So you'd like to join the Animal Rights Militia and wanna know how?

[The Devil's Reject]

I know it gets confusing when you hear nutters talking about their favorite domestic terrorist groups. Animal Liberation Front, Justice Department, Animal Rights Militia - what do they all mean?

Fortunately, with an internet connection one can delve into these scummy groups of cultists and zealots and see what's what.

It seems none of these are really "groups" in the way we might think. Since they are domestic terrorist organizations, they have to set themselves up very carefully.

When someone decides to take action, they choose a specific label under which they took the action based on the nature of their action. This way, for example, the ALF can claim they are not trying to hurt anybody, because the more violent actions are being done by the ARM. In other words, if your action does not involve intentionally harming others, you label it an "ALF action." If the nature of your action involves violence where you either disregard the safety of others, or intentionally attack others, then you choose a label like "Animal Rights Militia" for your action.

This is from the horse's mouth, the United Kingdom's ALF press officer Robin Webb, from a web site called (appropriatey for such zealots) No Compromise.

It seems there was some confusion from someone in a previous thread. Although I had linked to a BBC article that discussed mail bombs, fire bombs, arson, death threats, and other barbarian acts, the person wanted to pretend that Morrissey was really talking actions of a more non-violent nature, even though Morrissey's own words made it clear he was talking about violence.

To the extent there was still any doubt, I'm sorry to report the truth. When Morrissey told his fan that he should emulate the Animal Rights Militia, he was specifically talking about violent actions which deregard the safety of people. That is the definition of an ARM action. According to the ALF's spokesperson, it's what distinguishes actions taken under the label "Animal Rights Militia" from actions taken under the label "Animal Liberation Front."

From the horse's mouth, the key being the very last sentence:

http://www.nocompromise.org/issues/22robin.html
==========

NC: How would you deal with someone who says they want to “join” the A.L.F.?

It may be reasonably argued that one is only a member of the A.L.F. whilst actually undertaking an A.L.F. action. There is no membership list of elite compassionate commandos.

The A.L.F. has had, and retains, an unchanging triad of policies. One, to rescue individual animals from suffering or potential suffering then place them in good, permanent homes or, where appropriate, release them into their natural environment.

Two, to damage or destroy property and equipment associated with animal abuse. That has a dual effect. It takes that property out of the arena of animal abuse, so that it can no longer be used to cause harm. Also, it compounds the economic loss by increasing insurance premiums and security costs not just for the company or institution attacked, but also across that whole discipline of exploitation. The simple intention is to price them out of business.

The third policy is to take every reasonable precaution not to harm or endanger life, either human or non-human.

Anyone, so long as they follow at least a vegetarian—but preferably vegan—lifestyle, can go out and undertake an action that falls within those policies and claim it as the Animal Liberation Front. There is no hierarchy; there are no leaders. There is just a compulsion to follow your heart in pursuit of justice. That is why the A.L.F. cannot be smashed, it cannot be effectively infiltrated, it cannot be stopped. You, each and every one of you: you are the A.L.F.

And if someone wishes to act as the Animal Rights Militia or the Justice Department? Simply put, the third policy of the A.L.F. no longer applies.

==========

So, an action taken under the label "Animal Rights Militia" is one where the third policy does not apply, and the third policy is taking "reasonable precautions not to harm or endanger life, either human or non-human."

(When I read this bit about precautions not to harm NON-human life, a little light bulb went off in my head. When you commit arson, of course the fire will inevitably kill animals, such as lil birdies and lil mousies.)

[The Devil's Reject]

The question put to Morrissey was:
"Q13: WHAT WOULD BE YOUR MESSAGE TO THE WORLD TO MAKE LIFE BETTER FOR ANIMALS ON OUR PLANET?"

Morrissey chose to tell his fan to be like the Animal Rights Militia in Englan, which is a label specifically for violent actions taken that disregard harm to others, or intentionally harm others.

Morrissey says they are "usually very intelligent people who are forced to act because the law is shameful or amoral."

Are they intelligent people?

Here is a person who acted under the ARM influence who was actually determined to be a mentally ill schyzophrenic.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,556150,00.html

The mentally ill can be intelligent, but I tend to think it was the mental illness under the influence of those promoting the ARM that caused him to act.

The consequences included a woman losing her eye and the injury of a little girl.

For 3 months this mentally sick person sent letter bombs in the name of animal rights.

The judge declared: "You conducted a dreadful campaign sending nail bombs through the post, putting people at risk and causing, in the case of one lady, the most dreadful injury, blinding her in one eye. In my view, this was pure evil."

