ARCO's Abolitionists - A Vegan Forum

The campaign to close Huntingdon Life Sciences...what's your opinion?

hi,

i'm surprised no one replied you question.
hmm... my thoughts... i've been involved with them, only the rally part. But just that made me realize my first thought was correct.
They created (the team from the netherlands) a team in paris.
My first rally with them was awesome, just standing in front of buildings, pointing people working in there with your finger, screaming "murderer", "animal abuser", ect... quite good.
But then, next time they came over here... it became only screams to threaten the humans, there was nothing but anger, with no real logic on the speach, only threatening people. Then, i really got upset when one of the guys was interviewed by a journalist: he talked about vivisection, then when the journalist questionned him about veganism, his reply was " we are not here to talk about meat or dairy, but about the hundred dogs killed each day in HSL!"
Wow! He refused to talk about anything else.
Since a few friends of mine & myself had been in contact with the journalist, we had told him about antispeciesism & the way non humans are treated as nothing but resources, so he was curious to hear more. This guy just turned it off!
Anyway, the article he wrote talked about antispeciesism & veganism anyway.
Then, another thing is: they do not try to take awway the idea that non humans are not mere means to humans' ends... they mainly talk about the dangers for human health when something is tested on non humans & they also focus on "the poor baby dogs" used.
Also, the fact they do not hesitate to torture & hurt humans doesn't lead me to the idea there's gonna change anything. Just like PeTA showing naked humans... i don't think treating a human like a piece of meat will help anyone understand that non humans are not to be treated this way.
Just my thoughts. i would really be interested in knowing other's point of you on the subject.

SHAC never hurt anybody and neither do the ALF, I have no idea what gave you that impression...and as for making threats against people, I don't know where that stands in other countries but in the UK saying something like that would get you instantly arrested and charged with Section 4 of the Public Order Act 1986 "Threatening Behaviour", or at the very least Section 5 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, "Causing Alarm, Harassment or Distress"!

This is a myth perpetrated by the animal testing industry that SHAC act in a threatening and disorderly manner...but SHAC is made up of a very diverse base of campaigners so it is perfectly possible that certain activists have acted in that manner, I have a number of convictions for Section 5 CJPOA 1994 but it is hard not to express your anger when you're faced with a vivsector who you know is not just a vicious torturer but an utter liar who is committing fraud for the sake of his own pocket! However SHAC does not endorse any kind of illegal activity, and actively discourages people from acting in that manner...although they aren't able to tell people how to campaign, and as every blow against HLS counts then they can hardly condemn those actions either!

As for refusing to discuss other issues with journalists, a common journalistic tactic is to bait you into saying something extreme or absolute which they can then use to damn you with in the eyes of the general public. A classic example of this would be Robin Webb, (UK ALF Press Officer), who was led into refusing to condemn death threats during Barry Horne's fatal hunger strike which were made by the ARM (Animal Rights Militia, who are dangerous extremists willing to harm and kill)...despite the fact he also refused to condone or support their proposed action, his failure to condemn was sufficient to destroy the media campaign surrounding Barry's protest!!! So for a SHAC spokesperson to refuse to be drawn on any other issue, during a very focussed single issue campaign, is both understandable and acceptable. There are never absolutes...and sometimes distasteful compromises have to be made, the media are ruthless and will make no distinctions so they have to be handled properly or they will make wishy-washy comments out of your replies.

You are most likely referring to an interview by Greg Avery, (SHAC spokesperson and campaign "leader"), and having met Greg on a number of occasions I can assure you that his views regarding all forms of animal abuse are as abolitionist as any person here! So much so that he could easily have been led into a similar trap as Robin Webb, (who is also an extreme abolitionist). Clearly, as you said, the journalist wrote his article about the general issues of speciesism and veganism anyway...So why ask for an interview with Greg if he wasn't trying to lead him into a trap?

My personal opinion is that SHAC's focussed targeting of a single laboratory, as well as the globalisation of resistance and the effective targeting of major corporate sponsors, (such as banks, insurance companies and accountants), has led to a position where vivisection and bio-tech are no longer viewed as safe clients by these companies and animal testing has become a less favourable career as a result. The way I look at it is this, as fraud becomes more difficult and dangerous to perform...the fraudsters look for new income streams and shy away from committing fraud in those areas where they are likely to suffer as a result.

