|
U-Know! Forum » animal rights campaigners jailed |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
stray 2057 posts |
Edited Jan 22, 2009, 13:20
Jan 22, 2009, 13:19
|
||
|
handofdave wrote: 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. Speaking as someone with first hand experience of stuff kicking off I can assure you that this attitude, although prevalent for the last 40 odd years of protest, is a myth. Seriously, I'd try and find someone who was actually there to talk to about it, 99/100 the Police fuck it up first. I'm not kidding here. Sure, there may be, and usually is a small group of people who turn up for a fight. However, if the majority of the protestors aren't interested in a fight then these people tend to get left naturally exposed by the crowd, and then usually get snatched by the coppers and noone weeps for them. Of course, if the police kick it off (the usual way they do it here in the UK is by blocking all exits and then telling you over a megaphone to disperse) then these 'I came for a fight' types get to run wild for a while. Usually behind the peaceful protestors throwing bricks, which land on us at the front line. I'm not a fan of them but.... A 'violent protestor' is, by far, usually a 'peaceful protestor' whose internal fight or flee circuit switched to fight once the tear gas and clubs rained in. Sometimes you flee, sometimes you snap and go 'fuck it then' and you stand and fight. which way you respond at the time is not something you can predict. Likewise you should not be judged for how you reacted in that extreme enviroment, at all, one way or the other. I also really hate calling these animal rights protestors, 'protestors'. It insults real protestors. These people were using organised terror tactics, they are terrorists. They did not want to rationally protest, they wanted to terrify everyone working in the research establishments, or unwittingly working for other companies that may supply them, into quitting their jobs and hiding. This is very, very different to normal protest.
|
|||
Merrick 2148 posts |
Jan 22, 2009, 14:04
|
||
|
It seems to me that a lot of what gets said about anti-vivisection campaigns boils down to 'well yes it's bad, but it doesn't warrant *that* extremity of action'. Which is fine if that's your view, but I have a problem when it gets mixed up with a position that says such action can never be justified for political ends. Frankly, we all believe it can, it's just that vivisection is, for most of us, not one of those cherished exceptions. pooley wrote: they acted in an equally as vile way as the people they (and I) opposed. handofdave wrote: Doesn't really jive to claim moral superiority and then resort to totally scummy underhanded methods The same can be said of, say, French resistance fighters killing people driving trains of Nazi supplies. I am NOT saying the vivisectors are as bad as Nazis; but we are discussing tactics of campaigns rather than what the campaign is about. handofdave wrote: It also generates a lot of bad publicity that damages other activists who are acting above board Popel Vooje wrote: Property desctruction is necessary evil in order to publicise the issue I think there's a major misunderstanding here. Who said it was about raising publicity? They didn't send out any press releases or anything, and appear to have tried to stay secret. It wasn't about publicity, it was a direct attack on the company. It was an attempt to intimidate people out of working for the animal testers and thereby make the company harder to run. pooley wrote: 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. handofdave wrote: 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. Tell that to the suffragettes. handofdave wrote: 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. I find it interesting you characterise property damage as violent protest. I also find it interesting that you think such damage never advances a cause (again, tell that to the Suffragettes), and that if only people restrained themselves from property damage then the wider public would get behind the cause without much delay. People going out defending wild nature by blowing up dams, how long would they wait to see the wider population's outrage reach a level where dams are demolished? handofdave wrote: The tactics must gain the sympathy of a wider audience, tho, if they are to succeed. That's simply untrue. The reason there's the campaign that started this thread - SHAC - is because of the successes of similar campaigns against people who bred animals for vivisection - Shamrock Farm monkeys, Hillgrove cats and Newchurch guinea pigs. Do you really think the ANC would've been any kind of force in South Africa if they'd worked peacefully for educating the wider population? Would Sinn Fein have had a seat at the table in Northern Ireland if they'd worked only in boycotts? I am NOT saying these things are essential to a successful campaign, nor am i saying every violent act undertaken in these campaigns - or necessarily the entire campaigns - are justified. But the idea that the violence didn't help the campaign is clearly false. handofdave wrote: 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. But, down here below your high horse, we know that's never the aim of any such campaign. handofdave wrote: 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. They certainly did damage those neighbourhoods, but to say that was their only effect is also plain nonsense. Ask Officer Powell and Officer Koon whether they regard their retrial's 30 months sentences as being the same as their original acquittal. That's just the obvious quantifiable thing, before we consider how it affected every other racist cop and what they chose to do in future to potential Rodney Kings.
