Philosophy > General AR Philosophy Are animal rights activists terrorists? A new poll suggests that support for animal testing is at an all-time high in the UK, and that 77 per cent of Britons believe it is fair to describe some animal rights activists as terrorists. Seventy per cent of those who took part in the YouGov poll said they backed live medical experiments on animals. In addition, 76 per cent said the Government should provide additional support and protection for those involved in live animal testing. The results suggest that the extreme tactics used by some anti-vivisection campaigners have backfired. Note on scientific study: A study needs a baseline, and trends need multiple data points to be legitimate. This poll would appear to be very narrowly conducted. Estimates are that 10 years ago 99.999 % of the UK supported animal testing. Five years ago it was still 99%. Even if the estimates are off by a factor of ten it would appear that support for animal tests is dramatically decreasing. Last month, three activists who disinterred the deceased grandmother of a family of guineau pig breeders were sentenced to a year in prison each. In recent weeks, researchers and shareholders in testing companies have been subject to threats and intimidation, provoking a powerful backlash. Pro-vivisection groups such as Pro-test have formed to campaign on behalf of researchers. In an unusual step, Tony Blair even signed a petition in support of animal experimentation. So, do animal rights activists have a valid case at all? Do animals actually have any rights? If animals do have some rights, what are they? And how far should we go to protect them? If animals don't have rights, is there any other reason why we should try to spare them unnecessary suffering? Don't the tactics of the animal rights extremists seem quite mild compared with those of other terrorist factions? Does it devalue the word "terrorist" to apply it to a group whose actions remain largely non-violent? Is it ever justifiable to test products on animals? The following comments (203) are in reverse chronological order: "These anti-social lawbreakers need to be brought to heel, and feel the full force of our legal system." I am a committed antivivisectionist and a pacifist. I am in touch with many antivivisectionists who are also peaceful caring people and in most instances have in the first instance become involved in campaigning against vivisection because they care about all life, never because they don't. Good afternoon, Hello Keith, If animal rights people are "terrorists" then I guess "terrorist" means someone who's compassionate. Research on animals to find cures and data on humans gets results for highly stressed animals, and misleading results for humans. To learn about humans study humans, and leave the poor animals in peace. When you look at what animal research is actually like, the ghastly horrors are such that normal people don't want such things to happen in their sight. But they are just as painful, frightening, gory, unnatural, and soul-wrenching when out of sight. The animal activist movement will have peaceful educators as well as more extreme supporters. Just like the civil righs movement had Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcom X. But that is not the issue. The issue is that millions of animals are being tortured senselessly every year... When a monkey cries and screams because humans that were supposed to protect him are hurting him for a scientifically invalid reason, that is when we know our world is in deep trouble and we need to check ourselves. To quote Mahatma Ghandi, "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated." Animal rights protestors certainly are NOT terrorists. Animals are being tortured in ways that civilized society would never consider doing to humans, so why must it be done to animals? Animals are sentient beings with the same abilities to feel pain and emotion as humans. Everyone who supports animal testing, open your eyes and come out of the dark ages! Animals were not put on this earth to serve us; they are here for their own purposes and we are exploiting them. It is up to us to stop this suffering. They are NOT. Kathy, then you need to raise the level of pressure on those government departments. You still can not justify attacking the researchers for complying with mandatory test methods. I too would love to see an end to animal testing, and I have already made it clear what I think about cosmetics. But the original question was, about unlawfull and sometime violent acts against the companies and people who work in the industry. You can not justify that under any circumstances and it only seeks to brand you all as "leftie tree and animal huggers" You claim that the YouGov poll suggests that "support for animal testing is at an all-time high...and that 77 per cent of Britons believe it is fair to describe some animal rights activists as terrorists." There is a small minority of Animal Liberationists who fall under the category of 'Terrorist'. The actions of these few misguided individuals should not detract from the fact that human beings have no right to use another species in biomedical research just because it is able to; besides, testing on nonhuman animals merely tell us about these animals. If we were genuinely concerned for the wellbing of the human species we would use human volunteers; but there is no profit in health! Torturing animals and emotional blackmailing people is what vivisectors are all about for the only reasons of status in their field and money. Experimenters, not animal rights activists, are the terrorists. Experimenters are the ones inflicting terror, suffering, and death on sentient beings. Thank goodness for the animal activists who try to make the world a little kinder place to live in. Many people seem to accept the unworkable concept of 'terrorism' being to cause terror (Latin root: terrerre). It seems to me that people's desire to condemn militant action exceeds any degree of clarity. To cause terror is a neccesary, but not sufficient, condition of the definition of 'terrorism'. If we are to have such an open-ended concept, why have one at all? The real terrorists hide in the labs, Animal experimentation should not be allowed in this age of modern technology that allows for the use of virtual reality tools and methods. Animal rights activistism does not equate to terrorism. The terror is within those who do not respect OUR beloved existing animal kingdom. Their terror is fear of the unknown. The experimenters are the ones who are terrorists. Their need to experiment on other living creatures to fulfill their own needs and desires. Permeaculture is the way to go! Look it up on the world wide web! People stop being so gullible and believing everything that media feeds you with! Pharmaceutical companies do not care about you! How many times have there been "accidents" with various medication? How many times have people been needlessly poisoned by pharmaceutical drugs? Drugs those are indeed - just that these are legal because again when you have the money - you have the power. Who profits from the sale of these drugs? You or I? No - the pharmaceutical companies do. Look for example the "Bird flu" pandemic scare. This also is a scam by pharmaceutical companies! And it is you who is spending your hard earned money to support these unethical companies. Do you think they are worth it? Why have they not found cure to so many illnesses with such "extensive research" in so many labs?