Whilst I'm sure anyone who is amoral enough to conduct animal testing, knowing full well that it is unreliable and essentially just a gamble, will be sufficiently amoral to commit their crimes in other fields...however they will ply the amoral behaviour somewhere where they're not going to be exposed to as much risk. SHAC has the potential to finish the animal testing industry once and for all, not just by closing HLS but by then moving on to the next target and the next and the next...this is a clearly stated aim and is the reason the US and UK Governments are so keen to keep HLS open and crush SHAC, because if the snowball keeps going the result will be an end to vivisection, and as lots of "important" people stand to lose a lot of money when that occurs they use their money to try to prevent that happening, (by buying Governments power, such as Tony Blair with Lord Sainsbury's money in 1997).

As the old adage goes;
First they ignore you,
Then they ridicule you,
Then they Fight you,
Then you win!

I would see the path of arguing the case of speciesism having reached stage two on the ladder, where as SHAC is reaching the culmination of stage 3...and as this path will eventually lead to an end to animal testing, (why persist a fraud when the heat is really on you), it is a valid and essential step to the final stage of global recognition that animals are not commodities!

I got my peaceful little self a home visit from someone on the Joint Terrorism Task Force (US) for writing to a pharmaceutical company, asking them to please stop using HLS. They definitely are making an impression! But in focusing on HLS, they've made the egregious wrongs of this particular company the centerpiece, rather than vivisection as a whole. I know that's what I concentrated on when I tried to explain to anybody what it was about.

After the precipitous decline in HLS fortunes, they should have been finished, but they're not. I think if they go, it'll be difficult to transfer the momentum to another company. Not because activists won't be ready & willing, but because they won't get the time of day from anyone else, and will have lost credibility. People will say, "OK that lab had to go, but the institution itself is absolutely necessary and must be defended at all costs, and you're not out to make this institution better, you're just being sneaky and trying to do away with it completely, in little bites." Then they will go to extraordinary measures to make sure the industry is even better protected than before, and activists will be increasingly incapacitated. As it is in the US, you can now go to jail even if you don't cause any economic damage (even to profits) or cause anyone to fear bodily harm. That is, even if you are non-violent and have no effect, you can go to jail.

I saw in the intro threads a substantial number of people who are willing to say, it doesn't matter whether or not it is useful to humans, the main thing is that it's morally unjustifiable. I admire that clarity. I think that regardless of the convictions of the people behind the campaign, the campaign itself muddies that clarity.

pelagus wrote:hi,

i'm surprised no one replied you question.
hmm... my thoughts... i've been involved with them, only the rally part. But just that made me realize my first thought was correct.
They created (the team from the netherlands) a team in paris.
My first rally with them was awesome, just standing in front of buildings, pointing people working in there with your finger, screaming "murderer", "animal abuser", ect... quite good.
But then, next time they came over here... it became only screams to threaten the humans, there was nothing but anger, with no real logic on the speach, only threatening people. Then, i really got upset when one of the guys was interviewed by a journalist: he talked about vivisection, then when the journalist questionned him about veganism, his reply was " we are not here to talk about meat or dairy, but about the hundred dogs killed each day in HSL!"
Wow! He refused to talk about anything else.
Since a few friends of mine & myself had been in contact with the journalist, we had told him about antispeciesism & the way non humans are treated as nothing but resources, so he was curious to hear more. This guy just turned it off!
Anyway, the article he wrote talked about antispeciesism & veganism anyway.
Then, another thing is: they do not try to take awway the idea that non humans are not mere means to humans' ends... they mainly talk about the dangers for human health when something is tested on non humans & they also focus on "the poor baby dogs" used.
Also, the fact they do not hesitate to torture & hurt humans doesn't lead me to the idea there's gonna change anything. Just like PeTA showing naked humans... i don't think treating a human like a piece of meat will help anyone understand that non humans are not to be treated this way.
Just my thoughts. i would really be interested in knowing other's point of you on the subject.

I find SHAC problematic - more so after reading this post.

However, first, I have always disliked their name. Although that may sound trivial, I do not believe it is from an AB AR point of view. The "C" stands for "cruelty" which grounds SHAC firmly within the new welfarist paradigm - as art of those Lee Hall would call "animal welfare-militants". I don't think SHAC frame their claims in terms of animal rights and rights violations - and perhaps the account above explains why.

