|
U-Know! Forum » animal rights campaigners jailed |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
pooley 501 posts |
Jan 21, 2009, 16:00
|
||
|
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7837064.stm I may be opening myself up to abuse here, but i'm thick skinned (no, really) Good fucking job. These arseholes did far more damage than good. Where as I agree with their aims, they acted in an equally as vile way as the people they (and I) opposed.
|
|||
Rockabilly 206 posts |
Jan 21, 2009, 16:18
|
||
|
I totally agree with you. The animal rights lot are stamping on their own feet. We have the highest animal welfare standard in the world, they are now driving companies to take animals abroad, be it for slaughter or testing, where they may possible be really mistreated with no recourse to the law. Don't get me started on the amount of non-native species released into the wild such as mink.
|
|||
handofdave 3515 posts |
Jan 21, 2009, 16:41
|
||
Mm. Doesn't really jive to claim moral superiority and then resort to totally scummy underhanded methods. It also generates a lot of bad publicity that damages other activists who are acting above board... so in fact this bunch probably did more harm to their cause in the end.
|
|||
|
Popel Vooje 5373 posts |
Edited Jan 21, 2009, 16:45
Jan 21, 2009, 16:44
|
||
|
No abuse for this direction - but unlike you, I sympathise with the jailed campaigners. When it comes to the issue of animal research, the law is hugely weighted in favour of the drug companies who fund it, and contrary to the self-serving propoganda perpetrated by these companies, most of it is of no measurable benefit to the human race at all. Property desctruction is necessary evil in order to publicise the issue and penetrate the veil of secrecy that surrounds animal testing - if there was nothing to hide, there'd be no need for secrecy. But why do you think no-one is allowed inside animal labs other than the people who work there ? We're told such regulations exist in order to protect the safety of the researchers, but I smell bullshit there from the get-go.
|
|||
|
shanshee_allures 2563 posts |
Jan 21, 2009, 19:02
|
||
|
Popel Vooje wrote: No abuse for this direction - but unlike you, I sympathise with the jailed campaigners. When it comes to the issue of animal research, the law is hugely weighted in favour of the drug companies who fund it, I totally agree on the 'drug company' and secrecy front, but I do not see how their actions are appropriate in response or deserved of any sympathy. I'm more sympathetic to the 'innocent' humans (for not all their targets were involved in any animal research, some were family members, children probably - smashed windows, oh your dad's a paedo etc) than any of the animals they 'assume' to speak up for, and I think that will resonate with many of us, and we won't feel good about being forced into making that distinction. We've sort of discussed this one inside out earlier, and to support or even begin to understand the actions of these people surely rubbishes all the good work that's done to raise awareness of the horrors of animal labs. I can't see how being against animal testing and supporting change equates to finding any worth in the actions of these people at all. Yes, good they got jailed. But no, let's not forget all the poor critters who need our help also. x
|
|||
|
pooley 501 posts |
Jan 22, 2009, 11:26
|
||
|
Popel Vooje wrote: No abuse for this direction - but unlike you, I sympathise with the jailed campaigners. When it comes to the issue of animal research, the law is hugely weighted in favour of the drug companies who fund it, and contrary to the self-serving propoganda perpetrated by these companies, most of it is of no measurable benefit to the human race at all. Property desctruction is necessary evil in order to publicise the issue and penetrate the veil of secrecy that surrounds animal testing - if there was nothing to hide, there'd be no need for secrecy. But why do you think no-one is allowed inside animal labs other than the people who work there ? We're told such regulations exist in order to protect the safety of the researchers, but I smell bullshit there from the get-go. Property destruction is not a necessary evil in order to publicise the issue. You would be hard pressed to find anyone that does not know about it, and fairly hard pressed to find someone that doesn't object to it. This issue is a prime example of something that is allowed to continue through publis apathy. We all hate it, we all think it should stop but no one is pushing the issue in a way that will make the public stand up and be counted. Animal rights campaigners are, on the whole, a great group of people that work selflessly for a great cause. Muppets like these actually do the drug companies a big favour - the public can look at what these people did and despise them instead of the people they should despise. As for no one being allowed in except the people who work there, well if your family are going to be targeted ecause of your work you will end up being one secretive mother fucker. Allowing the researchers to be on the right end of public sympathy is not acceptable - we need to find a better way.