I found this part chilling:
"The youngest victim was Leah Cain, six, who opened a package addressed to her father Michael, a pest control officer, at their home in Church Lawton, Cheshire, last New Year's Eve. It was packed with ball bearings and springs and Leah dropped the parcel before it exploded, causing superficial leg and feet injuries.... The court was told that the family now felt unsafe in their own home. Leah has changed from an outgoing girl to a timid child who often cries when she is left at school."

Pure evil, indeed. But what do you expect when you promote terrorism? I know a certain pop singer wants to be "controversial" and "Edgy" to sell records, but look what he's encouraging. It's a fact that mental illness is high amongst True-To-You's readership, and I wouldn't be surprised if the next schyzophrenic who ruins his life and terrorizes others first got the idea in order to impress his favorite singer.

"Jonathan Davies opened an envelope packed with nails, labelled ARM (animal rights militia), which exploded while the shop was full of customers. In January, a bomb was sent to a pet and reptile centre in Coventry, also labelled ARM. The device failed to detonate."

Very intelligent person? You be the judge.

Spare me the singer's bullshit about my country's war against terrorism, thank you very much.

[The Devil's Reject]

I noticed on these lunatic web sites - No Compromise - that they offer words of sympathy to the terrorist, Bill Rodgers, who recently committed suicide in jail.

The Seattle Times tells the story:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002700316_suicide23m.html

He fire-bombed a lab in Olympia, and burned down a horticulture center at the University of Washington.

In the end he wasn't able to elude the FBI. Sitting alone in a jail cell the other day, he committed suicide. "The county medical examiner determined Rodgers had suffocated after placing a plastic bag over his head while being held in a one-person cell."

Although I hate this zealot's violent actions, now that he's gone and offed himself, I mostly feel sorry for him. He was hooked up with the ELF, and if you check the ALF's web site, the ELF is their "sister organization", focusing on environmental terrorism. You know, these are the freaks who get pissed, for example, if a resort like Vail develops some land for people to enjoy snow-skiing. Fascists that they are, they must attack anyone who would dare ski on nature's purity.

I feel sorry for this man because his life story is so pathetic, and I hold most of my blame for the cult that influenced him.

Fuck the people who caused this to happen, and anyone who supports them. Intelligent people? Look how Bill Rodger's life ended.

[The Devil's Reject]

[Bluebirds]

As Littlejohn has just discovered he is in love with Tony Benn and Garry Bushell is set to become a monk, Rupert Murdoch has recruited his new columnist... namely this bloke. (See above)

Um what on earth else could he be trying to achieve? He writes like Norman Tebbit with a hotel on his head (ok thats not too funny but..... well it is actually)
Anyway it raises a good old titter in work with lines such as environmental terrorists preventing people from building ski resorts (or something!) I'll tell Mark E Smith, he could use that for his next record.

Can you get Celebrity Big Brother in the States? You should do and then you could shout abuse at George Galloway whilst throwing glasses or working out whether you'd prefer to go to bed with Pete Burns or Jodie Marsh. Or maybe at the same time. And they say the US is culturally impoverished.

[The Devil's Reject]

Does this mean you prefer to place a smiley face on vile acts of terrorism? Or, you don't care but can't tolerate people who do? Or, you don't think Morrissey's support for terrorism undermines his constant and hateful commentaries about those fighting terrorism? Or, you don't consider the ARM a terrorist group? Or, you consider those who act under the ARM banner to be intelligent? Or, you don't think it's a legitimate topic for a forum based on a singer who just told his fans to join the ARM, but you can't stick to threads that do interest you?

Good of you to work Rupert Murdoch into your pointless message. Always a tell-tale of people of a certain ilk who can never refute points, only attack the people making them.

What on earth is the pop singer trying to achieve? Just another fool with a radical view? A zealot who wants scientists working on cures for cancer to be blown up and if the bomb hurts the scientists' kid by accident...oh well. That charming man!

[Bluebirds]

> Good of you to work Rupert Murdoch into your pointless message. Always a
> tell-tale of people of a certain ilk who can never refute points, only
> attack the people making them.

Good of you to work islamic fundamentalists, animal rights activists/ terrorists, lost astronauts and insomniacs into yours!

To be honest, MATE, I don't usually bother reading your right wing reactionary rubbish, but on the occasion when i do it always raises a titter. You do seem dangerously pre-occupied with Morrissey the myth/ political animal (if you'll pardon the pun.) Most people couldn't give a tuppeny f---.

Do you think he (Moz) should "come out" then as he has used a lot of gay iconography in his work? Do you think his refusal is to the detriment of the gay community? Or should he do the Peter Tatchell thing and go and pester Mugabe or something? Me? I don't care.

