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

[Theo van Gogh Martyrs Brigade]

Re: How do you know we aren't already members?

> 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]

Re: How do you know we aren't already members?

' 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]

Cry me a river about your protests. You painted a dishonest picture.

> 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]

Re: Cry me a river about your protests. You painted a dishonest picture.

> 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]

Re: I'll save my crying for suffering animals thanks.

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]

Re: Cry me a river about your protests. You painted a dishonest picture.

> 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.