Given the opportunity to talk about nonhuman use in general terms, the spokesperson perfers to reduce things to single-issue campaigning. That's the major prob with SHAC. We cannot understand HLS without understanding cultural speciesism. Btw, it also means that advocates could chant "murderer" and "animal abuser" at virtually anyone they meet in the street, including vegetarians and even vegans at more of a stretch.

A speciesist society is virtually bound to support vivisection which is why antivivisectionism will never work. And scientific antivivisectionism acts against the nonspeciesist impulses of animal rights, explaining why people like the late Hans Ruesch and his followers criticise animal rights as a philosophical idea.

RY

The only reason that HLS isn't closed is because of the determination of the UK & US Governments to keep it open...and this is because they, as well as the bio-tech industry, know full well that it will roll on and on!!!

One company, Yamanouchi, withheld £1.2 billion of money to build new R&D facilities in the UK because of SHAC activity. The amount of animal breeders, (for vivisection), in the UK has dwindled from around 30 to 4 since the start of the 1990s thanks to the vociferous activities of anti-vivisection campaigns such as SHAC, (or more importantly the grassroots activists who comprise it). HLS are unable to acquire a legitimate bank account, accountant or insurance due to SHAC, only one (very small and barely respected), stock exchange is willing to trade their shares. In an undercover investigation numerous major financial investment institutions were witnessed advising [activists posing as investors] against buying HLS shares...and many of the leading vivisection companies have threatened to leave the UK & US should HLS close, for fear of being next!

If you can't appeal to their consciences to stop them then the next best thing is to physically deter them...and that is exactly what SHAC does. The next company will know full well what happened to HLS, the example having been set, and more institutions, (banks, insurance companies, customers, suppliers et al), will back off quicker as a result...thus bankrupting the institution sooner!

By denying the vivisection industry access to the Western science community it will quickly wither and die, it's not like scientific research institutions as Oxford & Cambridge Universities are going to follow the vivisection industry to the Far East...and thus scientific advances will be made that don't involve animal testing and quickly animal testing will be shown for the scam that it is. If you make it too hard to commit fraud then people don't do it...SHAC is doing exactly that, by making it too difficult for the scientific community to peacefully commit their scientific fraud they will stop!

As for going to prison, (for not even committing any crime), well if needs be then so be it...those of us who profess to care so much about the abolition of animal abuse should be willing to make the sacrifices necessary to achieve that goal! It's all well and good writing a book or debating it in internet forums but those of us who aren't willing to make the necessary sacrifices to abolish animal abuse really ought to question their own commitment to the cause which we profess to worry so much about!!!

If people hadn't risked their lives and liberty for their causes then Apartheid would still be occurring in South Africa, Women would still not have the vote in the UK, America would still be overrun with African Slaves...and the list just goes on and on! Talking is fine, but it's also cheap...anyone can debate something, or even write a book about it, but the only thing I respect is action because action has been shown through the course of history to be effective where debate and discussion has not!!!

JosephRoberts wrote:As for refusing to discuss other issues with journalists, a common journalistic tactic is to bait you into saying something extreme or absolute which they can then use to damn you with in the eyes of the general public. A classic example of this would be Robin Webb, (UK ALF Press Officer), who was led into refusing to condemn death threats during Barry Horne's fatal hunger strike which were made by the ARM (Animal Rights Militia, who are dangerous extremists willing to harm and kill)...despite the fact he also refused to condone or support their proposed action, his failure to condemn was sufficient to destroy the media campaign surrounding Barry's protest!!! So for a SHAC spokesperson to refuse to be drawn on any other issue, during a very focussed single issue campaign, is both understandable and acceptable. There are never absolutes...and sometimes distasteful compromises have to be made, the media are ruthless and will make no distinctions so they have to be handled properly or they will make wishy-washy comments out of your replies.

Robin Webb is a savvy press officer - better than I ever was - he could have criticised the ARM, not least because they appear to be a totally speciesist outfit.

I think the issue about SHAC is precisely that it is a focussed single-issue campaign. It is no compromise to refuse to talk about the generality of nonhuman animal use, it is a missed opportunity.