I also don't care for your political rants and views. What did you do before the internet? And the Rupert Murdoch allegory was/is cos you do sound like Garry Bushell. Which is unfortunate, in the extreme.

So what are your views on Diego Maradona then? Or Tim Robbins? Or ooh I don't know hmmmmm knitting?

Hasta la victoria siempre.

[Jo Jo70]

I'm joking (of course). I support the aims of the ALF, but not all of their actions. The ALF exist because they are not permitted a voice, even in supposedly democratic societies.
They exist because animal experimentation is a hidden, secretive practice. It has to be hidden, because if the wider public were ever to discover what was happening to animals in the name of science they would be rightly horrified, and demand that it be stopped.

I am sick to death of seeing your factually inaccurate rants on here about a subject you clearly have no sympathy for, or understanding of. WHY DO YOU BOTHER?

And why do you dedicate so much of your time to Morrissey, when you obviously have no respect for the man or his beliefs.
WHY DO YOU COME HERE?

[Let's Go Devils]

> Does this mean you prefer to place a smiley face on vile acts of
> terrorism? Or, you don't care but can't tolerate people who do? Or, you
> don't think Morrissey's support for terrorism undermines his constant and
> hateful commentaries about those fighting terrorism? Or, you don't
> consider the ARM a terrorist group? Or, you consider those who act under
> the ARM banner to be intelligent? Or, you don't think it's a legitimate
> topic for a forum based on a singer who just told his fans to join the
> ARM, but you can't stick to threads that do interest you?

> Good of you to work Rupert Murdoch into your pointless message. Always a
> tell-tale of people of a certain ilk who can never refute points, only
> attack the people making them.

> What on earth is the pop singer trying to achieve? Just another fool with
> a radical view? A zealot who wants scientists working on cures for cancer
> to be blown up and if the bomb hurts the scientists' kid by accident...oh
> well. That charming man!
This is why singers should stick to singing and political scientists should stick to making political statements. You don't see Ann Coulter singing.
Look around your house and you would be surprised what in your house was tested on animals. Morrissey admitted to taking anti-depressants how does he think they were tested? That laundrey detergent he uses, tested on animals, dyes used in his jeans, tested on animals.
If you don't like something, run for political office, write your representatives, or peacefully protest,you don't bomb people.
I'm guessing that thing about LA was from when he was detained in LAX. He's been in the US on a visitors visa for 8 years and made that statement about wishing Bush died instead.What does he expect? If he did that in Iraq while Saddam was in power It would be a lot worse than being detained at Baghdad international for a couple of hours.

[Jo Jo70]

> This is why singers should stick to singing and political scientists
> should stick to making political statements.

So a musician has no right to have a political or ethical opinion? What about Bob Geldof? Bono? That would mean no Live Aid or Live8.
Are you suggesting that Morrissey should keep quiet because his opinions may offend certain people? Do you know nothing about the man?

Yes the majority of medicines were tested on animals at some stage, and many of them have gone on to cause serious side effects in humans, because hey, we're not animals!
It is possible to exist without eating or wearing animals, or buying animal tested products. I know this because I have done so for the last sixteen years. (she says in her best self righteous voice).

[Bluebirds]

> I'm joking (of course). I support the aims of the ALF, but not all of
> their actions. The ALF exist because they are not permitted a voice, even
> in supposedly democratic societies.
> They exist because animal experimentation is a hidden, secretive practice.
> It has to be hidden, because if the wider public were ever to discover
> what was happening to animals in the name of science they would be rightly
> horrified, and demand that it be stopped.

> I am sick to death of seeing your factually inaccurate rants on here about
> a subject you clearly have no sympathy for, or understanding of. WHY DO
> YOU BOTHER?

> And why do you dedicate so much of your time to Morrissey, when you
> obviously have no respect for the man or his beliefs.
> WHY DO YOU COME HERE?

I just do :-) Oh sorry you weren't referring to me. Or at least I hope not.

You're right about the hidden world of animal experiments. My mate worked as a lab assistant in a university, quite renowned for its scientific research. He had worked there previously, chopping up dead human bodies for scientific purposes and then went to Australia for a year (understandably)

He could only stomach 3 weeks on his return. He was moved to a different sector, namely involving vivisection. And although he was used to the breeding of said animals purely for scientific research he just couldn't abide the working environment any longer.

