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?