Because it does not suit the pharmaceutical companies to find a cure; instead they keep on selling you their drugs, making you completely dependant on them. And the drugs get more and more expensive. Look at diabetes – how many years have they been researching? And still no cure. Think about it; when have they found a cure for something lately? Again – it would not be a good thing for the pharmaceutical companies – it would mean less drugs sold. So what is the solution: naturopathy and regular visits to your chiropractor. Of course, your GP medical doctor will tell you that this all does not work; doctors especially do not want you to visit a chiropractor. This would mean they could not push drugs on you. People wake up! Do not support the real terrorists – the pharmaceutical companies.
And if the law did not prevent them from placing humans into labs and testing on them, do you think they would not? Of course they would! Why? Because these people do not have any ethics, the only thing driving them is the money. But they tell you a pretty story about how much they care about human health… And you chose to believe them… We are NOT TERRORISTS! Imagine if a hospital took a healthy baby & cut it up for "research". You would be outraged. It is the same for animals. Just because they have no voice doesn't make it right. After all these years of experiments, if we don't know the answer now we never will. With todays technology & info already learnt, animals in research are no longer needed, except by those who have no heart, but heaps of Government (must protect our jobs) money. One wonders what these researchers do for fun..torture kittens perhaps! To all the ignoramuses and government's puppets out there: if you believe that the legal system will rectify anything or bring justice - you are once again sadly mistaken. So, to the easily led majority of folk out there: stop believing what the media tell you, stop being hypnotised and brainwashed by government's propaganda and start thinking with your own mind. Anti "terrorist" laws were made to control the masses easier, and to take more civil liberties away from people. I am tired of hearing this word from uneducated masses - i hear that plenty of people in Britain are. Most of you out there would not even know what it means. And it is not untill your own civil rights are taken away that you will realise how much power you are giving the government and corporations.
Even if you do not think non-human animals (lesson in biology for the ignorant masses: humans are animals too!) have any rights - it is not about what you like or dislike - it is about ethics - it is about doing the right thing by everyone. By accusing activists you are defending the greedy corporations who are making themselves very wealthy while experimenting on the defenceless animals. And the reason why they are doing that is because you all are supporting it! You are supporting pure evil and you are making the corporations wealthy by your own stupidity, ignorance and shallowness! Animal experiments do not work. Get your information from your own research and not from what they feed you with in the media! I am starting to believe what they say that the British are really stupid, sick and perverse - and off course arrogant. Why is it that innocent animals have to suffer in this way? If you want to experiment, why not use some of the murderers, rapists and other low-life for your experiments? Their bodies are nmore closely akin to the humans you are allegedly trying to help. I ofen wonder if scientists enjoy the pain and suffefing they inflict on animals and are, indeed, terrorists in the true sense of the word. I'm an animal rights activist and no, I'm not a terrorist. I personally do not agree with all the tactics used by some activists, however any decent person would be against animal experiments if they saw the actual procedures. Activists are just people who have seen the true, ugly face of science, that which scientists do not want you to see, that which activists will do whatever it takes to expose....Baby monkeys being bashed over the head to induce brain damage and then cutting open their skulls to try and fix the damage while they are fully conscious...then testing drugs on them for Alzemia!!! This is NOT science! Pharmaceutical companies simply do these tests because if they do not their drugs will not be approved for human trials.
These "scientists" do these disgusting experiments simply because that's what they get paid to do. They do the same experiments over and over again on MILLIONS of animals, almost NEVER finding a cure for diseases just so they get funding! Meanwhile thousands of people are dying while these companies are wasting time and lives doing these experiments. Did you know that more people die from the adverse affects from pharmaceutical drugs than from illegal drugs? And these drugs would have been "sucessfully tested on animals". Wake up! There is NO good reason to test anything on animals! It causes suffering to millions of animals AND humans! The best answer is preventative health! To all those of you who use sick and dead family members as an argument for animaln testing; my father died of cancer, at a relatively young age. The medicine he got made him even more sick and weak. So he stopped using it because he couldnt stand the terrible side effects. His, and so many other peoples, cancer could not be cured by testing animals. Animal advocates are not terrorists. They speak "All the arguments to prove human superiority Your question seems based on an assumption that "activism" is always illegal. Most isn't. Much of that which IS illegal has been defined as "terrorism" by the government. It seems to me that to label as terrorism any activity that seeks to protect life and which is directed against hurting or injuring people or animals is an insult against real victims of real terrorism --- acts designed to actually hurt and kill innocent people in the interests of creating terror among the populace. The real terrorists are the vivisectors who feign the belief that torturing animals is necessary, or even just useful, to advance medical knowledge. Animals have different anatomies and physiological functions from humans. It is doubtful that whatever medical knowledge that can be gleaned in such a barbaric fashion is worth the horrendous cost in pain and suffering imposed on the subjects. The word terrorist is just media hype and bandied Dig up a granny and you get 12 years. Kill a granny by dangerous driving and you get �250 fine (Ref: Daily Mail 30.5.06) Steal the bodies of dead babies and children up to 10 years old for scientists from the UK Atomic Energy Authority and you get the Nobel Prize. (Ref: Observer 3.6.01) Crazy world isn't it? The word 'terrorist' is not just a word it is a weapon, used by those with vested interests in perpetuating animal exploitation. By labeling people terrorists, in this case the animal rights 'extremists', it serves to deflect attention away from what they don't want the public to think too much about. Sections of the media are doing a brilliant job in this respect and some gullible and ill-informed people are falling for it but history will judge the animal rights protesters and one day they will be labeled martyrs not terrorists - when the world looks to us for a lasting respect and the animals look to us for a lasting kindness, some of us will have awakened from our sleep. We need animal rigths activists because animals are treated very badly in this world. All animals should be treated with compassion, love and respect. We need people to get that message out. Humanity as a whole must change its ways of dealing with animals. Animals deserve to live pleasant lives as much as humans do. Animal rights are here to stay. So the Government, media and those opposed to us will just have to get used to it. I would like to contradict comments from many people who do not want to admit that testing on animals is a terror of the worst kind. Keith, Please - that we are even debating the value of vivisection in the 21st century is laughable. From the research and reading I have done, most experiments being done on animals are so idiotic and redundant; effect of deprivation of motherly love on monkeys, alcohol dependency, that sort of thing. Over and over the same results and all in the name of science. Millions of dollars is spent needlessly inflicting the most brutal kind of torture on animals so for example a "new and improved" headache tablet can be released. The bottom line is animal experimentation is big business and where money is involved the government is going to be right behind the money makers. Animal activists are not terrorists and to class them as such is ludicrous.