Now? Well hes become an Islamic fundamentalist, grown a beard and is training on Bin Laden's terrorist training camps.... see that Devil's reject does have a point!!! THAT rhymes with TW.. by the way

[Jo Jo70]

> Now? Well hes become an Islamic fundamentalist, grown a beard and is
> training on Bin Laden's terrorist training camps.... see that Devil's
> reject does have a point!!! THAT rhymes with TW.. by the way

Ho-ho! It is of course a natural progression.
I can't begin to imagine how anyone could tolerate working in such an environment.
However 'scientific' your view on this subject might be, you would still be regularly witnessing the suffering of terrified animals. And these are sentient, intelligent creatures like monkeys, who experience the same physical and pyschological stress as us.
Have you ever seen any vivesection footage? I can't bring myself to watch any more because it plays on my mind for weeks afterwards. I may be a particularly 'sensitive' type, but surely it would have a similar affect on the hardest heart? And that is precisely why it must be hidden. The moment you begin to empathise with the suffering of another creature is the moment you realise this can't be justified.

[Let's Go Devils]

> So a musician has no right to have a political or ethical opinion? What
> about Bob Geldof? Bono? That would mean no Live Aid or Live8.
> Are you suggesting that Morrissey should keep quiet because his opinions
> may offend certain people? Do you know nothing about the man?
I wan't implying violating Morrissey's first amendment rights but I do think artists have a lot of influence over some of their fans. Would it be too much for Morrissey to reaserch it a bit and not in a creepy Tom Cruise sort of way.
I don't think Bono agrees with Bush's politics but he did go to the white house and ask for some finacial help to fight AIDS. Until Morrissey goes to the Boxers or the Feinsteins that is an unfair comparison to Bono or Bob Geldof and really belittles their work. Live Aid/8 is more productive than going on a site and calling Bush a terrorist or saying he is responsible for E Coli.
> Yes the majority of medicines were tested on animals at some stage, and
> many of them have gone on to cause serious side effects in humans, because
> hey, we're not animals!
any chemical you put in your body is going to have side effects.
> It is possible to exist without eating or wearing animals, or buying
> animal tested products. I know this because I have done so for the last
> sixteen years. (she says in her best self righteous voice).
If that's the case you would be a good spokesperson to speak out against using animal tested products.Unfortunatly you don't have the exposure that Morrissey does.

[Jo Jo70]

I would never belittle the achievements of Bono or Geldof. I used them as an example precisely because they have achieved so much by being very vocal about their political opinions. Of course they have been politically active in a way that Morrissey would probably not want to be. Although his very public support for PETA must count for something?

I don't have Morrissey's exposure yet. Once I get that first novel published it will be a different story (groan!).

[Ronnie Lee]

ANIMAL RIGHTS IS ONE STRUGGLE ONE FIGHT!

LIBERATE LIBERATE LIBERATE!

ALF.

[..p.i..e...]

> This is why singers should stick to singing and political scientists
> should stick to making political statements. You don't see Ann Coulter
> singing.
> Look around your house and you would be surprised what in your house was
> tested on animals. Morrissey admitted to taking anti-depressants how does
> he think they were tested? That laundrey detergent he uses, tested on
> animals, dyes used in his jeans, tested on animals.
> If you don't like something, run for political office, write your
> representatives, or peacefully protest,you don't bomb people.
> I'm guessing that thing about LA was from when he was detained in LAX.
> He's been in the US on a visitors visa for 8 years and made that statement
> about wishing Bush died instead.What does he expect? If he did that in
> Iraq while Saddam was in power It would be a lot worse than being detained
> at Baghdad international for a couple of hours.

Singers should stick to singing? And you're worried about fascism?

Saddam is worse that Bush. Got it. Do you understand how poor that argument is? Because there is a country in which he would have had less freedom of speech somehow justifies his being detained. What if he had said it in China? Why aren't we invading them?

Shouldn't bomb people. We agree on that. Of course that means the President is a terrorist since he uses bombs.

[Let's Go Devils]

> I would never belittle the achievements of Bono or Geldof. I used them as
> an example precisely because they have achieved so much by being very
> vocal about their political opinions. Of course they have been politically
> active in a way that Morrissey would probably not want to be. Although his
> very public support for PETA must count for something?

> I don't have Morrissey's exposure yet. Once I get that first novel
> published it will be a different story (groan!).
fingers crossed and when it happens I want an autographed copy!!

[Jo Jo70]

> fingers crossed and when it happens I want an autographed copy!!

What, so you can flog it for an extortionate price? I know!
Ummm...I haven't actually written it yet, but when I do it will be a masterpiece.
I certainly have plenty of ripe material. Dysfunctional parenting (there's a trilogy in there alone), crazy work place nonsense, loopy landladies with kettle fixations, and of course obsessive Morrissey fans. You'll all be in there!

