Letters to the Editor
-
Corporate shill
<<Thank you for your kind words, and thank you for oblterating once and for all cosmicmojo's absurdly rosy view of what really happens to animals in labs. Her messages remind me of an old Bloom County strip, where Opus imagines life in a Mary Kay cosmetics testing lab: a bunch of women in party dresses and hats applying lipstick and eye shadow to rabbits. I do wonder what cosmicmojo's interest in all this is. She acts like she makes her living selling rats to labs.
The truth about animal testing, as you know, is ugly as hell, and the more people learn about it, the more demand will arise for reform and one day, hopefully, abolition.>>
DurianJoe, you know Cosmicmojo's just out to sic the feds on us animal-lovin' "terrerists."
Cosmicmojo, are you a lobbyist, or shill for companies that test on animals? Is that why you condone companies testing products on animals so much?
Here's what I mean:
http://www.alternet.org/envirohealth/31933
Seriously, I do not condone violence in any way, shape or form; whether it's war, or vivisecting animals, or doing people with bodily harm, let alone threatening them.
-
SHAC
We're all adults, for whatever that's worth. I challenge each and every one of the people that have weathered this godawful thread to find an ethical way to address animal cruelty and stick with it. But deciding that just because some violent animal rights jerks took the issue too far that we should therefore abandon/ignore the issue, that's dumb. You're capable of deciding what's ethical or not without just knee-jerk reacting to someone else's stupidity. If you're not then you're probably not nearly as smart as you tell yourself you are.
I believe in animal rights and I also believe that beating the crap out of corporate executives and, perhaps more importantly, harrassing someone's MOM, is a bad way to achieve your goals. This issue is rife with false binaries. Either corporations/animal testers get to test all they want with no limitations or humans will suffer as a consequence. Either animal testing is perfectly ethical or it's perfectly wrong and neither the twain shall meet. Either scientists are saints or demons.
The most salient fact is that corporate entities (and universities) have some notable behaviors. Once an economic interest is developed it is very, very difficult to get them to change their behavior. In short, Huntingdon makes big cash off of torturing animals and they have taken every step possible to insure their meal ticket continues, and the same goes for universities who work with corporations. They'll go wherever the money takes them (including nuclear testing, for that matter.) It stands to reason that SHAC is trying to limit Huntingdon financial success. That's the only thing that matters to them.
They're not going to give up even one rabbit cage if it means their bottomline is affected. They will advocate for as many tests over as much time as possible. They will tell the public that redundant tests are needed. It's not just that the shampoo you use needed to be tested once. They will test the same shampoo repeatedly.
This is what I call "doing science." You're not discovering anything, you're just acting official, the equivalent of pushing the papers around on your desk whenever your boss passes by.
Ten years ago is not that long ago. Nothing will convince me that an industry (that employs people who will punch a dog in the face) is just going to up and change it's ethical behavior merely because the law has changed. My career has involved watching corporate behavior for years and nothing changes them but the threat of insolvency. Just saying, repeatedly, over and over again, that scientists behave humanely doesn't mean anything to me. Scientists are just like everybody else in this godforsaken culture. They'll do whatever it takes to bring home a paycheck, and that includes screwing other people/animals over, no questions asked. Employees of the Bush administration don't question their boss, troops in Iraq don't question the orders given them, stateside war contractors aren't too much bothered that their paychecks are fueled by the war machine, and scientists paid to mutilate animals are about the same. The only thing that's going to change their behavior is threatening their bottom line.
But let's be honest. The real concern for our government is the issue of property loss. The SHAC 7 are being charged with property destruction. For corporations and the U.S. government that is the issue that matters most. Let's say that the situation was reversed. Let's assume that the bulk of SHAC crimes were regarding violence against humans, but they had committed very little damage in the way of property destruction. Would the government have used HELICOPTERS to arrest the accused criminals? Would they be considered one of the nations top terrorist organizations? What about the nazis that love to kill queers? Or what about the pro-lifers that assasinate doctors? Are they considered terrorists?
And finally, I'd like to add that I was surprised and disappointed at the attitude and biases taken by the writer. There were a lot of ways he could have presented the information. He could have chosen to condemn SHAC's use of violence without intentionally marginalizing the opinion of animal rights activists. (As has been stated, there has been no shortage of scientifically backed information in support of animal rights.) It's clear that a lot of people feel aggressively threatened by this topic. What do they have to lose? Mainly the feeling that they are ethical people living free of blame.
-
Rotten apples, etc.
Good message, drinkwater. Any movement, especially a controversial movement like animal rights, is susceptible to smear campaigns whenever extremists engage in violent or unethical behavior. I've been an animal rights activist for 20 years, and I know a lot of people in the movement, and the vast majority are decent human beings who care as much about human rights as they do animal rights. If I saw an animal rights activist physically attack a scientist or someone wearing fur, I'd kick that activist's ass, because he's nothing but a thug.
I'm pro-choice, but I sympathize deeply with pro-life activists. I know how deeply they feel about abortion; they sincerely believe that babies are being murdered. I disagree with them, but for the most part I respect them. However, they too are part of a controversial movement, and their movement is as susceptible to damage because of the actions of a violent few as we are. Pick any social or political movement, especially when it was still a minority movement, and you'll see the same dynamic at work.
The animal rights movement is taking on very, very powerful foes. The meat industry, the fur industry, the hunting industry, the lab animal industry, puppy mills, circuses, and on and on. We are also challenging people who sincerely believe that they are helping people, as many medical researchers do -- as well as sick and ailing people who rely on medical breakthroughs. That is, for me anyway, the most (and only) difficult animal rights issue. Most scientists aren't sadists, and most agree with us that lab animals should be treated as well as possible. We need to work with them to help improve the lot of lab animals, and find replacements for animal tests whenever possible.
As for meat, we are challenging a cultural tradition that dates back to the caveman era. Of course, vegetarianism has been around for thousands of years too, but almost always as a minority movement. By saying it is wrong to eat animals, we are challenging a fundamental aspect of many people, and it is no surprise that for the most part they react defensively, at least at first. I believe that we are correct on the moral argument: since it is possible to live healthy lives as vegetarians, it is wrong to therefore still kill animals for food. Since the number of vegetarians and vegans is slowly but surely growing each year, I think in the end we will prevail. In the meantime, we can compromise with people of goodwill to eliminate the worst of the abuses: veal crates, battery cages, gestation cages, and so on.
All in all, the modern animal rights movement is about 30 years old. That's not a long time for so ambitious a movement, but considering what we've achieved in so short a time, we should be proud of our efforts. The danger, as you point out, is that we have some foes who will stop at nothing to defeat us. For that reason, we must always travel the high ground. SHAC's violent behavior is unacceptable.