Far better to spend the money on doing serious anti terrorism work like or funding programs to alternatives to vivisection. I also believe the so-called support animal experimentation in the UK is a backlash of the recent hunting ban which was a determined win for animal rights activists through mostly peaceful and legitimate means. To add to my comments (May 31st 10:50pm) my major point is that animal testing is the standard that many governments legally impose on drug and pesticide companies to gain approval for use of their products. It, therefore, requires the activists to lobby those government departments to change the way in which they demand researchers to test the use and safety of thier developing products to gain approval for use. Many of the scientific community already know that much of the mandatory requirement to use animals to extrapolate data for humans is bogus, and have lobbied for years to seek other methods.
Despite that, and however deep the strength of feeling may be, it is still wrong to attack and terrorize the people doing the testing. Use the power of democracy and public oppinion to get changes made through the many other, and legal means at your disposal. Also there are some extreme animal activists there is no excuse good enough to keep the barbaric cruelty to defenceless animals going. Animal cruelty is in our age and time with all the advanced technology a crime. Our scientific technology is so advanced that it is unnecessary to use animals. Animal rights/welfare campaigners are being tarred with the same brush as the current wave of Islamaphobia has tarred 99.9% of peaceful Muslims. People forget that these pharmaceutical companies are the biggest drug dealers in the world. The US Food and Drug Administration Center for Drug Evaluation and Research states, "studies estimate that 6.7 per cent of hospitalized patients have a serious adverse drug reaction (ADR)with a fatality rate of 0.32 per cent. If these estimates are correct, then there are more than 2,216,000 serious ADRs in hospitalized patients, causing over 106,000 deaths annually. If true, then ADRs are the 4th leading cause of death, ahead of pulmonary disease, diabetes, AIDS, pneumonia, accidents, and automobile deaths. Relevant article: Making these animals suffer is to condone torture and a very sad reflection of humanity. I wonder if those who spoke out against slavery were called terrorists? Can you imagine the terror animals endure, when they face pain and fear every day of their lives. No escape from those who do with them what they want. In suffering animals are our equal. It degrades humans to allow such barbarity. Animal experimentation per se is not good science. The only reliable information that can be provided is that from tests on humans or animals which actually have the disease. There is no equation between the number of animal tests carried out and the number of diseaes for which cures have been found. Look at cancer stats! We must also factor in lifestyle choices such as diet, exercise, stress control and social contact before marching off down the path of drug-based 'therapy'. Animal Testing equals human death and illness. The biggest cause of death in the U.S is pharmaceutical drugs. Animal testing is outdated and can not be accurately extrapolated to the human condition. So many drugs have been declared safe for humans after being tested on animals - Thalidamide for example. If we want to advance medically for our species, we must start studying our own species. If we were to believe the results of animal testing, then we would believe that smoking does not cause cancer and humans do not need vitamin C. Animal Rights activists are not terrorists, they are not just trying to save animals, they are trying to save people too. So called scientific evidence resulting from animal experimentation is as immoral as it is inaccurate. Methods such as computer generated data and biological studies on tissue cultures, for example, are now possible and are more reliable. Why are they being ignored? Millions of animals are being tortured, maimed and murdered needlessly. Become informed by reading the literature available which gives both sides of the story. It will become apparent to anyone who chooses to investigate that this huge multi billion dollar industry is purely that. A money making concern with no real basis in science. Vivisection targets the innocent and the voiceless.
Eventually we will see what a sham animal experimentation really is. In the meantime animals will continue to be sacrificed in a cruel and inhumane manner.