[Jo Jo70]

> fingers crossed and when it happens I want an autographed copy!!

What, so you can flog it for an extortionate price? I know!
Ummm...I haven't actually written it yet, but when I do it will be a masterpiece.
I certainly have plenty of ripe material. Dysfunctional parenting (there's a trilogy in there alone), crazy work place nonsense, loopy landladies with kettle fixations, and of course obsessive Morrissey fans. You'll all be in there!

[Theo van Gogh Martyrs Brigade]

> This is why singers should stick to singing and political scientists
> should stick to making political statements. You don't see Ann Coulter
> singing.
> Look around your house and you would be surprised what in your house was
> tested on animals. Morrissey admitted to taking anti-depressants how does
> he think they were tested? That laundrey detergent he uses, tested on
> animals, dyes used in his jeans, tested on animals.

I will be watching closely when Morrissey gets ill. He has impliedly pledged to not accept any medical treatements or drugs that were based on any research on animals. I kind think I know how that will play out, however, given Morrissey's vanity exception for leather, his love of over-priced, show-offy Gucci clothes, and all that crap.

> If you don't like something, run for political office, write your
> representatives, or peacefully protest,you don't bomb people.

Yes, Devils, I agree 100%. What is sad is that Morrissey keeps talking like he is making a stand against barbarism at the very same time he advocates animal-rights extremist mail bombs, arson, death threats, razor blades sin the mail, etc.

> I'm guessing that thing about LA was from when he was detained in LAX.
> He's been in the US on a visitors visa for 8 years and made that statement
> about wishing Bush died instead.What does he expect? If he did that in
> Iraq while Saddam was in power It would be a lot worse than being detained
> at Baghdad international for a couple of hours.

Actually, if my memory is correct (and it may not be), the LAX thing was some confusion over names.

[Theo van Gogh Martyrs Brigade]

> I'm joking (of course). I support the aims of the ALF, but not all of
> their actions. The ALF exist because they are not permitted a voice, even
> in supposedly democratic societies.

How are they not permitted a voice???? There are plenty of people and groups who advocate animal rights without violence. People like you always say things like "supposedly democratic societies." I don't think for a minute that you really support democracy, nor does Morrissey. That's what your problem is. Lots of people don't accept some of your beliefs, and so rather than persuading, you want to support terrorist groups that will harass them, intimidate them, attack them, and force them to submit.

And I'm curious why people keep ignoring the crucial evidence I presented, straight from the ALF's mouths. That ARM actions are, by definition, more extreme and more violent than actions under the ALF label.

> I am sick to death of seeing your factually inaccurate rants on here about
> a subject you clearly have no sympathy for, or understanding of. WHY DO
> YOU BOTHER?

You'll have to state what was factually innacurate.

[Jo Jo70]

' How are they not permitted a voice???? There are plenty of people and groups who advocate animal rights without violence.'

Yes, and I have already said that I don't personally advocate violence for any cause.
But like Morrissey, I can understand why 'people' are driven to take desperate action.
Have you any idea how difficult it is to protest about this? Have you heard of Huntingdon Life Sciences, or the new experimental lab at Oxford University, which is currently being built? You can't get anywhere near them to protest because there are exclusion zones.
You are permitted to voice your opinion in Oxford one afternoon a week. Is this democracy?

'People like you always say things like "supposedly democratic societies."

I would be grateful if you didn't generalise. I am an individual thank you.

'I don't think for a minute that you really support democracy..'

Yes I do.

'That's what your problem is. Lots of people don't accept some of your beliefs, and so rather than persuading, you want to support terrorist groups that will harass them, intimidate them, attack them, and force them to submit.'

My problem?! I don't expect everyone to support my beliefs, but I do believe in the right to express them. As you have a right to your beliefs (much as it galls me to say it.)
I don't support intimidation, but EDUCATION. Why are we not allowed to see what is going on in those laboratories? Why can we not hand out leaflets or demonstrate outside those hell-holes? Could it be because ignorance is easier to police? It is only the undercover investigations of animal rights 'people' that gives us some indication of the sheer horror involved.
As you can see, I believe in asking questions. Can this kind of suffering be justified at any cost?

' You'll have to state what was factually innacurate.'
I suggest you do some more homework.

[Theo van Gogh Martyrs Brigade]

> Yes, and I have already said that I don't personally advocate violence for
> any cause.
> But like Morrissey, I can understand why 'people' are driven to take
> desperate action.

