Well at the risk of lowering the tone... I was discussing the issue of animal rights activism a few months ago. The person I was talking to said they didn't regard things like damage to property of those involved in animal exploitation as extremism, given the seriousness of the cruelty they inflict. So I put a lot of thought into this. I would compare it to my feelings about the Iraq war, an issue I've demonstrated and protested about an awful lot. I have extremely strong feelings about those involved in and responsible for the war; people directly responsible for the killing of people in the hundreds of thousands. The fact that they have done this and got away with it sickens me to the core. Yet I wouldn't regard it as an acceptable means of protest to damage the property of soldiers involved in the war, nor that of the politicians responsible for sending them there. It isn't a legitimate form of protest, it is driven by anger rather than reason, and it plays into the hands of those who would seek to dismiss the protestors as fanatics. If I were to go around doing that, the protest itself would become the issue; it would undermine the point I'm trying to make by demonstrating against the war. So yeah ... if this was perpetrated by animal rights protestors then I feel they do the cause no good whatsoever; I think it is axiomatic that this kind of action gives the animal rights movement a bad name.
Hear Hear, too many people stuffed with their own self importance, think they can do what they like, to whom they like, when they like. And don't dare criticise them, cos they'll beat you up along with your family and friends. Soory, don't like Fascists.
I really don't think the animal rights protesters are doing this out of there own self importance... they are doing it to try to protect lives.
The idea is to make the lives of the evil people that torture animals so shit that they give up torturing animals... They don't listen any other way as they have no respect for animal life. It's only when you cause them monetry loss or personal hardship that they think twce about what they are doing. I can't honestly see how people see the Animal Rights activists actions as extreme in this case considering the gross acts these animal vivisectionists do daily.
So presumably you also think it would be acceptable to dig up the corpses of dead soldiers who were involved in killing people in Iraq. Do you think this would help the anti-war movement?
Did you actually read what I wrote? It's not about what is good or bad for the movement Jon, it's about making these peoples lives so miserable that they stop torturing animals. At the end of the day these people are already dead... the animals are alive and in pain as we speak.
Our soldiers are still killing people in Iraq. You could argue that the only way we could make them think twice about continuing to inflict so much suffering is to make their lives as miserable as possible. How likely is that to affect our international policy now or in the future? Similarly, how likely is this act to affect positive change in legislation to prevent cruelty to animals? It's totally about the good of the movement ... you want laws on animal cruelty changed, don't you?
Don't patronise me.. There are different factions of all movements as you well know. Some prefer direct action some prefer lobbying / demos etc. I personally believe a mixture of both is the best way forward.
Yes. It's my contention that extreme direct action such as this can cause harm to the credibility and legitimacy of those who are working to affect positive change by more constructive methods.
