CoML: Animal Rights and odd bedfellows
David S | 18.02.2009 19:29 | SHAC | Analysis | Animal Liberation | Social Struggles | South Coast
In SchNEWS’ case, one of the issues is that the Countryside Alliance are co-sponsors of the event. Issues of hunting and animal cruelty cast me in the unlikely mould of a moderate. Some of the stunts pulled by the Stop Huntingdom Animal Cruelty group irritate me. They seem unwilling to accept, despite evidence and while presenting flawed evidence of their own - backed by the word of arts graduates rather than scientists - that some degree of animal testing is an important tool in pursuing cures for various human ailments.
Our good friend over at Directionless Bones recently carried a post suggesting that arguments based around human health were somewhat hypocritical, since governments and companies are perfectly prepared to ignore human health issues which can be addressed. Domestic homelessness, substance abuse, not to mention the vast tracts of the world without clean water. The companies are built around the very market mechanisms to which I am opposed, but that is not a reason to discontinue work which saves lives.
All research - on animals or not - is based around that mechanism, until we have a movement of such cogency and power that will act to overthrow it. Even then, clean drinking water, universally available contraceptives and so forth won’t cure Parkinsons or other diseases.
Similarly, on the other side, I have always quite enjoyed hunting. Tracking down rabbits or shooting woodpigeon with an air rifle, out in the middle of nowhere, is a great way to get some fresh air. You can learn things about cooking - over campfires or at home - and about the countryside, including how to survive. Nevertheless, the site of a pack of dogs chasing down a fox, followed by various humans armed with shotguns makes something in me rebel. Neither a sport nor a learning experience.
I would not for a moment suggest that each region shouldn’t control the populations of foxes and badgers, in the same way that they control the population of rabbits - by killing them. This does not require dogs, however; it simply requires someone to be paid to manage the land.
You might ask, what has any of this to do with civil liberties? On the one hand, there are some draconian sentences being handed down to animal rights activists. The incident with the Indymedia servers and the arrest of their internet host on Monday rankles with my sense of fair play and demonstrates the lengths to which the police will go, with some of their new powers. Cases where the police unlawfully stop people exercising their right to protest aren’t unusual - nor, seemingly, is conspiracy amongst Police officers themselves.
Countryside Alliance, on the other hand, is hoping to get the Hunting Act repealed by the next Parliament. Its Liberty and Livelihood march attracted some four hundred thousand people in 2002; bound up in this march was a perception that the Hunting Act was an example of a government overstepping its bounds. Slogans such as “I love my country, I fear my government” were to be seen on the march, as were slogans inviting preference for British goods or bewailing the languishing state of the countryside versus the cities of England.
It says something when both animal liberationists - many of whom are also involved with organisations such as the League Against Cruel Sports - and pro-hunting lobbyists can get on the same bandwagon. However, I’m very firmly of the opinion that the alignment of the Countryside Alliance with the Convention on Modern Liberties is something of a danger signal. The Countryside Alliance might also be seen as a political lobbying group for private landowners, rural businesses against tax and for less restrictive planning laws.
Why would we jump into bed with this group? Similarly, why would we allow Conservatives to take stands at a Convention on Modern Liberties? David Cameron has already admitted, on numerous occasions, that he will not be seeking to overturn a lot of the government’s legislation - and indeed, it was the Thatcher government where the trend of legislating for every tabloid headline truly started. Equally, the drive for tougher sentencing and reduced judicial discretion has often come from the Conservative benches.
Or the media. Every time a judge finds something redeeming about a rapist or a drunk driver and reduces his sentence accordingly, the tabloids scream. Every time there appears a chance someone charged with terrorism might be coming home from Guantanamo, the newspapers jump all over it…and from there it’s only a short trip to “Soft Touch Britain” rhetoric. These pressures will not disappear with a Conservative government - however much people like Paul Kingsnorth and other liberals may have fallen in love with the idea.
These are all themes I’ve mentioned before, but they’re thrown into stark relief by the attitude of some activist groups to the Convention. What the Convention is not is a programme of direct action - and that is significant. In our search for a broad coalition on civil liberties, first of all we’ve forgotten that the fight is not purely ideological. We’ve forgotten the database economy - as Unity argues in a piece of superb clarity. All the bloggerati and lobbying of pro-liberties groups won’t combine to equal Tesco, Sainsbury and the other giants who benefit.
Conservatives are just as in hock to these groups as Labour. For all that Henry Porter might pontificate about Labour MPs using their time on an important committee to read letters instead of pay attention to critiques of Labour policy, it was a Liberal government who first introduced the authoritarian Official Secrets Act, rushed through in a sparsely populated chamber, one Friday afternoon. All of this should remind us that it is not simply one party that should be distrusted, it is the whole mechanism of politics on which those parties stand.