You are most likely referring to an interview by Greg Avery, (SHAC spokesperson and campaign "leader"), and having met Greg on a number of occasions I can assure you that his views regarding all forms of animal abuse are as abolitionist as any person here! So much so that he could easily have been led into a similar trap as Robin Webb, (who is also an extreme abolitionist). Clearly, as you said, the journalist wrote his article about the general issues of speciesism and veganism anyway...So why ask for an interview with Greg if he wasn't trying to lead him into a trap?

You language is as strange as it is revealing. There is no such thing as an "extreme abolitionist" because abolitionism in the context of animal rights merely means morally consistent as it would if referring to a human rights advocate. What 'trap' was there for Greg in this scenario?

My personal opinion is that SHAC's focussed targeting of a single laboratory, as well as the globalisation of resistance and the effective targeting of major corporate sponsors, (such as banks, insurance companies and accountants), has led to a position where vivisection and bio-tech are no longer viewed as safe clients by these companies and animal testing has become a less favourable career as a result. The way I look at it is this, as fraud becomes more difficult and dangerous to perform...the fraudsters look for new income streams and shy away from committing fraud in those areas where they are likely to suffer as a result.

I can see the logic in this stance. However, the overall industry that is vivisection cannnot be undermined until cultural speciesism is dismantled. Closing HLS will result in the 'slack' being taken up by others in the sector and the only way that could be prevented it if there were a SHAC for every lab and we ain't got the numbers for that. Granted their insurance premiums and security costs will have gone up.

Whilst I'm sure anyone who is amoral enough to conduct animal testing, knowing full well that it is unreliable and essentially just a gamble, will be sufficiently amoral to commit their crimes in other fields...however they will ply the amoral behaviour somewhere where they're not going to be exposed to as much risk. SHAC has the potential to finish the animal testing industry once and for all, not just by closing HLS but by then moving on to the next target and the next and the next...this is a clearly stated aim and is the reason the US and UK Governments are so keen to keep HLS open and crush SHAC, because if the snowball keeps going the result will be an end to vivisection, and as lots of "important" people stand to lose a lot of money when that occurs they use their money to try to prevent that happening, (by buying Governments power, such as Tony Blair with Lord Sainsbury's money in 1997).

People are immoral enough to conduct animal testing because they are socialised into speciesist societies and, of all animal use, vivisection is seen as necessary, which certainly cannot be said of meat eating, going to the circus et al. In effect, the campaign has taken on the strongest part of speciesism. Vivisection is a multimillion pound, multinational industry - most of it, globally, takes place in the USA and Japan. This industry will not collapse with the fall of HLS I regret to say.

As the old adage goes;
First they ignore you,
Then they ridicule you,
Then they Fight you,
Then you win!

I would see the path of arguing the case of speciesism having reached stage two on the ladder, where as SHAC is reaching the culmination of stage 3...and as this path will eventually lead to an end to animal testing, (why persist a fraud when the heat is really on you), it is a valid and essential step to the final stage of global recognition that animals are not commodities!

I don't understand your stage 2 and 3 points.

RY

rags wrote:

JosephRoberts wrote:As for refusing to discuss other issues with journalists, a common journalistic tactic is to bait you into saying something extreme or absolute which they can then use to damn you with in the eyes of the general public. A classic example of this would be Robin Webb, (UK ALF Press Officer), who was led into refusing to condemn death threats during Barry Horne's fatal hunger strike which were made by the ARM (Animal Rights Militia, who are dangerous extremists willing to harm and kill)...despite the fact he also refused to condone or support their proposed action, his failure to condemn was sufficient to destroy the media campaign surrounding Barry's protest!!! So for a SHAC spokesperson to refuse to be drawn on any other issue, during a very focussed single issue campaign, is both understandable and acceptable. There are never absolutes...and sometimes distasteful compromises have to be made, the media are ruthless and will make no distinctions so they have to be handled properly or they will make wishy-washy comments out of your replies.

Robin Webb is a savvy press officer - better than I ever was - he could have criticised the ARM, not least because they appear to be a totally speciesist outfit.

I think the issue about SHAC is precisely that it is a focussed single-issue campaign. It is no compromise to refuse to talk about the generality of nonhuman animal use, it is a missed opportunity.

