• news
  • FRIDAY JULY 30 2004 1:18 PM

UK Government to Clamp Down on Extreme Animal Rights Protesters

Submitted by YUSHi

Edited by legionnaire

The UK Government is due to release details on new laws to clamp down on animal rights “extremists” here in Britain; the new plans are designed to protect the institutions and the scientists involved in experimentation involving animals after the industry made multiple complaints regarding threats made to the scientists directly at their homes. GlaxoSmith-Kline, Britain's biggest drugs company, announced that many of its employees were being threatened at their homes.

The British Home Sectary, David Blunkett is expected to issue the police new powers to clamp down on these “extremists” by making it a criminal offense to protest outside someone's house in an intimidating fashion and by providing special prosecutors to each police force area. Some industry insiders believe that this doesn’t go far enough to protect those involved. Obviously the Government is keen to show that it doesn’t have a problem with legitimate and legal protests to the use of animals for testing, it is only after those who act outside the law.

Meanwhile, the Bank of England estimates that such extremist protesting costs the UK economy over £1bn ($1.8bn) per year in lost revenue as companies shy away from setting up in the UK or hiring UK businesses to do such experiments. Understanding the security costs involved, many projects have already had to be abandoned or temporarily halted due to companies developing cold feet and pulling out. The most predominant type of case is the situation involving a research centre in Cambridge where two construction companies have withdrawn from their contracts to build the facility after many of their employees were threatened, along with the increasing concern of intrusion on to the building site which would endanger the life of either one of their employees or the protester themselves.

David Blunkett is due to unveil his plans later today.

  • PERMALINK
  • PRINT
  • Digg This
  • Email To A Friend
 

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

Next

Comments
Selane

Selane

New York, NY
November 2003

JUL 30, 2004 01:45 PM

Awesome. Those people seem to think that "fighting" for a good cause gives them to right to act like terrorists and do whatever they damn well please.

s5

s5

STAFF

San Francisco, CA

JUL 30, 2004 01:49 PM

Selane said:
Awesome. Those people seem to think that "fighting" for a good cause gives them to right to act like terrorists and do whatever they damn well please.



cool it, junior mccarthy club. preventing a building from opening doesn't even resemble "terrorism".

s5

s5

STAFF

San Francisco, CA

JUL 30, 2004 01:53 PM

Obviously the Government is keen to show that it doesn’t have a problem with legitimate and legal protests to the use of animals for testing, it is only after those who act outside the law.



so, if some protesters break the law, what exactly is wrong with charging them under existing laws? is trespassing double-plus illegal if your intent is to prevent the torture and mutilation of animals?

it's clear that the UK government's only interest is to protect profits. they could have taken an even-handed approach, where they work to help resolve complaints brought up by animal rights groups.

ClockworkJim

ClockworkJim

Levittown, NY
February 2004

JUL 30, 2004 02:00 PM

okay, as someone with zot power seems to have opinion on this topic, I will refrain from saying anything.

grahf

grahf

New York, NY
September 2002

JUL 30, 2004 02:13 PM

s5 said:

Obviously the Government is keen to show that it doesn’t have a problem with legitimate and legal protests to the use of animals for testing, it is only after those who act outside the law.



so, if some protesters break the law, what exactly is wrong with charging them under existing laws?



Makes sense. I hate to admit it, but I'm against hate crime laws for the same reason.

On the other hand, if the laws are aimed at making illegal a practice that is currently legal but maybe shouldn't be, I can see the rationale. If there's any legal way to truly "threaten" people in their homes, that loophole should be closed as quickly as possible.

The question is exactly how protesting "in an intimidating manner" will be defined. Neo-nazis with protest signs like "Nigger go back to Afreca(sic) if you know what's good for you." would hopefully be considered such, but would it also apply to peaceful protesters with "Chimps are people too" signs? Probably.

s5

s5

STAFF

San Francisco, CA

JUL 30, 2004 02:24 PM

grahf said:
Makes sense. I hate to admit it, but I'm against hate crime laws for the same reason.



i haven't studied the pros and cons of 'hate crimes' enough to have a full opinion, but i don't think a comparison can be made. while hate crimes also have that unfortunate feature of making illegal acts double-plus illegal, it seems that they exist to prevent a return to bad habits that existed in our history. in contrast to the animal rights issue - at no point in our history were humans lorded over and exploited by chimps and white mice. smile

legionnaire

legionnaire

Belgium
November 2003

JUL 30, 2004 02:26 PM

AclockworkJim said:
okay, as someone with zot power seems to have opinion on this topic, I will refrain from saying anything.



Please, show me a single example of staff zotting a member who respectfully disagrees with their opinion, because I've certainly never seen one, and I've seen Sean, s5 and Olivia get into some pretty heated discussions with members before.

