there is a whole universe of difference between a serious subject and taking a subject too seriously.. this argument has been bouncing back and forth goin over the same points for a while... people saying.."i dont think it was right".. and claire saying, " it doesn't matter if you think it right or not the point is that it is direct action for an ongoing cause" so i thought i would create a little light relief from the monotony by injecting a little humour into.. sorry if it was in bad taste... i guess i just have bad taste.
I agree with you direct action does work, in the context of a wider movement. I'm not talking specifically about this incident now, but direct action in general. But there are two issues which I think it's important to raise on direct action. Firstly, if it's isolated and carried about by a few extremists, it can end up having a certain elitist quality to it which isolates the rest of the movement. I think direct action has to be tied to mass movements. Remember Hoosey at Faslane, he was all up for chaining himself to the railings of the base, but wouldn't take part in the demonstration later that day. He had a very sectarian disdain for, and I remember him talking about this, socialists and 'hippy shit' and mass demonstrations themselves. I think direct action can have a quality of isolating certain well intentioned activists from a wider movement for change. Mass direct action, connected to this movement, is the way forward I think. For example a mass blockade of the roads around animal testing labs to stop the scientists arriving. No threats of violence or harm, but a physical action which actually achieves something directly, without isolating the activists. If something like this was to happen, I'd take part in it. The second thing I'd say about direct action, is how far do you go? I respect the rights of oppressed people to resist their oppressors, but, in the case of Iraq, does that include kidnapping collaborators and workers connected with the occupation? When I was at the Stop the War conference earlier this year, some groups were putting forward motions calling for victory to the Iraqi resistance by any means necessary. I had to vote against these, and thankfully they were defeated. We (I was there with Socialist Unity) also put forward a motion explicitly condemning attacks on civillians. It's a fine line to tread, and how far is too far? I don't have any answers to that, does anyone?
I have never said I don't think it matters whether people think it's right or not Smartie. I completely value peoples opinions on this... Showmet and Stardust (whether we all agree or not) always throw up very good points in a well thought through, compassionate and articulate manner. I don't think there is one person on here that can't see the humour (if dark) in life... But lately it seems like you just don't give a fuck at all :&
yeah point taken.. i dont mean to come across like that.. i should just being such a shit really. sorry guys
Good points but I don't feel they are entirely relevant here. As I said before... the objective here IMHO was to bring the issue into the spotlight and add pressure to the person committing animal rights abuses... they suceeded in their objective, whether we agree with the wider consequencses or not. They do do blockades as well, very often!!!!!... they just don't get the same coverage If you would like to get involved I can put you in contact with groups in your area How far is too far? I don't know, that's why I am still discussing this on here with you people.
Sorry for my first post. Emotion takes over brain sometimes. Generalisation is never healthy. I think to abuse another human is wrong. I think to abuse other lifeforms is wrong. If the demo's aren't working come up with another plan, but you must adhere to the above principles. Should we all not try to be the best we can, and encourage others to do likewise.
I agree Dapablo... I think it's the shades of grey though that we all get confused about. "Means to an end" "Do unto others as you would have done to yourself" "An eye for an eye" "Do as you wish as long as it harms none" They all make sense but at the same time are not succinct. It's hard to stand by and watch others suffer... and it's hard to know what is the best way of making that suffering end
Yes, I'd like to get involved. Since coming to Cambridge I've got involved with Stop the War and Respect groups here, as well as Cam Peace, Hands off Venezuela, Cambridge Action Network, Indymedia and the East Anglian Social Forum, and should be helping set up a new University CND society. There are several distinct circles of activists in the town, and quite a lively vibe of underground political circles. I've not come across any animal rights protests since being here. I think they've shifted their focus from Cambridge in light of recent successes. Oxford seems to be the big target for the moment, who are planning to build new testing labs....
Thanks for updating me on your progress Be careful you don't get involved in too many discussion / think groups and forget to act I'll PM you shortly comrade
Some of them are talk shops, others are action groups, both are important You shouldn't act without thinking, or think without acting. The most productive work I've done so far has been with Indymedia on the Travellers, it's taught me a lot. Meeting them and talking to them has given me a much greater understanding of them and a stronger voice for speaking out in defence of their way of life and attacks against them. These are a couple of things I've written about after those experiences.... http://www.ukwatch.net/article/352 http://www.socialistunitynetwork.co.uk/news/againsteviction.htm
I was gonna lay into you, but I'll accept your apology in the spirit in which it was given. See how far a little tact and diplomacy can go? Well I think we're pretty much in agreement again. I wouldn't dream of defending the digging up of corpses, mainly because I think it's counterproductive. On the wider note of direct action though, I can't condemn those who act to save the lives of animals that are being tortured now. I don't feel as though I have the right to tell those animals that they'll just have to put up with having acid dripped in their eyes while we get on with pushing for legislative change. I don't believe I have the right to make that sacrifice on their behalf.
With any luck, recent developments in stem cell research may make animal testing obsolete. I think animal testing is a fairly imprecise science as it is, let alone utterly inhumane. Unfortunately the only way to convince scientiests to stop using them may be the availability of a better alternative. I hope that advances in cloning (non-reproductive) and stem cell research can provide that.... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4555023.stm
By the way Claire, Faerie Liquid are owned by GSK who test on animals, are you sure you want to be doing product placements for them
So a generic product, roughly based on the original formulation, which was made by people who test on animals, and rebranded to avoid patent laws
