anti terrorism laws used against american animal rights activist

http://www.channel4.com/news/special-reports/special-reports-storypage.jsp?id=646


Dr Steven best a american animal rights activist as been stopped from coming to the uk by laws brought in to stop islamic clerics and islamic terrorism.

 

YES...this is madness... but no suprise.... this law will ubdoubtably be used to suit whatever our government decides needs silencing. ..
YES .. any person involved directly or indirectly with the suffering of animals is a legitamate target for animal rights activists....and
NO..this is not terrorism

 

I believe it to be outrageous. Write a letter of complaint to your MP.

 

Did you really believe any such laws were genuinely for terrorists? In the US or UK it's the same, they're only meant to give the government more control.

 

http://www.locata.co.uk/commons/

 

So does this mean you'de be fine with an islamic terrorist blowing up your house to put his point across?

 

No-one is fine with killing, terrorists kill, by definition.
Defenders of animal rights have not killed and are therefore not terrorists.

 

Actually I can see where the government are coming from. Dr Best says:

If this was somebody Islamic speaking about "infidels", or a member of the BNP speaking about foreigners, then it's all very much in the same category. Just because nobody has been killed *yet*, doesn't count for nothing. Up until the 7th of July this year you could have said the same thing about Islamic extremists in this country.

Ultimatly by saying, "violence is legitimate" and particulary "we want to wipe them off the face of the earth" is pretty strong stuff, and given that idiots have been digging up bodies and other things it's fair to say that animal rights peeps are no longer all talk.

At any rate the government is hardly being nazi-esque is it... they've only banned him from coming into the country - it's not like they've locked him up for years. Although I actually think that by doing this they have given him more publicity and his message can be spread through the Internet anyway - just like it has here!

Actually I think the definition of a terrorist is to spread terror??? There are countless examples of "real" terrorism which does not include killing somebody, such as hostage taking and then the THREAT of killing. And clearly in this particulary case Dr Best's tone is fairly threatening.

I fear that one day an animal rights group will actually go too far, and in doing so the message of peaceful animal rights campaigners will be lost.

 

well said,

I just thought I'd point out I'm not saying that it was nesiserilly fair for the animal rights guy to be banned although I could agree his attitude does apear to be very heavy handed,
but it does seem that you find it more acceptible to ban islam extreemists than animal rights campaginers just because you don't agree with Islams cause.
My point of fact was the Islams belioeve in thier case as good wether or not you do. I was just wondering if you would have the same attitude had all the animal rights campaigner to Islamic extremist and all the vivesectors (I think that was the word used) to Infadels.

Scondly legislation is incredibly hard to get right and I have at least some respect for the goverment for the job thier are doing.

 

Umm, not sure what you're getting at? My post was trying to emphasise the fact that the legislation is not targetted at any groups specifically - regardless of if they are animal rights extremists, racist anarchists, islamic extremists, or pot noodle radicals. Therefore, I found it a little daft that people were labelling it "madess" that the legislation was used against what they labelled "non-terrorists".

So to answer your question - I'm personally not bothered about what they represent, or indeed if they are considered mainstream terrorists or just thugs - my main concern would be about their intentions to incite and encourage violence, etc.

 

Sorry, forgot to add..

Have to agree with you there - you're never going to please everybody particulary with legislation that takes away peoples liberties such as the right to free speech. Of course, like most liberal ideals - it all has to be taken "within reason", and allowing people to encourage violence and harm detracts from most peoples ideas of a society based on freedom and safety IMO.

 

Thats okay I wasn't having a go at you at all,
I was just starting to get annoyed at how people seemed to be having a go at the goverment for ostrosizing some one when they agreed with him (the others not govement)
That linked with the thought of animal protestors shashing bugs and ended up taking it out in that post.
In summary you were right, I was just trying to enforce what you said.

 

hes not the only dr who supports animal rights to be banned from the uk

 

Poor Government ah diddums, and I have not said I agree with what he advocates at all. You can't ban people, because they say they want to change the way the world works. I would like to remove all Fascists from the face of the planet, but I certainly not kill anyone.

 

Well-said...yup

 

To start with I niether said he should have been banned or alowed free passage, I'm currently not well enough informed to make a dissistion like that.
Secondly he's not being banned because he wants to change the world but because of the way he wants to do it, which coincidently involves the spreading of terror.
There was a third point but that was low before I found out it was wrong and need to properly research my hypothesis

 

depends-on-your-definition-of-terror-really

does-terror-against-animals-not-count?

seems-to-me-that-"terror"-is-defined-by-the-government-to-suit-their-own-agenda-of-suppressing-our-right-to-protest

:&

 

too right

 

You don't know enough, yet state without evidence that he advocates the use of terror.
I can state my ignorance of the man, but ""if violence is needed to save an animal from attack, then violence is legitimate as a means of self-defence for animals." does not advocate the use of terror only defence of the weak, should you not do likewise ?

 

Complete crap. Dr Best has outright stood up and said he supports violence... "Right to protest" does not include right to take part in violent activities and "wipe people off the face of the earth".

The government *are* suppressing your right to violent protest though. Perhaps this is what you mean - just be honest with yourself!