find myself feeling dismay at the reaction when I express my view that
continuing to rely on the moral case against vivisection as the key
weapon to persuade the general population of its failings is a disastrous
and failing tactic. And this with fellow animal rights campaigners!
It strikes me as obvious that this is the way forward for those of us
who want to see less brutal research methods and medical progress. As
a first rule those in favour of vivisecting other animals seek to drag
the debate away to instead whine on about paint-stripper on cars and
broken windows, which is understandable when you appreciate the impossibility
of their position. Perversely, so many of those among us who are so
passionately opposed to vivisection will seek to keep the debate on
one about animal rights. How come no one wants to talk about the scientific
failings of torturing small creatures?
isn’t letting the animals down or conceding the higher moral ground
to leave their suffering as an obvious but secondary public objection
when debating the issue, rather an essential approach if we are to get
into the heads of those people not yet persuaded, people who will subject
others to any amount of extreme violence if it benefits them. In my view,
it goes without saying, and is merely stating the obvious, to argue that
animals have rights. Of course they do! It’s our duty to enforce
them, not merely argue in favour of them. It is already illegal to commit
unnecessary suffering on animals, even in the labs. When will we as a
movement collectively recognise this and do something about it? How many
more animals will suffer for our moral objections?
isn’t a new idea but it is one that the Animal Liberation Movement
seems stubbornly reluctant to grasp. The question is often asked of us:
the rat or your baby? We are monsters if we choose the former. It of course
matters not what the stated answer is because the question is irrelevant,
a bit like asking whether you want to live to 150 or 200. Ask most people
to choose between their baby and someone else’s and the other baby
gets it. Violence is violence whoever the recipient and many humans occupying
this planet are happy to inflict it upon others, mostly by proxy, if they
think they are getting something out of it. Once we recognise this grim
fact, we can control not just the higher moral ground, but every debate
we are quite capable of raising on the issue of vivisection.
then, we will watch animal rights activists relegated to second place
in this struggle for animal liberation and sound medical research. Sure,
people will have some sympathy for our moral objection, even admire us
for it, but we will not convince the majority to change their views and
side with us - not while they believe it’s in their interests to
have other animals tested on, or killed, for their tastes. On the other
hand, should we succeed in convincing them that dealers peddling dangerous
drugs are likely to poison their baby few will reject our position.
back in 1919 The Animal Guardian, the newspaper of the London & Provincial
Anti Vivisection Society noted, “To base opposition to vivisection
mainly on ethical grounds, as some societies and speakers are accustomed
to do, is on the one hand to neglect the strongest and most vital argument
at our command - on the other to postpone all prospects of success for
at least 500 years to come.” Many anti vivisectionists have said
it out for yourself. One hundred years on and animal experiments are still
rising and those in the animal liberation movement fighting this monstrous
business on scientific grounds are few in number. Yet, largely ineffective
groups like those London nationals with all their accumulated wealth have
gone out of their way to keep banging on about the animals’ suffering
and only occasionally touched on the scientific failings. Remember, these
are of the ilk that have called for an annual reduction in the numbers
of animals used, so implying their use is a benefit to us and should continue,
as indeed they would applying this strategy, for another hundred years
to come! These are the people that have wasted millions on side issues
like cosmetic testing for example (which continues to this day). These
people often side with the establishment line that those who risk everything
to save animals are terrorists. These groups are unhelpful and will never
bring an end to vivisection using such tactics.
are some invaluable websites bursting with facts and figures exposing
the failings of vivisection, there are books that bulge the same and demand
our attention. We all know how many animals die to the vivisectors and
the kind of things they do, but how many of us can reel off the facts
that prove that far from saving people, vivisection is killing people?
There are endless class action law suits pending for the families and
victims of animal tested drugs, like Torcetrapib, which has reportedly
killed 82 so far, Vioxx, which has killed tens of thousand, the Ortho
Evra patch which causes blood clots and Epilim which is described as the
new Thalidomide, see: http://www.exposeyouradrs.org.
There are many more. Count the dead and suffering – bet you can’t!
We killed none!
we continue to stress the neglect of animal rights over the scientific
invalidity and danger of animal testing, we will plod along forever in
our moral indignation while the rest of society holds, as a some perverted
moral badge of honour, the infliction of controlled suffering on a few
for the benefit of many.
we really do believe that the majority will give up the cruelty when its
exposed to them, then what the hell are we doing spending so much time
and energy on vivisection and not the meat and dairy industries, which
consume far more individuals in the quest for profit? It seems to me that
we need to accept, as our starting point, the reality that most people
don’t really care, as long as they are benefiting.
as one who would, on befriending a genie, first wish the burning to the
ground of each and every vivisection laboratory, no matter what results
they claimed they generated, our chosen method of campaigning matters
not to me – just so long as it succeeds. It seems to me perfectly
inviting for the uninitiated to side with an intelligent articulate movement
of compassionate people who expose the many glaring failings of animal
research, in opposition to the weird mix of cold, creepy characters who
publicly defend all, and any, violent vivisector extremism.
single most frequent comment I heard from viewers of the powerful film
Behind the Mask is that there isn’t enough information on the elusive
‘alternatives’ to animal tests in the film. The respondents
were well aware of the cruelty but still, even after such an amazing experience
as this documentary delivers; we are failing to deliver the coup de grace.
I suggest that to even question the rights and wrongs of using other animals
in secret experiments, which would command life prison sentences if the
same were inflicted on human animals, is an insult to those animals? Of
course it’s wrong, it’s so wrong it doesn’t deserve
debate. What isn’t so irresistibly obvious to enough people is that
animals aren’t good models for human ills and their suffering compounds
ours. When we finally get that message across there will be few who would
dare argue for the continuance of vivisection. Until we do, the suffering
of other animals, however mild, moderate or severe the perpetrators catogorise
it, will remain an acceptable sacrifice for our well-being.