If you don't advocate violence, you are not like Morrissey. He stated: "I support the efforts of the Animal Rights Militia in England and I understand why fur-farmers and so-called laboratory scientists are repaid with violence - it is because they deal in violence themselves and it's the only language they understand - the same principals that apply to war. You reach a point where you cannot reason with people."

> Have you any idea how difficult it is to protest about this?

I have no idea how difficult it is to protest in England, but in the USA it's extremely easy, protected as we are by a First Amendment etched into stone. I recommend every country etching something similar into stone. While England does not have as much free speech protection as the USA, I'd guess it's probably easy to protest there as well, but it's only a guess.

>Have you
> heard of Huntingdon Life Sciences, or the new experimental lab at Oxford
> University, which is currently being built?

I've heard of Huntingdon Life Sciences. If some of the things I've heard are true, I'm not inclined to write any briefs in support of that outfit's practices, since they probably do deserve to be protested.

>You can't get anywhere near
> them to protest because there are exclusion zones.
> You are permitted to voice your opinion in Oxford one afternoon a week. Is
> this democracy?

Without saying a word specifically about the exclusion zones you mention (as I don't know anything about them or how reasonable they are), you seem bright enough to understand that in a democracy there are often situations where competing rights need to be balanced, correct? I mean we do all have to live together, after all, so we can't just trample all over everyone else's rights and thus render their rights meaningless while we're exercising our own rights.

For example, the ACLU in the USA, who are pretty hardcore about freedom of speech, have also taken part in ensuring the rights of abortion clinics, and women who exercise their consitutional right to reproductive freedom, are protected, in addition to protecting the rights of those protesting aborton clinics. There is the right to peaceful protest, but there are also women who have the right to reproductive choice, and there is the right of those working in abortion clinics to have their health and safety protected. The task of the courts is to work out solutions that seek to accomdate the rights of all of these people. That is how it works in a democracy.

> My problem?! I don't expect everyone to support my beliefs, but I do
> believe in the right to express them. As you have a right to your beliefs
> (much as it galls me to say it.)
> I don't support intimidation, but EDUCATION.

Call me a skeptic that what has been going on towards Huntingdon is just run of the mill peaceful protesting to merely educate. Animal rights protestors aren't exactly known for being so respectful towards others, after all they get a kick out of throwing paint on women walking down the street.

So it's not surprising that I can Google and in 5 seconds find this article:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1123405,00.html

And it says:

"They say they need protection from the “terrorist tactics” of protesters, including assault, vandalism and letters accusing directors of paedophilia being sent to their neighbours. ....
Figures published this week showed 46 attacks on personal, company and public property between January and March, more than double the number in that period last year. The campaign against employees has included kidnap threats to families, bricks thrown through windows, houses daubed with paint and acid thrown over cars. Brian Cass, chief executive of HLS, was attacked with baseball bats, and other staff have also been assaulted and abused. One manager was temporarily blinded when ammonia was thrown in his eyes."

Funny you didn't mention any of that.

Or this:

"Activists recently published on the internet the names and addresses of lawyers acting for the companies, the High Court judges who granted the injunctions and their mothers. 'Not even the IRA used that tactic,' Mr Lawson-Cruttendon [a lawyer representing the companies] said. 'They try to defame anyone who stands up to them. When they put my name and address on the web it meant I had to spend money protecting myself. I’ve had security put in my office at a cost of thousands of pounds, which is what they intended.'"

Ah, that's exactly what anti-abortion acvtivists once did in America.

Here's another on that baseball bat attack, where some ALF guy says the victim got what he deserved: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/02/24/nhls124.xml

Here is an ARM message posted on an animal rights web site that was sent to 200 people connected with Huntingdon that threatens them with violence: http://www.directaction.info/news_dec23_03.htm

And - so we can laugh at how these types are as stupid as they are fanatical - here's an article about how animal rights folks thought they were vandalizing the home of someone connected with Huntingdon but it turned out they had spray painted nasty messages all over the home of some guy who works in real estate but who's name was similar to the person they wanted to harass: http://www.wnbc.com/news/4808135/detail.html

Anyway, your message was dishonest. Your presentation painted a picture of how the government is trying to take away all over your rights to protest, yet you didn't mention at all that these "exclusion zones" only came up in reaction to harassment, intimdiation, vandalism, physical attacks, kidnap threats, bricks thrown through windows, etc. I don't have enough facts to know whether these exclusion zones are set up in a way that accomodates the rights of peaceful protestors. But I can see why there were lawyers going to court to argue for them.

>Why are we not allowed to see
> what is going on in those laboratories?

I think labs should be transparent. Wasn't MP Tony Banks (RIP) trying to pass legislation about that?

