will continue to care for all victims human and non human. Lord Drayton science minister also chuntered on about “life saving medical research” adding that animals are killed only “where absolutely necessary” which includes nasal decongestants, floor cleaners, diet pills, Viagra and cosmetic Botox. Many people may not agree that testing a floor cleaner on a primate is “absolutely necessary” but this is how the government think.

The other old chestnut was that the defendants themselves did everything unlawful against HLS. They did not, they ran a campaign against a large unethical company, no evidence to our knowledge was given to the court of any of the defendants sending incendiary devices etc. Some have commented on the fact that one defendant shouted something that could be construed as threatening our response is that we think that a 4 year sentence for that is utterly ludicrous and highly politically motivated. If this was a neighbour dispute the police may have had a word about restraint at most so let us get this into perspective.

The sentences were meant to crush dissent, either that or the state actually believes that protests in which no-one was harmed are worse than trying to kill someone, actually killing someone, rape etc. Let us compare the sentences with real crime bearing in mind that Greg, Heather, Natasha and Gavin have a life sentence considering the ASBOs and that the judge remarked that he would like to have the option of an indeterminate sentence in this sort of case:

First up Neil Pringle who grabbed a woman and started strangling her in a terrifying sexual assault during which she was rendered unconscious and he tried to rape her. She walloped him and in 2008 he was finally brought to justice. Sentence 6 years and an entry on the sex register.

Peter Harfield raped a woman only weeks after she had given birth. He hunted her through a public park. The police did not believe her and it took 25 years before he was brought before a court and sentenced to 6 years and a lifelong entry on the sex offenders register.

Anthony Allen raped his own daughter repeatedly when she was a child. 11 years inside the same sentence as Heather!

Christopher Lewis and Martin Walker killed a 16 year old boy (manslaughter) by forcing him into deep water laughing as he drowned, prior to this he was punched, slapped, kicked and threatened with death. 5 ½ years so actually killing another human being is more acceptable than running a campaign in which no-one was killed according to the state! No ASBOs for them.

Tracey Matthews has just today been sentenced to 8 years in prison for kidnap, false imprisonment and perverting the course of justice! Not even in NETCU’s worst nightmares would any animal liberationist do what she did to a child. Heather will be in prison for 3 years longer AND be restrained by an ASBO indefinitely.

However badly the defendants are portrayed, even taking into consideration the lies and exaggerations, in comparison with predators that rape and kill for their own gratification these are ridiculously over the top sentences which aim to crush all dissent. To those who have asked why 3 defendants pleaded guilty it was very clear that this was to be a show trial they simply refused to play that game and it was their decision, not anyone else’s that counts.

Finally we would like to stress that although anger is justified against the police, CPS and judiciary in this case any premeditated, unlawful act is most certainly not in our view. Other defendants will have to face Judge Butterfield in only a few weeks, Mel’s retrial is ongoing and 3 activists are on trial in April all in all 11 more activists could face the same fate as the UK SHAC 7. We urge that no-one act on the fact that they may know where Neil Butterfield lives after this information was posted on Indymedia. At present the police have already got a warrant against an Indymedia server despite the fact that the address was removed quickly. Our enemies could use this not only to increase security in court rooms during forthcoming trials but to “protect” the jury, maybe by having them bussed in under police escort as they did at the Sequani trial. None of this will help the defendants as from day 1 the jury will be told in no uncertain terms that they are dangerous which is why anyone attending court has been asked to display nothing but the utmost restraint.

The growing threat of NETCUs quest for funding and hysterical attempts to get even more new laws to oppress us all with!

Have Steve and his gremlins had the donuts with the pink sprinkles on again? Maybe too much MSG in the takeaways? Maybe they have just got bored with animal rights people or maybe they have finally cottoned on to the fact that many animal rights people are also active against environmental desecration? Maybe they have decided that Earth First! is very effective.

Whatever it is the article in the Observer today (9th November 2008) is an appalling attempt to create a climate of hysteria against environmental activists. The best bit is when NETCU allegedly says (let us give them the benefit of the doubt journalists can tell big fibs);

“Officers are concerned a “lone maverick” eco-extremist may attempt a terrorist attack aimed at killing large numbers of Britons”.

Now why might NETCU’s hypothetical crazed environmentalist do such a thing? Well it appears that because some environmentalists are of the opinion that there are too many humans around it might help things, cull the herd so to speak in NETCUs warped imagination. Of course this is madness to cut the population by 80% the “lone maverick” would have quite a job on his or her hands having to murder 5 billion people in a short space of time. It is very unlikely unless of course in a darkened room at Hinchingbrooke the poor dears have allowed their imaginations run riot watching 28 days later where activists inadvertently release a plague which turns more or less the entire population into the flesh eating living dead. Maybe they think there is some James Bond type villain somewhere plotting the same sort of thing. Maybe they are having a great time all together in NETCU and want the funding to go on and on and on as well as telling tall stories to anyone who will listen about how heroic they all are even though they face nothing like the risks a police officer on a Saturday night in any town centre will face. Yes we know paper clips can be dangerous but not as much as a pissed bloke(s) wielding a broken bottle.

What concerns us is the way in which they attempt to criminalise a very valid opinion. The word “heretic” is not mentioned (how long before it is?) but NETCU are reported as saying that because arguments in favour of population decrease have been expressed that those individuals are prepared to kill. This is utter nonsense. For a start the human population is increasing rapidly, people are starving, land, air and water are defiled by our activities, entire species are being wiped out at unprecedented levels. To suggest that as a species we cut down our consumption of resources and limit our FUTURE numbers are valid points. How can those who do not exist suffer? No-one has EVER to our knowledge suggested genocide it is everything we are opposed to and if anything maybe NETCU should look to companies such as Nestle, or Shell, or Union Carbide who think nothing of mass murder or extremism in pursuit of profit! We at NW are utterly opposed to gross human rights violations such as those inflicted on babies in China in their attempt to curb population growth.

We believe that if the atrocities of starvation, preventable infant mortality, war, forced pregnancies, patriarchy and environmental devastation were solved that women especially would actively seek to limit their brood or even not have children at all (how many women really want loads of children?). The world population would drop dramatically over a generation or two, it has already happened in the West. Some of us activists have a few children, some have none, it is down to personal choice and seems to indicate a steady decrease in overall numbers.

To suggest that Earth First! is planning extreme violence would be laughable if it were not so sinister. Clearly NETCU wish to do something to justify their pitiful existence. We suspect that they are softening the public up for raids, serious charges and ever new ever more oppressive legislation. We also would like to warn the journalists involved in this disgraceful pro industry propaganda (Mark Townsend and Nick Denning) that they are undermining their own profession by promoting NETCUs not so hidden agenda. If one of them writes an article, even if that article is never published, which questions the wisdom of unlimited population expansion will they too be suspected of terrorism? Is it really up to NETCU to decide what we should all believe?

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.