I support all animal activists in their attempts to stop this heinous practice. How terribly sad are some of these postings. I started reading through them out of interest in the subject but very soon my supicions were confirmed. Those contributors (I.e Tom)so viciously attacking Kathy clearly illustrate the nasty, bigoted, self seeking attitudes so often witnessed in the pro testing camp. Such defensive lashing out does nothing to justify their belief that using animals to attempt to develop treatments for humans has any point, instead of moving forward and using safer, more reliable and less cruel methods. Leave that lady alone and look inside yourself and do some REAL research into the subject then you can comment ! It is quite amusing that people associate the anti-vivisection aspect of the animal rights movement with an idea that all medicine is bad. It is testing we are against, not knowledge. If all testing in the world ended tomorrow, we would rejoice but to assume that means we must stop using all medicine now known to be safe is ludicrous. Yes Nurse Bill I have refused medication on hospital admissions, because I didn't need it. I suffered two slipped discs in my spine in 1998 and took no painkillers, and got through it just fine thankyou very much. I would rather not provide money to any company which tests on animals. All you pro vivisectionists are the ignorant ones. All your arguments are based on lies and propoganda. You don't want to know the truth because it might change your comfortable lives. Doesn't anyone remember Thalidomide? Just one of so many drugs tested exclusively on animals and deemed safe for humans, the only safe way forward for humans is non animal research and more funding should be put into this ground breaking research which is already being done without animal useage. Why use such an outdated method of testing as continuing to use animals? It's proven to be unreliable, horrendously cruel and very "old think". As an animal rights supporter and have friends who 'liberate' I can catagorically state they are not terrorists. Judi - 'fraid Dan is right about pheasants - maybe No-one has ever been killed by I wonder why this country lags so far behind in the use of alternatives. The people most vehemently in favour of animal testing appear to be those that benefit financially from it. Recent events have proved that the use of animals is totally unreliable and dangerous Hey guys, I know of some anger management courses which frustrated and bigoted people like you could go on, might help, let me know!! Humans are totally powerful and self-centred when it comes to the rights and interests of animals. They are exploited as resources (or seen as pests) for our benefit as we see fit. As long as we humans benefit, even at the expense of animals' torture and deaths, it is seen as OK. Medicines need to be labelled "tested on animals" with the details so animal lovers can avoid them. The media love to use the word 'terrorist' as it sells papers - this is an insult to those who have been victims of terrorist attacks, isn't it time we showed them some respect and stopped cheapening the word. What annoys me is that everyone seems to be lumping all animal right activists with those who commit these terrorist activities. As a vegan and passionate animal right's activist, I am against all types of testing an animals, however, I do not believe that we should go so far as to harm other humans. Two wrongs do not make a right and by doing this, this extreme minority are giving the rest of us a bad name and ultimately doing more harm than good for our cause. It is therefore unfair to comment that all animal right activists are terrorists and I would ask anybody reading this to remember that. Gayle Sorry for my 'error' in presuming that the concept of 'Rights' is difficult territory. Your assumption that things can have something which you call 'Rights' unknowingly certainly widens this terrain. I'll just settle for reasonably respecting all living things, and ascribing my protection in particular to those species that are important to human existence. Dan, stop comparing Nazi's to decent compassionate people. Terrorists are defined by their actions, not by the rights or wrongs of the cause they support. This can of course be seen worldwide in the actions of other, more extreme terrorists, be they individuals, state or religeous fanatics. The extreme animal rights activists stand condemned by their recent actions, not by their cause.
To Phil Barber (posted above on May 29th): Thank you for your example of anasthetic being tested on animals. You have just proved a valuable point about the (mis)information given to the public by a scientific community whose vested interests depend on the continuation of vivisection. I cannot believe the generalisations and narrow mindedness of most of these comments. The terrorists are the ones who burn, cut and torture millions of animals each year for profit. Society needs to wake up to the illusion spruiked by scientists, and realise that ANIMAL RESEARCH KILLS HUMANS! Extrapolating from animals to humans is impossible. While people are still hiding their cruelty to animals, I think animal activists have every to right to expose it. Prof Boura's comments about "humane research" using animals are subjective. All medical research is invasive, and only 'humane' compared to experiments where the animals endure even more unecessary suffering. I just have to wonder why we humans are so important, that we may cause harm to other animals in order to perhaps make our lives little bit easier. As a Nurse I often question if these animal activists are not terrorists why do they not carry a medical card refusing all treatment that has been tested on animals. One of those put your money where your mouth is deals. Which ever side of the argument you might be on, this has proven to be a very passionate forum. I have spent the last 36 years in the pesticide industry and animal experiments have been a major part of the research for all of that time, and before. Believe me if there were other ways of testing the safety of these invaluable products, rather than on animals the researchers would use it. The tests are government legislated requirements, to test, evaluate and finally gain approval for these products, not the whim of greedy conglomorates. The vast majority of animals used are purpose bred rodents (ok, I know even rats have feelings) although some primates and dogs are too, but in vastly less numbers.
There is already massive government pressure on industry, certainly here in the US and the EU to use less and less animals and for companies to pool research to minimize the numbers of animals being used for this purpose. The point being that something is already being done to further the control of animal testing. The activists have the same resources as the rest of us to lobby governments to make their case heard. To resort to illegal acts in the name of animal rights, is no different to someone smashing speed camera's to protest speed traps. Its still illegal. Worse to threaten and commit violence to this end is equally wrong and in the end becomes counter productive in their cause. I have MS; but am completely 100% against any animal research or testing. Animals do not suffer from MS; so why artificially create it in them in the lab and the try to find a cure ! - as always; money for the Pharmacautical companies; oh, and �23 Million a year from street collections by the MS Society who are 'Striking Back' - after 25 years of animal research is there a cure? - don't think so. Kathy, I don’t know whether or not your attack on the inability of charities to campaign for political change was a misguided attempt at sensationalism or if you are just politically naïve. It is not an attempt to suppress democracy in fact quite the opposite, the rule is to restrict non profit making organizations, i.e. political parties from becoming charities. Kathy you are not forward thinking in any way or form so dont even try to play the intelligence card against me because you will fail miserably! You cannot state an argument without these idiotic generalities and assumptions! I fully support womens rights and such but seriously your idiotic clinging to the futile and doomed idea of animal rights proves for me the state of your (or should i say lack of) intelligence! Your damn right I am collecting! I do it for the salvation army and other humanitarian causes! You have no right to question my intelligence for expressing my opinions just because they congflict with yours! why dont you just crawl back under the rock where you came from kathy and hug some rabbits while some of us try and improve humanity! It is shocking to see that most people posting to this site - even those opposed to animal experiments - are ignoring the question of whether or not animal models are an appropriate use of the limited funding available for medical research. Of course they are terrorists. They terrorize people. As for medical testing using animals, unless those against it agree to have no medical treatment or drugs that have been so tested, their entire stand is specious. Being a terminal cancer patient, I follow with great interest recent developments of tracking the nature and behaviour of cancer using mice. There is no way such work could be done using human beings - we live too long and are too diverse in genetic structure. None of the four arrested were charged with digging up Gladys Hammond. There was no forensic evidence to connect them to this crime, so I don't understand why the papers routinely condemn them for a crime they weren't charged for. If animal experiements worked, the hospitals would be empty. You are obviously not aware, Tina, that the Goverment does not allow Registered Charities (i.e.RSPCA) to campaign for poliitcal change. If an organisation does want to campaign for political change they cannot become a Registered Charity and thereore also not receive the benefits of such. Another way of repressing democracy. And yes Louise, the brave sole who is pro-testing but will not look at web sites showing what goes on, I do help people, I do street collections for third world charities for one thing. It is always those who do nothing for anyone who challenge those who do good. Richard, your comments show your ignorance regarding the subject and such closed minds are not worth pursuing.