I don't see how you've come to the conclusion that the ARM are speciesist, except, I suppose, from their stated willingness to harm humans but not animals! They are dangerous extremists who's actions and ethos our shrouded in secrecy, and therefore I'd be interested to know what information you base your knowledge of them on. As for SHAC being focussed and single issue...that has been it's very success, to dilute the message would have weakened the blows it's scored against the vivisection industry. SHAC is simply the tip of the spear, of course it's got to be focussed to achieve it's stated aims, and there can be no doubting how effective SHAC has been!

rags wrote:

You are most likely referring to an interview by Greg Avery, (SHAC spokesperson and campaign "leader"), and having met Greg on a number of occasions I can assure you that his views regarding all forms of animal abuse are as abolitionist as any person here! So much so that he could easily have been led into a similar trap as Robin Webb, (who is also an extreme abolitionist). Clearly, as you said, the journalist wrote his article about the general issues of speciesism and veganism anyway...So why ask for an interview with Greg if he wasn't trying to lead him into a trap?

You language is as strange as it is revealing. There is no such thing as an "extreme abolitionist" because abolitionism in the context of animal rights merely means morally consistent as it would if referring to a human rights advocate. What 'trap' was there for Greg in this scenario?

An extreme abolitionist is willing to go to whatever means are necessary in order to achieve abolitionism...these are the people willing to risk their lives and freedom everyday in order to bring about the abolition of animal abuse in all its forms. I feel this sets them apart from the average concerned abolitionist, and therefore use of the word extreme seemed appropriate to differentiate them from those who aren't willing to make the same level of commitment to the cause.

There are many advocates of an abolitionist argument, so why ask Greg Avery who's media communication will always be based around SHAC? It's naive to assume that the media wouldn't try to lay a trap for the SHAC spokesperson, although having not seen the interview in question I'm unable to directly comment, other than to say that the basis of media coverage relating to SHAC is permanently an effort to discredit it and therefore entrapping someone into coming across as a rabid extremist is par for the course.

Can I ask in what way you thought that my language is revealing? It reveals what exactly?

rags wrote:

My personal opinion is that SHAC's focussed targeting of a single laboratory, as well as the globalisation of resistance and the effective targeting of major corporate sponsors, (such as banks, insurance companies and accountants), has led to a position where vivisection and bio-tech are no longer viewed as safe clients by these companies and animal testing has become a less favourable career as a result. The way I look at it is this, as fraud becomes more difficult and dangerous to perform...the fraudsters look for new income streams and shy away from committing fraud in those areas where they are likely to suffer as a result.

I can see the logic in this stance. However, the overall industry that is vivisection cannnot be undermined until cultural speciesism is dismantled. Closing HLS will result in the 'slack' being taken up by others in the sector and the only way that could be prevented it if there were a SHAC for every lab and we ain't got the numbers for that. Granted their insurance premiums and security costs will have gone up.

I don't think vivisection has much to do with speciesism at all actually, it's more about corrupt science and the capacity to prove anything with an animal test...so long as you select the right species. The simple reason for vivisection is money, although it is perpetuated by the speciesist lie that it is necessary for human health...so whilst it relies on speciesist propaganda I don't see it's motives as speciesist at all. I'm sure the likes of Tipu Aziz would have no qualms about experimenting on African children any more than they do with a macaque monkey, so the one thing that he is not is speciesist!!!

As for Huntingdon's insurance costs having gone up...they'd be lucky if they can get an Insurance premium at all, or a bank account that isn't provided by the British Government! SHAC has achieved more, in terms of corporate pressure, than any social justice movement in history...and this being the globalised, free-market world we live in, corporate pressure achieves results. More so than even achieving Government legislation these days! The world's largest banks will have no association with HLS because they fear SHAC reprisals, that in itself is a unique achievement...which is why the bio-tech industry is quaking in its boots. they're all asking themselves, Once HLS goes which one of us is next to be denied a bank account?

rags wrote:

Whilst I'm sure anyone who is amoral enough to conduct animal testing, knowing full well that it is unreliable and essentially just a gamble, will be sufficiently amoral to commit their crimes in other fields...however they will ply the amoral behaviour somewhere where they're not going to be exposed to as much risk. SHAC has the potential to finish the animal testing industry once and for all, not just by closing HLS but by then moving on to the next target and the next and the next...this is a clearly stated aim and is the reason the US and UK Governments are so keen to keep HLS open and crush SHAC, because if the snowball keeps going the result will be an end to vivisection, and as lots of "important" people stand to lose a lot of money when that occurs they use their money to try to prevent that happening, (by buying Governments power, such as Tony Blair with Lord Sainsbury's money in 1997).