|
|||
|
Merrick 2148 posts |
Jan 22, 2009, 14:07
|
||
|
pooley wrote: Bastards in jack bo0ots just waiting to give some unwashed a kicking. Hate that type of copper. Thing is, riots are very rarely about 'that type of copper'. They are the same coppers that give you the 'my daughter's a vegetarian and I think you'll find a lot of officers agree with you' speech earlier in the day, then the order comes to put on the visor and get out the clubs. They very rarely go apeshit. They are sent in as a cohesive force. The instigation of riots, the beating of anyone who happens to be within reach, this isn't the odd bad apple, it is the policing strategy on the day and all officers sent in participate.
|
|||
|
Popel Vooje 5373 posts |
Edited Jan 22, 2009, 14:29
Jan 22, 2009, 14:25
|
||
|
pooley wrote: 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 I disagree. On a site like this with a predominantly liberal, eco-friendly slant, perhaps we all hate it and think it should stop, but in my experience the vast majority of people out there couldn't care less. Even amongst people I know whose views are to the left of Tony Benn on most other issues still think animal suffering is a frivolous subject which only mollycoddled do-gooders can afford to give a damn about. I've lost count of the number of times I've tried to argue otherwise even with people whose views I respect on just about every other point on the scale. A former bass player friend whose acquaintance I have happily let slip - mainly because he's now earning shitloads and has become, quite frankly, a yuppie bore - has just taken up fox-hunting, for fecks' sake. And we're talking about someone who shares the same musical tastes (ie prog rock) as a good deal of the folk over on Unsung. Surely saying that you would be fairly hard pressed to find someone that doesn't object to vivsection, and yet it is allowed to continue through public apathy is a self-contradictory argument? If people really cared enough about it, it wouldn't be allowed to happen - end of story.
|
|||
|
shanshee_allures 2563 posts |
Jan 22, 2009, 14:32
|
||
|
stray wrote: I also really hate calling these animal rights protestors, 'protestors'. It insults real protestors. These people were using organised terror tactics, they are terrorists. They did not want to rationally protest, they wanted to terrify everyone working in the research establishments, or unwittingly working for other companies that may supply them, into quitting their jobs and hiding. This is very, very different to normal protest. Hear hear! I remain frustrared that anyone who does legitimately support the cause of animla rights should actually be anything other than disgusted at these morons. Soon as I fired up the computer today up comes my Google News homepage (my page of choice folks) and the headlines read 'animal rights nutters' etc, and tbh you gotta be a bit questionable (and, eh, 'minging') to send a used sanitary towel through the mail to anyone, no matter what. Now had they orchestrated a proper demonstration with accompanying literature etc the headlines might've read 'Animal rights MARCH'. People just see the 'NUTTERS' bit and bang goes any chance of sympathy and a good reason for naysayers to dig their heels in even more. I see them as traitors to the cause in a sense. x
|
|||
|
Popel Vooje 5373 posts |
Edited Jan 22, 2009, 14:46
Jan 22, 2009, 14:37
|
||
|
Merrick wrote: Popel Vooje wrote: Property desctruction is necessary evil in order to publicise the issue I think there's a major misunderstanding here. Who said it was about raising publicity? They didn't send out any press releases or anything, and appear to have tried to stay secret. It wasn't about publicity, it was a direct attack on the company. It was an attempt to intimidate people out of working for the animal testers and thereby make the company harder to run. Raising publicity is an inevitable by-product of attacking those connected with animal labs, regardless of whether or not press releases are sent out. Whether or not the resulting publicity is good or bad is a matter for debate, but the fact that we're discussing HLS here now is proof that it exists. Both the liberal and right-wing press love to jump on incidents like this, and I find it very hard to believe that those involved weren't media-savvy enough to realise that (not that this is in any way a criticism. It wasn't just personal attacks on the company that caused the Hillgrove cat farm to be closed down - the repercussions such attacks had in terms of public awareness simply made the insitution too unpopular to be a going concern any more. I do agree with the rest of your points, however.