Those who think animals are dumb have clearly had do dealings with them. Your loss! Perhaps one day you will get a conscience but I won't hold my breath. I think it is an unfair comment to suggest that animal testing of drugs is all about money. I do not have statistics or a great deal of knowledge about drugs but I do know that if it wasn't for the drugs companies there would be a lot more dead and ill people. On the other hand I do not agree that animals do not have rights, we are animals so if we have rights so do they. When we dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki we did so because allegedly there was no other solution. I expect that made us terrorists. I have never known solutions to major problems be resolved by proper use of existing laws.
Hence any act of violence used to resolve a problem, by definition must be terrorism if we are to believe some of the comments made about this issue.
There are human volunteers willing to submit to drug testing for money - there is an alternative. The RSPCA exists to protect animals so maybe they should campaign to stop what is obviously cruelty to animals. Or maybe someone should sue the RSPCA for not carrying out their duty to stop cruelty to animals. In any event my full support goes to any group attempting to stop the testing and I agree that the Telegraph should run some pictures of animals being tested and the affect of the testing on them, then conduct another survey. Ideally I do not wish to cause pain to any other living creature. But if the alternative is for me or those I love to suffer or die, then it's no contest. It's called life. I was somewhat amazed that the prison sentence was 12 years each for the animal rights activists – this is more than some people get for rape, vicious muggings and killing by drink-driving. Totally out of proportion but it just highlights the stupidity of the judge with his "I set an example with you" attitude. No Kathy what is odd is when you place the lives of dumb creatures (the vast majority of which are bred for the purpose) ahead of those of your fellow man or woman. Animals are suffering out there and need compassionate human beings to speak out for them. Clearly Tom you are a very intelligent and thoughtful person who would like any minority group 'slapped in the bin'. Your intelligence and compassion astounds me. Yes, people are dying from Aids in Africa, I wonder if you are out there collecting for Oxfam or other charities which help third world countries like I do ( yes folks, those of us who care about animals also care about people) or are you campaigning to stop the drug companies using third world people as uninformed guinea pigs for the drugs they use or campaigning against the high prices they keep their drugs at so third world countries are unable to buy them. I think not! Do you think all woman should be behind the kitchen sink and pregnant too, no doubt you would have slammed those who campaigned for woman's votes had you lived in that day.
There will always be people like you and your opinions are of no consequence.
My intelligence is proven by having a degree and further professional qualifications as do many of the animal rights people I know. I am sure you would love to pretend that the stereo typically AR person lives off the state and has dreadlocks and bombs cars but of course the reality is we are forward thinking compassionate people who have the guts to stand up for wrong doing. Yes, some have done violent acts which I do not condone, but just because a minority have done so does means you can conveniently use that stereotype to classify us all. All policeman are not paedophiles just because one was, all doctors do not kill their patients just because Shipman did. I think in the intelligence stakes your comments say it all! My terrorism is your freedom fight. Either expression is likely to be propaganda in some degree. When animals get sick and have to be taken to the vet does the vet give the sick animal medicine? If so then I hope the medicine has been tested by the animal rights campaigners and not by other animals. I am totally amazed that Kathy has decided that Malachy said: "try teaching a lion running after its dinner, a wolf, hound, hawk or owl the ethics of 'animal rights' - you would be very foolish indeed." The questions for those against animal-testing (and by this I refer to medical purposes and not cosmetic) are: Firstly I would question your survey - I am registered with yougov and so are many of my friends. Only one of us got the survey sent to us and we are all anti-vivisection campaigners. Also such a survey is very dubious in its results as it includes: only people on the internet; only those registered with yougov; only those selected by yougov; only those who bothered to reply. However, my main point is that animal experiments include more than just medical research. The number of animals used in warfare research at Porton Down has risen by over 76% in the last few years to over 21,000, including monkeys and even ferrets (they make them vomit) - animals are being gassed, poisoned, burned, shot etc in order to perfect weapons to use on humans.
We may also be testing for other countries. Are we proud of that? Yet another massive court case is brewing due to birth defects caused by an anti-epileptic drug taken by pregnant women - and of course the drug was tested as safe on animals. And then there are all the 'new' 'improved' household and industrial cleaners, sun screens, botox..... ad infinitum.
The number of those suffering from cancer is increasing despite all the billions wasted on animal research. People are obese, hypertensive and suffering from all the diseases of a dysfunctional society. Not so far back in history we experimented on other races who we considered lacking in normal feelings. All evidence shows that other creatures feel pain, distress and fear. Shame on our arrogant human race and shame on the Daily Telegraph for your hysterical, ill informed and biased journalism. People want medicines without side-effects, The world it�s upside down. Crazy people. I have to say, terrorists or no terrorists, I'm against testing cosmetics on animals. More for aesthetic reasons than any moral principle, I'll be perfectly honest with you. Could someone enlighten me, if animal If animal rights activists are so keen on stopping People against animal experimentation are humans opposed to violence, however controlled, towards any other species. For this reason, animal rights activists should not stoop to the level of those hurting animals, inside or outside of the laboratory, and themselves begin to harm others, either physically or psychologically. Meet me,Margaret! I have never knowingly used any medication that has been tested on animals. I am 84, am physically very fit and need no drugs to keep me so. I recognise that I am myself an animal and I am sorry to have come to the conclusion that humans are the most revolting of all the animals occupying our planet. We are also possibly the ugliest (compare a naked man to a tiger or a stallion), and certainly the most cruel and selfish. I have spent much of my life in close contact with dogs, cats and other animals. They have given me immeasurable pleasure. The tremendous advances in human medical science and knowledge have resulted in a complete imbalance in nature. Now we have old people (like myself) being kept alive long after their sell-by date. Even war criminals are sacrosanct - I can think of one who has been in a coma for months. My philosophy is: keep working until you drop dead.