People are immoral enough to conduct animal testing because they are socialised into speciesist societies and, of all animal use, vivisection is seen as necessary, which certainly cannot be said of meat eating, going to the circus et al. In effect, the campaign has taken on the strongest part of speciesism. Vivisection is a multimillion pound, multinational industry - most of it, globally, takes place in the USA and Japan. This industry will not collapse with the fall of HLS I regret to say.

Again, I disagree...I'm sure the likes of Tipu Aziz would happily test on a human child if he were permitted to do so. Many studies have shown that people who abnormally harm animals are 5 times more likely to be psychopathic, and so I'm sure those who have climbed to the top of the vivisection ladder all have elements of psychopathy in their personalities. Thus I don't doubt that, society permitting, they would perform their tests on children...the one reason they wouldn't is simply because manipulating the results a desired outcome wouldn't be as feasible using a human test subject.

It shouldn't be forgotten that vivisectors know full well that animal testing is a lottery perpetrated by the pharmaceutical industry to get their drugs on to the market, it has nothing to do with product testing for human safety it is simply to release the latest toxin and hope that they make more money off it than it cost to develop before it is withdrawn...clearly these people know that they are risking human lives everyday, and as they therefore display a willingness to harm all species equally they are hardly speciesist!

Whilst I agree that the vivisection industry will not crumble with the closure of HLS, it will send seismic shockwaves through the entire industry, and the same process will begin again against another company and another and another. However HLS will present a tipping point; if the Government hadn't tried to defend them then it might not have become such a big issue...but thanks to the UK Government the entire animal testing industry has become polarised in this one campaign, with the Government on one side doing everything they can to keep HLS open and SHAC on the other doing everything they can to close them down. Put simply, the campaign against HLS has become about much more than just Huntingdon Life Sciences, it's now about the entire animal testing industry...HLS just makes a good back drop for outreach because the video of lab technicians punching test subjects is so graphic!

rags wrote:

As the old adage goes;
First they ignore you,
Then they ridicule you,
Then they Fight you,
Then you win!

I would see the path of arguing the case of speciesism having reached stage two on the ladder, where as SHAC is reaching the culmination of stage 3...and as this path will eventually lead to an end to animal testing, (why persist a fraud when the heat is really on you), it is a valid and essential step to the final stage of global recognition that animals are not commodities!

I don't understand your stage 2 and 3 points.

The adage is made up of four stages, when it comes to the SHAC campaign they are fighting...and fighting bloody hard with the AETA and the inception of NETCU in the UK, (i.e reaching the culmination of stage 3), where as abolitionist theory of animal rights is generally ignored by the masses and most often ridiculed as a concept, (i.e. the start of stage 2 on the list).

JosephRoberts wrote:[I don't think vivisection has much to do with speciesism at all actually, it's more about corrupt science and the capacity to prove anything with an animal test...so long as you select the right species. The simple reason for vivisection is money, although it is perpetuated by the speciesist lie that it is necessary for human health...so whilst it relies on speciesist propaganda I don't see it's motives as speciesist at all. I'm sure the likes of Tipu Aziz would have no qualms about experimenting on African children any more than they do with a macaque monkey, so the one thing that he is not is speciesist!!!

...

Again, I disagree...I'm sure the likes of Tipu Aziz would happily test on a human child if he were permitted to do so. Many studies have shown that people who abnormally harm animals are 5 times more likely to be psychopathic, and so I'm sure those who have climbed to the top of the vivisection ladder all have elements of psychopathy in their personalities. Thus I don't doubt that, society permitting, they would perform their tests on children...the one reason they wouldn't is simply because manipulating the results a desired outcome wouldn't be as feasible using a human test subject....

1. Vivisection is indeed based on specieisism. There is no defense of it possible but that humans have rights that non-humans don't, regardless of the fact that there is no relevant difference. You mention some of the truly pathological folks involved, but I personally know many vivisectors who would be aghast at the suggestion of using human subjects. That's how they justify it - that one CAN'T ethically use human subjects. Two of the people closest to me in the world have engaged in animal research (although one of them does it for other non-human animals); although this part of them is abhorrent to me, so is the fact that they are omnivores, and yet they were an integral part of my life from way back when.