|
|||
|
Moon Cat 9577 posts |
Edited Jan 22, 2009, 14:49
Jan 22, 2009, 14:41
|
||
A couple of years ago there was a documentary on a group of what you might call "extreme" animal rights protesters. It was clear from the outset that some members of the group were 'legitimate' protesters and others seemed to be allied to the cause as an opportunity to kick-off as and when. There was one guy who had just been released from prison after serving time for arson attacks in the name of animal rights and within 24 hours of release he was setting fires hither and thither again. Some might see that as commendable dedication but it seemed to me like he was a bloke that likes setting things on fire and the animal rights movement gave him a convenient outlet i.e he was a pyromaniac with a save the whale badge. I could pretty well imagine him setting fires for the first cause that happened along, which seems pretty damaging to the genuine protesters.
|
|||
|
Popel Vooje 5373 posts |
Edited Jan 22, 2009, 16:40
Jan 22, 2009, 14:49
|
||
Double post - deleted.
|
|||
pooley 501 posts |
Jan 22, 2009, 15:31
|
||
|
Popel Vooje wrote: Popel Vooje wrote: pooley wrote: 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 I disagree. On a site like this with a predominantly liberal, eco-friendly slant, perhaps we all hate it and think it should stop, but in my experience the vast majority of people out there couldn't care less. Even amongst people I know whose views are to the left of Tony Benn on most other issues still think animal suffering is a frivolous subject which only mollycoddled do-gooders can afford to give a damn about. I've lost count of the number of times I've tried to argue otherwise even with people whose views I respect on just about every other point on the scale. A former bass player friend whose acquaintance I have happily let slip - mainly because he's now earning shitloads and has become, quite frankly, a yuppie bore - has just taken up fox-hunting, for fecks' sake. And we're talking about someone who recycles, doesn't vote Tory, shares the same musical tastes (ie prog rock) as a good deal of the folk over on Unsung - not some Telehgraph-reading, Chardonnet-swilling, hooray-harry aristo thug. Surely saying that you would be fairly hard pressed to find someone that doesn't object to vivsection, and yet it is allowed to continue through public apathy is a self-contradictory argument? If people really cared enough about it, it wouldn't be allowed to happen - end of story. What I meant, popel, was that a huge majority of people hate animal cruelty, but lack the gumption (for want of a better word) to do anything about it. You have to make it easy for them to complain and vote against it, and socially unacceptable for them to allow it to continue. Anything that gives the drug comapnies the opportunity to come across as the injured party is wrong. And those idiots, who are justly imprisoned, have done us no favours.
|
|||
handofdave 3515 posts |
Edited Jan 22, 2009, 18:22
Jan 22, 2009, 18:20
|
||
|
Well, it's probably a good idea to have someone out there ready to throw some bricks when the sit-ins don't work. I should probably have prefaced everything I've said on the fact that, growing up, I was 'indoctrinated' heavily within the non-violent civil rights effort. My schoolteachers were very involved and got us involved.. even when we weren't really sure what it was we were singing about. I'll tell you a funny story, tho.. a true one.. I was at the same time as all this was going on a pretty typical boy, in that I was attracted to things that went 'boom'. In an art class one day I made a dummy stick of TNT with a toilet paper tube, some tape, a piece of yarn, and some red paint. When this was discovered, it created a lot of noise amongst the school administration and teachers. Feeling somehow that my little prank was a dire threat to the consciousness of the other children, the entire school was forced to sit thru a long assembly of anti-violence speeches by worried, wrinkle-browed adults!
|
| Pages: 7 – [ Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| U-Know! Forum Index | |