Avoid drugs, gambling and cruelty and enjoy what is left of our beautiful planet for as long as you can. Keep clear of the medical and pharmaceutical profession if possible. If the animal rights organisationsand their supporters are not terrorists then they do supply an environment for their more extremist bretheren to act as terrorists; Northern Ireland has shown how the boundaries can be blurred. I remember a TV programme that cuased outrage by showing pigs being slaughtered whilst still conscious, having been incorrectly stunned. The British public is for humane killing of animals for food. But what about Muslim killed meat where animals have their throats cut while fully conscious? The animal rights people would help many more animals in the UK if they campaigned against this. And yet we live in a multi cultural environment where such things are swept under the carpet. In 1989 I was told by the then director of the Australian Meat and Livestock Commission in Bahrain that over 20% of the meet consumed in the UK was Muslim killed - it just wasn't marketed as such.
The great slaughter houses in Australia and New Zealand where animals are killed under the supervision of Imams export their meat to Europe with the certificates of Halal slaughter which are only used if they need to sell to Moslems. Have you ever seen any one in a UK supermarket ask if the meat has been humanely killed? Everyone assumes that it is.
But if animal rights follow this direction, what will the Moslems do? Are we to ban Halal meat? If so, by standing between men and their God we may be providing justification for them to react forcefully. Animal rights extremists are a threat to society but they are a greater threat to a muslim society. I suspect they they ignore this aspect because they recognise that the muslims can be as fanatical as they can be, so they steer clear, and are willing to be hypocritical and ignore the suffering caused by ritual slaughter. I remember too Ken Livingstone on his Sunday afternoon programme on LBC Radio stating that quote "all animals should have the right not to die in fear and angst" unquote. Has anyone ever heard him speak publicly against ritual slaughter. I would have more respect for the beleivers in animal rights if they confronted this problem. I would also like to see Tony Blair squirm in trying to give an all inclusive answer.
But if animal rights are not confronted will we have the burning of mosques and kebab shops? They may get there via banning fishing and pro-vegetarian campaigns in schools but they are a minority planning a long term strategy to impose their will on a majority, and they justify themselves by showing how much they care. The more they care, the fewer supportes they need. In the end it only takes a few who care, who really care, to care enough on behalf of everybody else to justify their making the decisions, because they care, and so have the correct motivation. All a bit like the Nazis really; after all, they cared about Germany so much that they...... There are a great many people opposed to the use of extreme violence no matter who or what it is aimed at or what the excuse. I am one of them. It seems to me to be very narrow minded and divisive to blame animal rights activists as a whole for the actions of a small number. Surely it wasn't tens of thousands of people who removed those bones from the grave yard so why are they all getting the blame? Are we really concerned about human well being when we condemn those who stand up for the weakest and most vulnerable in our society or merely diverting attention from the real serious issues. In the West the fourth biggest killer of human beings is not the animal liberators but products peddled by drug pushers that have been first forced into captive animals in secret tests. Ten thousand of us die in the UK every year because we are given dangerous animal tested drugs, is this not worth some screaming headlines? I think so. Or at least a public inquiry.
From my research I can find no sign of real violence from the so called extremists aside the odd very isolated incident (just one!) but an awful lot of cruelty both deliberate and incidental and from just one failed drug product 140,000 dead people. What is incredible is that I haven't read about this in the newspapers but on the website of those they call dangerous thugs! Sort it out. Kathy you are a fool! Stop trying to take the "high-brow" approach. Just because you deluded yourself into thinking animals have rights doesn't mean you are any more or less intelligent than Richard. You are making stupid assumptions. How do you know he has a shaved head etc? you don't! Now get off your so-called "morally superior" high horse and come down to earth. People look upon you with disgust. Animals rights is a joke! People are dying in Africa and Iraq and you are offended by the companies trying to provide them with drugs? HA! Erm, mate, I think you'll find that if you don't have a measles jab you WILL catch measles at some point in your life. No ifs or buts, it is universal. Measles can cause horrible side effects such as brain damage, which currently has my cousin in a coma on life support because his mother was scared of the MMR. Animal rights activists are fools, if they love animals so much they should volunteer for the tests. They are yet another ignorant minority trying to impose their view on me. I'd slap them in the bin with other such groups as the gay rights lobby, the bnp, enviromentalists, vegetarians, neo-nazis and jehova's witnesses. REIGN CHECK! PEOPLE DONT LIKE YOU! GET OVER IT! Dear me Richard, what a warped view you have, perhaps it is you that is socially inadequate. People who stand up for the rights of the voicless and the vulnerable are certanly not easily manipulated, they are intelligent people who can think outside the box and don't spend their time on minldess pastimes like football, video games and television, perhaps then you have a point, maybe those who get off their backsides and fight for what is right are socially inadequate, after all if we don't all have shaved heads and fly England flags on the car and drink beer we are odd very odd aren't we! Yes, they are simply terrorists who enjoy violence and intimidation. I have never yet met anyone claiming to support "animal rights" who refuses all medical treatment (drugs, vaccinations, dressings, surgery etc) on the grounds that these have involved animal testing in development. What hypocrisy! How brave of you Louise to say you will not look at the Uncaged website which gives you information regarding the suffering of lab animals and the wrong doings and illegal acts which take place. Anyone who condones animal experiments and does not face what goes on in the labs is an extreme coward. As for animal testing being the law, yes it is time that laws were changed although many peaceful activists have been campaigning for this for years, (one gets a lovely standard letter from the Home Office that does not answer any of the points made) to no avail. Do you really think that if all animals became extinct tomorrow that medical science would stop. Animal testing is an easy way to get