A Convention on Modern Liberty that focusses on the main parties is going to fail because it will be blind to this crucial issue. For the same reason, any answer which is focussed on voting out those MPs who don’t stand up for civil liberties is bound to fail also. It simply pushes people towards sham alternatives. Even if we’re talking about the Liberal Democrats, some of whom have good records on civil liberties, as an ‘alternative’ they aren’t going to be in a position to have much of an effect for quite some time.
So instead of pushing people towards a parliamentary answer, which remains at all times trapped within the logic of a media and business lobbyists who disdain liberties - one for the purposes of whipping up moral frenzy and the other for a quick buck - why don’t we begin building an activist response to the issue? This may not overturn the Coroners and Justice Bill immediately, but, on the other hand, it might begin to challenge that very logic which we’re working against.
Strand one would involve harassing MPs. A sufficiently well organised and funded campaign could start by sending lots of letters to them, especially to their home address, to remind them just how much we hate spam; it could arrange protests outside their constituency offices whenever their surgery hours are scheduled, whenever votes are coming up. Strand two could network local government workers, health workers and others involved in creating our uber database to resist implementation of the laws passed.
Our coup de grace would be, in the case of the Coroners and Justice Bill, to arrange a boycott by the Coroner’ Society of England and Wales, especially if this could be backed by well-funded legal challenges every time the government tried to use its new-found powers. Getting prominent figures on board is an important step in creating the credibility necessary to exert influence over professional bodies, trades unions and other groups we might need in a bid to stop the implementation of laws.
I suspect an added bonus to such an approach - targeting MPs at home, organising the public sector and getting bodies like the BMA or Coroners’ Society to go along with us - would be a separation of wheat of chaff in respect of which parliamentarians climb on board. Many would probably be alienated by any potential campaign of direct action or civil disobedience - the latter of which is particularly relevant in the case of laws clamping down on our rights of protest and dissent. Photographing police is one example of such a campaign.
Yet we should welcome this. If we can keep out the opportunists, it’ll make the political statement of that campaign all the stronger. To broaden our appeal, we shouldn’t be afraid to take a leaf out of the Countryside Alliance’s book. It went from being a primarily pro-hunting organisation to attempting to speak on behalf of rural England, on every grievance that could be thought of. Our equivalent would be generalising from infringement of liberties to linking underfunding of public services with wasteful and invasive measures such as ID cards.
That would be an especially powerful weapon, since local government workers will be called to implement many of the new plans - like Councils that will soon be snooping on calls and emails. With those workers on our side, we have a powerful bargaining chip which no number of media whores and lobbyists will equal. More importantly, organising in this manner dictates a ground-up method, rather than “interested individuals” being invited to take part in a day’s event or longer campaign. Accountability, if we’re to seek it in government, should also be a watchword for our campaign on modern liberties.
David S
Comments
Hide the following 8 comments
vivisection is an ethical issue more that a scientific issue
18.02.2009 22:03
The animal liberation view is that vivisection is morally wrong, whether or not it is useful. The fact it is misleading scientifically is just a side-issue.
Suppose by experimenting on a few human children, you could find a cure for some disease that would save millions of people? Would that justify it? Almost everyone would say no, I hope. Although maybe some ultra-utilitarians might disagree.
Animal liberationists think that non-human animals should also have rights that can't be overridden for the greater good. If you follow this view, it follows logically that vivisection is wrong in the same way as experimenting on human children would be wrong.
animal liberationist
Vivisection=lies
18.02.2009 23:27
Ask the government why there has been no independent inquiry into the use of animals for drugs testing. The majority of GPs want an inquiry into this, and so do MPs.
http://www.curedisease.net/
whatever
Human Health
19.02.2009 00:54
The Campaign for Safer Medicines opposes data from animal models being extrapolated to humans on the grounds of patient safety. Learn more at:
http://www.curedisease.net/
scientific
Countryside Alliance have pushed oppressive laws
19.02.2009 18:21
In 1994 they backed Michael Howard and the outrageous Criminal Justice Bill which made trying to save a hunted creature a crime (and lots of other stuff too!).
Last year the CA backed a hunt when they used the Protection from Harassment Act to stop anyone from filming illegal hunting or indeed challenging that hunt in any way.
For years hunts have oppressed critics and some have used very violent tactics which have led to fractured skulls,arms and legs. Two sabs, both in their teens were killed. Home visits to anti hunt campaigners have included arson and animals being nailed to front doors. In one case a little girls rabbits were decapitated.