|
|||
|
handofdave 3515 posts |
Edited Jan 22, 2009, 12:48
Jan 22, 2009, 12:44
|
||
|
There seems to be a schism going on related to several issues when it comes to the subject of using violent protest. The riots in Greece, for example... I think everyone here agrees that the anger is a legitimate emotion and needs some form of channeling. But how that anger is channeled... It's my observation that smashing things up typically goes this way: Someone from the state, or the corporate world, offends and infuriates a segment of the population. A segment of that segment protests. A segment of THAT segment takes it upon themselves to demonstrate their anger with violent action. That violent action typically involves property damage that targets unrelated third parties. The larger world looks on and sees gangs of destructive anarchists raging. There is a backlash against the aims of the protesters in general, as most people end up connecting the vandalism with the goals of the legitimate protest. And so ultimately violent protest can and frequently does create a backlash against the protesters, even the peaceful ones, and serves to further isolate and stigmatize people who have legitimate grievances that the wider populace would otherwise support. Collective rage is unfocused and usually just ends up breaking a lot of shop windows. Some might get a thrill out of being in a melee or justify it as being a 'sincere' reaction to whatever injustice is being addressed, but when the end result is that the aims of the protesters are confused with those of youth violence it just backfires and further marginalizes the primary aims of the protest itself... I'm not dismissing the value of direct action. Occupations of buildings, sit-ins, marches, boycotts, there are plenty of ways a movement can effect change without resorting to random destruction, or even targeted destruction. The tactics must gain the sympathy of a wider audience, tho, if they are to succeed. If the only aim is to satisfy the anger of a small group then the result will likely be public antipathy and further retrenchment of the status quo.
|
|||
stray 2057 posts |
Edited Jan 22, 2009, 12:57
Jan 22, 2009, 12:51
|
||
|
hmm.. Theres a big difference between what these protestors did and what happens in a riot though. Riots don't tend to be premeditated events, they're a sudden violent outburst. Edit : Also, from the riots I've found myself in, I don't think the issues themselves were actually marginalised by the violence. In fact in all cases it has been a given that if it wasn't for the protest kicking off the issue wouldn't have attracted the media attention it did. Saying that, I'm talking of spontaneous violence, usually caused by heavy handed policing. I have no time for the actions of these animal rights protestors.
|
|||
|
handofdave 3515 posts |
Jan 22, 2009, 13:05
|
||
|
stray wrote: hmm.. Theres a big difference between what these protestors did and what happens in a riot though. Riots don't tend to be premeditated events, they're a sudden violent outburst. Lately I've noticed that there seems to be a trend towards peaceful protests being hijacked by reckless types, tho. The protests in Oakland California over the shooting of a man in the back started out peaceful, but ended up violent, and a lot of property owners who had nothing at all to do with that crime were hit. I don't know what can be done when outrage explodes outside of any organized control, but who gets hurt is usually the family and neighbors of the people who rampage. The LA riots after the aquittal of the cops that beat Rodney King only served to wreck the neighborhoods of the people living in them. Consequently, economics of those areas took a huge nosedive. There were even innocents who were dragged out of cars and attacked... proxy targets for the rioter's rage. There's little that a focused organization can do about rogue elements who take advantage of a protest to bust things up and go on looting sprees. I am just a bit alarmed that some otherwise very sensible people get caught up in what I can only surmise is a 'romantic' notion of street rage... a kind of nostalgia for the trappings of revolution.
|
|||
|
pooley 501 posts |
Jan 22, 2009, 13:11
|
||
|
stray wrote: hmm.. Theres a big difference between what these protestors did and what happens in a riot though. Riots don't tend to be premeditated events, they're a sudden violent outburst. Edit : Also, from the riots I've found myself in, I don't think the issues themselves were actually marginalised by the violence. In fact in all cases it has been a given that if it wasn't for the protest kicking off the issue wouldn't have attracted the media attention it did. Saying that, I'm talking of spontaneous violence, usually caused by heavy handed policing. I have no time for the actions of these animal rights protestors. hey, would you believe it? we agree (mainly) on summit. I would, however, add a few comments. Issues not marginalised by the violence. I don't quite go with you on this one. I agree that if an issue is constantly ignored then action is required to put it in the publics face. It's what that action is that is hard to get right. An example is the third runway at heathrow - I've talked about this before on here -the protesters that occupied stanstead did nothing to win over the public towards there cause. Green peace buying land needed to build a third runway did. Both are direct action, one alienates the other makes people on both sides of the arument stand up and take notice. And it actually has an effect on the outcome of what is being protested about. Heavy handed police - yeah, we've all seen 'em. Bastards in jack bo0ots just waiting to give some unwashed a kicking. Hate that type of copper. I have also seen protesters throw bricks, bottles at Police, and then back off so some innocent, less radical, protester gets a arrested forcefully - said bottle thrower then complains about police bruatlity on innocent protesters. both sides have dirty tricks
|
| Pages: 7 – [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| U-Know! Forum Index | |