[yawn]

> If you don't advocate violence, you are not like Morrissey. He stated:
> "I support the efforts of the Animal Rights Militia in England and I
> understand why fur-farmers and so-called laboratory scientists are repaid
> with violence - it is because they deal in violence themselves and it's
> the only language they understand - the same principals that apply to war.
> You reach a point where you cannot reason with people."

> I have no idea how difficult it is to protest in England, but in the USA
> it's extremely easy, protected as we are by a First Amendment etched into
> stone. I recommend every country etching something similar into stone.
> While England does not have as much free speech protection as the USA, I'd
> guess it's probably easy to protest there as well, but it's only a guess.

> I've heard of Huntingdon Life Sciences. If some of the things I've heard
> are true, I'm not inclined to write any briefs in support of that outfit's
> practices, since they probably do deserve to be protested.

> Without saying a word specifically about the exclusion zones you mention
> (as I don't know anything about them or how reasonable they are), you seem
> bright enough to understand that in a democracy there are often situations
> where competing rights need to be balanced, correct? I mean we do all have
> to live together, after all, so we can't just trample all over everyone
> else's rights and thus render their rights meaningless while we're
> exercising our own rights.

> For example, the ACLU in the USA, who are pretty hardcore about freedom of
> speech, have also taken part in ensuring the rights of abortion clinics,
> and women who exercise their consitutional right to reproductive freedom,
> are protected, in addition to protecting the rights of those protesting
> aborton clinics. There is the right to peaceful protest, but there are
> also women who have the right to reproductive choice, and there is the
> right of those working in abortion clinics to have their health and safety
> protected. The task of the courts is to work out solutions that seek to
> accomdate the rights of all of these people. That is how it works in a
> democracy.

> Call me a skeptic that what has been going on towards Huntingdon is just
> run of the mill peaceful protesting to merely educate. Animal rights
> protestors aren't exactly known for being so respectful towards others,
> after all they get a kick out of throwing paint on women walking down the
> street.

> So it's not surprising that I can Google and in 5 seconds find this
> article:

> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1123405,00.html And it says:

> "They say they need protection from the “terrorist tactics” of
> protesters, including assault, vandalism and letters accusing directors of
> paedophilia being sent to their neighbours. ....
> Figures published this week showed 46 attacks on personal, company and
> public property between January and March, more than double the number in
> that period last year. The campaign against employees has included kidnap
> threats to families, bricks thrown through windows, houses daubed with
> paint and acid thrown over cars. Brian Cass, chief executive of HLS, was
> attacked with baseball bats, and other staff have also been assaulted and
> abused. One manager was temporarily blinded when ammonia was thrown in his
> eyes."

> Funny you didn't mention any of that.

> Or this:

> "Activists recently published on the internet the names and addresses
> of lawyers acting for the companies, the High Court judges who granted the
> injunctions and their mothers. 'Not even the IRA used that tactic,' Mr
> Lawson-Cruttendon [a lawyer representing the companies] said. 'They try to
> defame anyone who stands up to them. When they put my name and address on
> the web it meant I had to spend money protecting myself. I’ve had security
> put in my office at a cost of thousands of pounds, which is what they
> intended.'"

> Ah, that's exactly what anti-abortion acvtivists once did in America.

> Here's another on that baseball bat attack, where some ALF guy says the
> victim got what he deserved:
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/02/24/nhls124.xml
> Here is an ARM message posted on an animal rights web site that was sent
> to 200 people connected with Huntingdon that threatens them with violence:
> http://www.directaction.info/news_dec23_03.htm And - so we can laugh at
> how these types are as stupid as they are fanatical - here's an article
> about how animal rights folks thought they were vandalizing the home of
> someone connected with Huntingdon but it turned out they had spray painted
> nasty messages all over the home of some guy who works in real estate but
> who's name was similar to the person they wanted to harass:
> http://www.wnbc.com/news/4808135/detail.html Anyway, your message was
> dishonest. Your presentation painted a picture of how the government is
> trying to take away all over your rights to protest, yet you didn't
> mention at all that these "exclusion zones" only came up in
> reaction to harassment, intimdiation, vandalism, physical attacks, kidnap
> threats, bricks thrown through windows, etc. I don't have enough facts to
> know whether these exclusion zones are set up in a way that accomodates
> the rights of peaceful protestors. But I can see why there were lawyers
> going to court to argue for them.

> I think labs should be transparent. Wasn't MP Tony Banks (RIP) trying to
> pass legislation about that?

lay off the cut and paste dickhead nobody reads your shitty boring posts.