I am ex-hunt, now an animal rights activist and I have known many people on both sides of the fence over a span of 25 years. When pro hunt activists talk about liberty and freedom of speech they should remember that their leaders are partly responsible for the legislation which oppresses all and that none of them have shown any regret about the monster THEY helped to create.
Having said that I condemn utterly the incident in which a young girl was arrested for wearing a "bollocks to Blair" T shirt. We are in a police state and if the Countryside Alliance renounce their attempts to suppress any criticism of hunting then fine, but for them to whine about being oppressed whilst seeking to imprison others for non violent direct action is a farce. I just get the impression that the CA is throwing the dummy out of the pram now that the police aren't at their beck and call, au contrare, they are probably being bugged
Lynn Sawyer
Becoming a serial killer is a learning experience to avoid
20.02.2009 00:04
I could say that I quite enjoy hunting human children. Tracking them down, shooting them with an air rifle, in the middle of nowhere, is a great way to get fresh air. I could go on to say that I learn to cook for my own survival, given that I could not afford food for example. But would many people think serial killing is morally acceptable? Of course not, because it's not for our survival. We don't need to eat flesh to survive (see veganism) and therefore are not killing for our survival, but for our pleasure - like all other serial killers.
"Nevertheless, the site of a pack of dogs chasing down a fox, followed by various humans armed with shotguns makes something in me rebel. Neither a sport nor a learning experience."
Infact, it is a learning experience and a sport, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_sport
It's a learning experience just like any other form of murder or abuse is a learning experience. It's learning how to desentisise, dominate and abuse an animal, replacing guilt with joy. Learning experiences aren't all good and they aren't all what we should be inducing ourselves into - such as rape and child abuse.
@ntispeciesist
I am a little confused...
20.02.2009 11:55
Surely someone who claims to know so much that they can use the newswire on indymedia as a Daily Mail style comments blog would be aware of Dr. Jerry Vlasak, a trauma surgeon and spokesperson for the North American ALF Press Office? Or Dr. Joe Harris, A molecular oncologist who was conducting a one man guerilla war against companies involved with HLS, even whilst he was accepting his PHD. These are just two examples of scientists who oppose animal testing, and I feel they are rather compelling ones.
If animal testing is so perfect, or even necessary, why have we not seen the Independent Inquiry we were promised by pre-election Labour in '97? Quite the opposite, they have since stated that they never intend to do such a thing (incidentally Lord Sainsbury, an avid vivisector himself was Tony Blair's scientific advisor when this U-Turn occurred). Despite several hundred MP's signing an EDM calling on an inquiry to take place, it has still not happened. And why, if they are so sure of their science, do pro-vivisection groups such as Pro-Test and the RDS lobby MP's NOT to sign the EDM for an inquiry? What do they have to fear if they are right?
If you are so confident in your knowledge that you want to us IM as an editorial blog, please make sure you do some research first. After reading your diatribe I felt rather like I had just browsed the Daily Mail.
Animal testing does not work, and if you spent even a few minutes looking into it you would realise how pathetic it sounds when you dismiss tomes of academic research off hand.
Confused
Why is this still online admins?
20.02.2009 18:47
--- Tracking down rabbits or shooting woodpigeon with an air rifle, out in the middle of nowhere, is a great way to get some fresh air
--- I would not for a moment suggest that each region shouldn’t control the populations of foxes and badgers, in the same way that they control the population of rabbits - by killing them.
The mission statement clearly states --- we reject all systems of domination and discrimination.
The guidelines further explains that articles and/or comments may be hidden for the following reasons --- Discrimination: posts using language, imagery, or other forms of communication promoting racism, fascism, xenophobia, sexism, homophobia or any other form of discrimination.
Why has this not been implemented when somebody posts an article to promote the killing and/or controlling of innocent non-human individuals, sounds like speciesism to me?
I don't have anything against anyone talking about a relevant issue, such as the repression against campaigners and the erosion of civil liberties - but certainly not whilst discriminating against non-humans. Would this be hope if it were racism, or sexism? Obviously not.
Discrimination is discrimination, be it speciesism, racism, fascism, xenophobia, sexism, homophobia or any other forms. They all should be treated as such, so please do so.
sort it out indymedia
Wrong about the Convention
21.02.2009 11:05
But the main part of the day, both at the London Convention and the satellites in Manchester and elsewhere, is the discussion sessions. These sessions are being sponsored by a host of organisations from across the political spectrum, with an emphasis on getting people together to take practical action.
I advise everybody to visit http://www.modernliberty.net/ and read about the rationale behind the event and the wide range of people involves. This isn't about flattering some MP's ego, it's about getting more ordinary people involved in defending our civil liberties.
Dave Page, Manchester Convention organiser.
Dave Page
e-mail: manchester@modernliberty.net
Homepage: http://manchester.no2id.net/modernliberty