This is current events - debate is expected. Speak your mind, and as long as you aren't obnoxious about it, the worst thing you can expect is someone else disagreeing with what you said.

grahf

grahf

New York, NY
September 2002

JUL 30, 2004 02:51 PM

s5 said:

grahf said:
Makes sense. I hate to admit it, but I'm against hate crime laws for the same reason.



i haven't studied the pros and cons of 'hate crimes' enough to have a full opinion, but i don't think a comparison can be made. while hate crimes also have that unfortunate feature of making illegal acts double-plus illegal, it seems that they exist to prevent a return to bad habits that existed in our history. in contrast to the animal rights issue - at no point in our history were humans lorded over and exploited by chimps and white mice. smile



Well, no, not in our history...



I know the two aren't directly comparable, but I do think they're based on similar principles. I'm just not really comfortable with the idea that the same action could be punished more severely depending on the perpetrator's alleged state of mind.

Less severely I'm fine with, like 2nd degree murder vs. 1st, but I could see "double-plus illegal" laws used for example to make vandalism into terrorism if it's undertaken as a protest instead of just drunken idiocy.

UpTight

UpTight

I'm lost
December 2003

JUL 30, 2004 03:00 PM

Blair came into office on a promise of banning hunting and animal testing....what a turnaround

MetaTag

MetaTag

United Kingdom
September 2002

JUL 30, 2004 03:03 PM

s5 said:

Selane said:
Awesome. Those people seem to think that "fighting" for a good cause gives them to right to act like terrorists and do whatever they damn well please.



cool it, junior mccarthy club. preventing a building from opening doesn't even resemble "terrorism".



In England it is rare to see the extreeme behaviour of the anti-abortion league, which is seen within America. However, the tactics used by the anti-abortion league are also used by the extreeme end of the animal rights movement.

The tactics include threatening murder, physical attacks, arson, posting leaflets claiming that the sceintists are paedophiles amoung the homes of the scientist neghbours, violent disturbances and harrasment outside the homes of scientists and workers.

The correct method for the animal rights movement is to protest peacfully and to seek democratic support for their aims. Those that act like terrorists, should be treated like terrorists.

KungFuVooDoo

KungFuVooDoo

I'm lost
May 2004

JUL 30, 2004 03:15 PM

Animal testing is becoming increasingly irrelevant with the use of computer modeling, even as a first trial it dramatically reduces “live” testing.

Practice what you preach. If sanctity of life is a concern then harassment is lame. The real driver is market consumption. The real motive for legislation is economic. Historically, this is not the first time money has made laws.

Channel the outrage into a public advocacy group for products that do not animal test, and “out” those products that do test on animals, many good examples of this.

Win the “hearts” and “minds”. smile

s5

s5

STAFF

San Francisco, CA

JUL 30, 2004 03:40 PM

MetaTag said:
The tactics include threatening murder, physical attacks, arson, posting leaflets claiming that the sceintists are paedophiles amoung the homes of the scientist neghbours, violent disturbances and harrasment outside the homes of scientists and workers.



don't get me wrong, even though i'm sympathetic to the cause, it's obvious that such tactics should be illegal. when you engage in illegal activities, you accept the risk of going to jail for your actions. unfortunately, none of those activities come anywhere close to hijacking a plane or strapping bombs to your chest.

so, the problem i have here is that the purpose of this is to create the association that "animal rights = terrorism". sorry, but that's ridiculous. the animal rights movements consists of millions of people whose most radical act is to bring along a box of boca burgers to the bbq.

the UK government could have taken a more rational, moderate position. they could have listened to the complaints from legitimate animal rights groups, and made a commitment to ban animal testing that doesn't contribute to medicine, while promising to devote more resources to technologies that help reduce/eliminate animal testing, and still prosecuting illegal acts.

of course, the animal rights side wouldn't be happy, and the pharmaceutical industry wouldn't be happy, but that's the nature of compromise. the interests of humans to cure and treat disease would be acknowledged, and the rights of animals to exist free from torture and exploitation would become a goal. the two goals don't have to conflict; it just takes creativity and real leadership beyond a bunch of mindless idiots painting everything they can't deal with as "terrorism".

[Edited on Jul 30, 2004 by s5]

Cyric

Cyric

I'm lost
October 2003

JUL 30, 2004 03:41 PM

bs! sientists dont use animal testing for kicks. they use it for a reason.Do you guys get mad at me stepping on a bug? bugs are animals too.

YUSHi

YUSHi

United Kingdom
May 2004

JUL 30, 2004 03:49 PM

s5 said:

Obviously the Government is keen to show that it doesn’t have a problem with legitimate and legal protests to the use of animals for testing, it is only after those who act outside the law.



so, if some protesters break the law, what exactly is wrong with charging them under existing laws?



a example problem with the current law is that protesters can go to peoples homes and protest there, all the police can do is order them to leave and if they refuse they can arrest but the protesters always opt to leave so they can come back another day, the new laws give the police power to arrest and detain anyone protesting outside someones house in an intimidating manor

as much as animal testing is wrong its worse yet to go threatening peopleinvolved and their families. To find things being put though your letter box and your car being set on fire. Even a share holder in one of the construction companies was threatened that "bad things would happen" to him and his grandchildren if he didn't sell his shares in the company... how on earth can anyone justify doing things like that?

UpTight

UpTight

I'm lost
December 2003

JUL 30, 2004 04:08 PM

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

Next

featured interviews