Even if those directly engaged were all monsters, the public who supports them bases its support firmly on the conviction that nonhuman animals have no rights.

2. Is SHAC all vegan? I've heard that the SHAC-7 are, and therefore have a tougher time in prison. But I've really never heard anything else about veganism in during conversations around vivisection, except in within a vegan community.

panthera wrote:1. Vivisection is indeed based on specieisism. There is no defense of it possible but that humans have rights that non-humans don't, regardless of the fact that there is no relevant difference. You mention some of the truly pathological folks involved, but I personally know many vivisectors who would be aghast at the suggestion of using human subjects. That's how they justify it - that one CAN'T ethically use human subjects.

The justification for vivisection is based upon a speciesist argument, however the motivation is quite clearly money orientated!

I'd be interested to know how your vivisector friends argue that vivisection is valid in purely scientific terms, because as most vivisectors will openly admit animal testing is unreliable and only provides accurate results between 5-25% of the time...clearly flipping a coin would be more valid. So whilst I'm sure they'd be aghast at the thought of testing on a human, how exactly do they justify the immeasurable harm that vivisection causes to human health through its unreliability as a testing method? I'm sorry, I recognise they're your friends, but it sounds like utter hypocrisy to me...and more like the line they were taught to spout religiously at murder school! The concept that vivisection is in someway speciesist actually plays into the hands of the vivisectors, by validating their lies, and detracts from the truth that animal testing is solely about money!

Vivisectors are taught to spout the line that testing on humans is wrong, to the point where they actually come to believe their own lies...but regardless their actions, regardless of any moral concerns regarding animals, are doing far more harm than good to humans! So whilst they perpetrate their crimes under a shroud of speciesism, the real motivation behind it is simply financial. Many of them know full well that their "methodology" is pointless and damaging but they still perpetrate it nonetheless, whilst all the time playing the speciesist card because it's more morally acceptable to the masses than the fact that their real motivation is financial!

panthera wrote:2. Is SHAC all vegan? I've heard that the SHAC-7 are, and therefore have a tougher time in prison. But I've really never heard anything else about veganism in during conversations around vivisection, except in within a vegan community.

Of course SHAC is vegan, although to refer to SHAC as an entity is wrong because it is simply a banner through which people can attribute their actions specific to HLS...SHAC is simply the grassroots activists on the ground taking action on a given subject, (with the exception of the researchers and "organisers", who are all without fail committed abolitionists), however the SHAC position is this:

http://www.shac.net/SHAC/faq.html#other wrote:Q) WHAT ABOUT OTHER ANIMAL CRUELTY?

A) Stopping all animal cruelty is equally important, and during this campaign against Huntingdon Life Sciences and other campaigns we have run before this, we have been able to make many new people aware of the horrors of the vivisection labs, and also of fur farms, slaughterhouses and other areas of animal abuse. The following groups are all excellent sources of information and run effective campaigns against different areas of animal cruelty. Please contact [link missing due to copy and paste] them for information and give them your support.

The majority of SHAC's supporters are both vegan and abolitionist, not all but the vast majority...although SHAC provides a good outreach source for educating the grassroots activists about veganism, abolitionism and all forms of animal abuse. Whilst the public face may be completely focussed on one issue, the people involved are able to use it as a good source of outreach work and in that regard are able to do a lot for the abolitionist cause by inspiring PETA type activists to extend their moral outlook to encompass all forms of abuse equally.

If you read the SHAC website, http://www.shac.net, you will notice that many of the actions also include targeting other forms of animal abuse...generally stopping by a fur shop or slaughterhouse on the way between demos. It should be noted that SHAC's tactics are now being exported into other realms of campaigning, with the theology and methodology being successfully implemented against other strands of animal abuse.

So not only is SHAC doing excellent outreach work within the activist community it is extending and inspiring the grassroots networks to take effective action against all forms of animal abuse, using tried and tested techniques which have achieved results never seen before in any social justice movement...it should also be noted that the UK authorities believe that the true SHAC network only comprises around 100-150 activists, which should help put their achievements into their true context!!!