[Jo Jo70]

And there was nothing dishonest about my post.

> While England does not have as much free speech protection as the USA, I'd
> guess it's probably easy to protest there as well, but it's only a guess. '

You said it. You don't know the situation in the U.K. You can only guess.

> I've heard of Huntingdon Life Sciences. If some of the things I've heard
> are true, I'm not inclined to write any briefs in support of that outfit's
> practices, since they probably do deserve to be protested. '

They certainly do. Unless punching beagles is your idea of worthy scientific research?
My point is that opportunities to protest legally are becoming more and more restricted.

> Without saying a word specifically about the exclusion zones you mention
> (as I don't know anything about them or how reasonable they are), you seem
> bright enough to understand that in a democracy there are often situations
> where competing rights need to be balanced, correct? '

Yes, I am very bright thank you. I completely agree that competing views need to be expressed, but where is the balance of competing rights in this situation? Where are rights for animals? And what hope is there of ever acheiving even minimum welfare standards when those people asking for those rights to be acknowledged i.e. animal rights protestors, are labelled terroists across the spectrum?

> The task of the courts is to work out solutions that seek to accomdate the rights of all of these people. That is how it works in a democracy. '

Except that it doesn't work like this. The legal system pretty much works to maintain the status quo, that is to ensure that animal experimentation remains a hidden, secretive practice. It does this by giving ever greater powers to the police to disrupt or prevent democratic protests. Disperse or be arrested. So now even legal avenues have become criminalised.

> Call me a skeptic that what has been going on towards Huntingdon is just
> run of the mill peaceful protesting to merely educate. Animal rights
> protestors aren't exactly known for being so respectful towards others,
> after all they get a kick out of throwing paint on women walking down the
> street.

AND I HAVE ALREADY SAID THAT I DO NOT CONDONE VIOLENCE OR INTIMIDATION. You refuse to acknowledge that there are protestors who fall into the middle ground. i.e. myself? There are extremists in every movement.
You can cut and paste as many articles as you like, but we are never going to agree on this are we? I could retalliate by posting articles on the kind of violence meted out to laboratory animals on a daily basis, the flagrant disregard for even basic welfare regulations i.e. Huntingdon Life Sciences. Because we aren't allowed to see it, the abuses go on unchecked.

> "Activists recently published on the internet the names and addresses
> of lawyers acting for the companies, the High Court judges who granted the
> injunctions and their mothers. '

If you are prepared to take on this kind of work then you should expect to become a target. As I have already said, the law works to uphold the status quo. Please don't ask me to feel sorry for lawyers who are paid to keep this shameful place in existence.

' Anyway, your message was dishonest. Your presentation painted a picture of how the government is trying to take away all over your rights to protest, yet you didn't mention at all that these "exclusion zones" only came up in reaction to harassment, intimdiation, vandalism, physical attacks, kidnap, threats, bricks thrown through windows, etc. '

Tell me Theo, do you think this place should have the right to remain in existence?
The actions of certain protestors were influenced by a leaked documentary, which publicised serious welfare abuses at this establishment. And I very much doubt this place is an exception. Whilst I don't support their behaviour, I do understand their anger.

'> I think labs should be transparent.'

So how do you propose we find out what is going on in them? If we aren't allowed near them, if we can't express our opinions about them without being labelled terroists?
Answers on the back of a postcard please!

[Let's Go Devils]

> If you don't advocate violence, you are not like Morrissey. He stated:
> "I support the efforts of the Animal Rights Militia in England and I
> understand why fur-farmers and so-called laboratory scientists are repaid
> with violence - it is because they deal in violence themselves and it's
> the only language they understand - the same principals that apply to war.
> You reach a point where you cannot reason with people."

> I have no idea how difficult it is to protest in England, but in the USA
> it's extremely easy, protected as we are by a First Amendment etched into
> stone. I recommend every country etching something similar into stone.
> While England does not have as much free speech protection as the USA, I'd
> guess it's probably easy to protest there as well, but it's only a guess.

It's not, its very easy. I've seen people protesting and burning the Union Jack and saying how horrible England is.I was over in London when they had the protests for fox hunting and those people had no problem protesting or throwing smoke bombs and other projectiles at the police.All the Police had were those sticks to protect themselves. Hey you could even break in and get on the floor of the House of Commons.
Now I'm on this "LA is a police state", and this isn't?
http://www.driveandstayalive.com/info%20section/news/x_051201_anpr-hits-usa_motorola-pips.htm

Has Morrissey ever been to Iran or Saudi Arabia? Better yet try being a woman visiting or living there.