drugs onto the market, non animal testing can and should be done and some ethical charities are doing so i.e. Dr Hadwen Trust. Others could follow but, as I said , this is an indstry with vested intrests and there is no will to change despite animal misery. Thalidomide was tested on animals and did not show any adverse effects so surely this is a case against animal testing. In the 60s a drug called Thalidomide was used to quell morning sickness in women. The results were appalling as most people know. This led to a review of testing and the science of teratology was born to check for possible birth defect causing medicines. However, when thalidomide was launched this type of testing was not even imagined to be needed but the results were shown by "human testing". Yes certainly terrorists but also smug and presumptive. Much like the anti-hunt lot there is a group of people - students and old women with cats spring to mind - who participate in these sort of activities out of some distorted view that "animals are people too you know" and if I fight vivisection the animals will love me more. Much like the Independent-reading anti-Western left believes that they are helping the Iraqi people and that this will be recognised and are then surprised when idiots like Malcolm Kimber are kidnapped the anti-vivisectionists love taking on a cause where no-one has to ask you to do it you can just smugly pretend you "love animals" more than anyone else. It's a refuge for people who find it very difficult to develop relationships with other human beings.
In that respect there is little difference between the hunt sab or ALF member with no friends outside the cause and a total inability to see any other side to the argument and the sad gullible fools who think by killing themselves and dozens of others in a suicide bomb they will "enjoy" 72 virgins.
Both are generally socially inadequate and easy prey for the manipulative. I used to be an animal 'rights' activist. Of course they are terrorists as they use terror to achieve their aims. When will human beings ever learn that the means does not justify the ends? If a higher species from another planet were to take us and subject us by force to painful experiments, it would be considered horrific. To be cut up and experimented on is the worst fate any living creature could endure. Besides, as we have seen from recent drug trials, animal experimentation does not correlate with effects on people and is a barbarous waste of resources which only benefits drug companies. As so often in this type of discussion the real crux of the matter is the more general question "Does the end justify the means?" Oh dear, lots of aggression flying around here, and that sort of negativity and ignorance is where the problem is at, not with activists who, as Malory pointed out, are attempting to redress the balance. Too many people in our nanny state regard the questionable nature of animal research as providing a "get out of gaol free" card for these so called animal rights activists. This is a well intentioned but spectacularly naive standpoint. Call it armchair or Sancerre socialism if you will. The facts are simple, people who use terror tactics as a means to an end are terrorists. As such they knowingly forfeit their right to protection under the law and must be prepared to accept the consequences. It really is this simple. We as a society must ensure that we do not confuse compassion with common sense. Many sanctimonious protestors probably only exist as a result of animal testing on drugs and should consider that. I'm not in favour of testing on animals but accept it as a necessary evil, due to the majority's view that human life is somewhow more valuable than any other. I'm afraid that is not an intrinsic rule I will ever accept but this survey illustrates democracy at its best. If it is accepted that some of the actions constitute terrorism, surely the new laws, concerning "glorification" of terrorism, should also be applied to other activists who will not condemn such action? All of the animal right activists I know are empty headed lowlifes who enjoy bullying and frightening normal people, they are misfits who cannot relate to normal society, they should be processed throught the courts and then locked up. What a leading question! Not everyone who denounces vivisection is a terrorist. Besides, we need activists to redress the balance - animal testing is obscenely prolific, and much of it is for cosmetic, not medical, purposes. Stop torturing living creatures for the sake of vanity. They are a hideous product of a society where people have too much free time, too much money and not enough intelligence. Excepting the use of violence against individuals, which does the cause no good and is morally wrong, animal rights activists are heroes, doing what most of us cannot do. The fact is humans abuse and torture animals in the name of profit. Please let us not pretend that it is primarily benefical and humanitiarian. It is about profit, be it the newest toilet cleaner, wood varnish remover, cosmetic or painkiller). Society is brainwashed into accepting this evil and abuse, and we are morally poorer for it. In my home you will only find bio-degradable products, all of which have NOT been tested on animals. These products exist, sadly most people seem more ignorant of such alternatives, just as they are ignorant of the torture inflicted upon other animals, essentially all profit based. I salute them. Not all people who are concerned for animals are terrorists. Too many are, and it is clear that their real motives have nothing whatsoever to do with the animals. I do not believe that live food animals should be transported outside the UK, but I use my words only to put my point. I do NOT attack and terrorise families going about their daily business. To give another example of why animal rights activitists are protecting innocent creatures. 'Rights' is a difficult word to use in this context because it has so many meanings (39 in my dictionary). But I think we have a responsibility to treat animals humanely. The extent of that responsibility depends (largely) on the degree of their neural development. Thus, we have a greater responsibility to other humans than we do to, say, snails. Mice, rats and chimpanzees come somewhere in between. Animal testing appears necessary because of our overriding responsibilities to other humans. I want to be informed as to exactly what testing is done on animals and to be told for what purpose it is done. From what I understand (because of new regulations) peaceful protestors are not allowed to hand out leaflets showing pictures of animal experimentation. Why is information being suppressed so that I can make an informed decision? Oh! yes - I know - the reason is 'money' for those with vested interests. And that's what its all about, always! I have just read for the first time the questions asked on the yougov poll. I get the Telegraph 7 days a week in its paper form but did not see this survey - I have asked several Telegraph reading friends and they didn't either. To try and impose your views on the majority by dubious and possibly