|
The Scientist: NewsBlog:
Calif. animal activists arrested
Posted by Bob Grant [Entry posted at 23rd February 2009 04:17 PM GMT]
Rate this article
Nutters by anonymous poster [Comment posted 2009-02-24 06:38:51] Sorry, but that's my reaction every time I hear about another animal rights extremists' doing. In the UK we've had fire bombings, explosive devices, razor blades sent in letters etc. injuring people. Other unsavoury behaviour was digging up a body (human in case you wonder) for black mail and other forms of violent coercion.
The worst bit is that most scientists would love to get rid of animals! They introduce uncontrolable variables, they are expensive to buy/maintain, a lot of them bite, and I always found it sad personally to have to kill so many rats/mice. In fact if animal welfare is truly their concern, why not act on the conditions of farmed animals? Millions of chicken are crammed in huge factories and die without ever seeing the light of day, and are only one example. And rather go straight to the veggie fascists PETA, how about AR activists accept that some people want to eat meat (hint: we have canines) and pressure for better regulation in how we treat animals? Everyone would win: less animals killed and living in better conditions, better quality meat and we'd eat less meat too, helping with the obesity epidemic! What's not to love? Activism and extremism closely linked by Paul Browne [Comment posted 2009-02-24 04:33:15] Ellen, the problem with your suggestion about radicalisation is that the many of the firebombings preceeded the new legislation. Blaming it on the legislation is just an excuse that extremists make for what they would have done anyway. Where AR activists are concerned protests outside the homes of scientists and threatening leaflets often go hand in hand with arson and vandalism, that is why activists believe that their "personal" approach might work. It's a way of telling those targeted by the protests that they are on the extremist's list.
The same tactics were used in the UK, where new laws were also brought in to deter "home visits". To be honest though even before the new laws began to have an effect the home visit approah had already begun to backfire on the extremists as people began to unite in the face of the threats, and this translated into greater levels of public support for scientists, and ultimately into the Pro-Test march in Oxford LINK Most of the extremists that have been convicted over the past 4 years have been convicted under older legislation, such as that covering blackmail, harassment and arson. Better sharing of intelligence between police forces, not new laws, has been the biggest factor in curbing AR extremism in the UK. That is the lesson law enforcement in the US should learn from the UK. The one recent restriction on the right to protest in the UK that I do support is the ban on protests outside a person's home. When is protest outside a persons home anything other than a form of harassment or intimidation? Scientists act no different from GW Bush? by Ellen Hunt [Comment posted 2009-02-24 00:48:48] It is rather unbelievable to read that leafletting and peaceful protest are now crimes. Forcing ones way into a person's home is a crime, it is called trespassing. But we have made it into a special crime.
This unbelievably idiotic policy of giving these people no voice and criminalizing what is allowed to everyone else BECAUSE OF THEIR VIEWS is having its predictable outcome. That outcome is radicalization. Radicalization is what generated the firebombings. Time to wake up people. These laws we are supporting (or administrations are supporting in our name) are endangering our lives. We will see more violence, except that now we will see killings. It is as predictable as the change of seasons. We have created our own terrorist nemesis by suppressing them systematically. No, I don't support them, but I do understand how this works. Foolish animals indeed. by Sergio Vasquez [Comment posted 2009-02-23 16:53:02] If these dimwits stopped idolizing the naked celebs who push this idiocy and spent some time in a Research I animal facility, they would realize that these animals quite often receive better care than uninsured Americans.
Sooner or later these ignorant mongrels are going to experience the Second Amendment at the hands of a fed up professor... Not Free Speech by anonymous poster [Comment posted 2009-02-23 14:11:28] Read your link - nice story, but not quite free speech activities:
{At one protest, a group of five or six activists allegedly ?attempted to forcibly enter the private home of a University of California researcher in Santa Cruz.?} While I don't like it, I agree that protesting in front of someone's home (while not on their property) is protected by the constitution, as is writing on the sidewalks. What I don't understand about this movement, and never have, is their insistence on targeting the individual researchers... This is just not a viable strategy. I guess picketing at the University or Company isn't glamorous enough or personal enough. I have also never read a reasonable statement as to whether these people understand anything at all about what goes on to protect animals at these institutions, or what the research being performed is. This is not a cosmetics manufacturer putting mascara in a rabbits eye... Chalking and leafletting are not crimes by anonymous poster [Comment posted 2009-02-23 13:26:10] These activists were arrested for their First Amendment activity...they have not been connected to the Santa Cruz firebombing or any sort of violent activity.
For more information and analysis on the charges see: LINK Comment on this blog |