illegal methods is terrorism. The word ‘terrorist’ is not just a word, it is a weapon used to label and discredit anyone who they see as a threat to their own vested interests. "Terrorist" is anyone that causes damage to others (physical or material) for political reasons. The difference between a thief and a terrorist is that a thief is in it for material gain, and if sufficiently dissuaded, he would stop; but a terrorist will not stop no matter how difficult you make it. I find it rather strange that the "Telegraph" has for such a long time been such a fanatical supporter of experimental research on animals.Of course no one in their right minds will support people who dig up bodies etc,but this is surely not such a major issue that the "Telegraph" can devote so many column inches to what is a minor problem. It requires sophisticated philosophical accuity to define any sort of rights. We must come to the conclusion, amid current silliness, that to respect human values we have got to make decisions ourselves with regard to what is appropriate in the way of biological diversity - the suitable balance within the animal kingdom. Animals don't have a view on rights - try teaching a lion running after its dinner, a wolf, hound, hawk or owl the ethics of 'animal rights'-you would be very foolish indeed. The Telegraph (No.1 pro-hunting newspaper!) really shouldn't be allowed to persuade the public that the figures on animal testing which they portray in today's issue are correct. Has the paper ever had the guts to publish the video evidence from labs on experiments carried out on cats and dogs? No, I thought not. Whilst you can persuade the public that the lab experiments are in the main tested on rodents, you have a rather scary self-interested public agreeing with the tests, without knowing what actually occurs. If the Telegraph will publish one photo of a DOG or CAT being experimented on and then publish the same percentage results, then I might believe you. Until that unlikely day, any sane person who wants to stop these torturous experiments has my blessing - and my vote. Well, Telegraph, have you got the guts to do it? If terrorists are people who rescue innocent creatures who are caged and awaiting a terrible fate. Yes. Terrorism comes in many guises, so called 'Animals Rights' is merely one of them. Lawlessness is what this particular 'Lunatic Fringe' group practices, punish them accordingly. Animals don't have "rights" - they never did. If they did, we wouldn't eat them or kill when they were ill. Animals don't grant each other "rights" either. The concept of animal "rights" is an artificial one one which people have invented over the past few years. However humans do have responsibilities - to ensure that neither humans nor animals suffer needlessly or wilfully. We also have a responsibility to look after ourselves, which means discovering effective treatments for diseases. It is impossible to test new drugs on humans de novo - not even an Animal Rights Activist would volunteer for a trial of a drug not previously tested on animals. So the position is pretty simple: either a false premise or no new medicines. Nature is "red in tooth and claw": we can moderate that redness where it applies to us. But to eliminate it is not only impractical but would be based on the entirely false and unnatural premise of animal "rights". Testing on animals for medical research is a sad but neccessary act. What constitutes medical research should, however, be very very narrowly and exactly defined. Testing on animals for any other purpose should be banned completely and those found guilty should be subject to draconian punishment as should animal rights activists who use violence and intimidation. Don't get so worked up, Kathy. Think before I imagine that many people suffer from a guilty conscience, as I do. I can't stand the idea of it but if my life depended on it I'd be bloody grateful. As for the activists, some are terrorists, and are silly to be so. They would have far more credibility with a little more common sense. How is digging up bodies a protest? It is simply sick. When animal-rights activists criticize animal-testing, and forums such as this are provided for public response, someone always insists that animal-testing is vital for finding treatments for the millions with chronic diseases like cancer, diabetes, and heart disease. They believe animal sacrifice is morally required to save these sick people. Animal activists are not terrorists. When they invade legal businesses to detroy things, and attack workers in these industries - they become terrorists. Oh, I see Lousie, animals that are not 'some childs cuddly pet' but are bred for labs are different then? They do not feel pain or fear or emotion like the cuddly pet rabbit would. What abosulte twaddle! And you also state 'you imagine they are put down quickly when the suffering is too great', do you! Look at the Uncaged website (www.uncaged.co.uk) and learn about what happens to animals who suffer in labs! Most of the animal rights people I know have degrees and Phd's or are in professional employment and, I am afraid, are not living of the state and mindless, they are intelligent people who can see wrong doing and take the time to think and find out things for themselves not just accept the mindless propoganda put out by the Government and those with vested interests. If, as one of your comments above stated, that those who apply terror i.e. a small minority of animal rights activists, can be legitimately called 'terrorists' then we can also call the vivisectors terrorists as they strike terror into the hearts of those poor unfortunate creatures in labs. Make no mistake, this is not about saving lives, it is about Government sponsored propoganda and keeping the world's wealthiest business's making their billionsi.e. the big pharma companies. Lord Sainsbury,Tony Blair's buddy, has a vested interest! If the Government and others are so convinced animal testing works why are the Government refusing an anylsis of the benefits of animal testing despite an MP putting forward an EDM to this effect? It is archiac and indefensible. Of course they're terrorists, they terrorize people who are involved in legitimate business involving animals, so they are no different from the traditionally held view of a terrorist. It is a step to far what they did animal rights activist,but what do we do to innocent creatures?do we expect to gain eternal life by killing them,locking them up to treat them cruel and experiment on them? what for,there are many sufficient medicines allready,let people try it ,it is for our benefit by all means,so our responsibility. As normal, people are so quick to criticise people for violations of the law while protesting for a certain cause without even stopping to think 'well if they feel this strongly about it, then surely it must be at least looked into.' The results of a poll are valid only when the participants have been provided an honest knowledge base of the issue at hand and when distinct issues are not intermingled. If the respondents were shown actual video footage of the treatment of animals in laboratories as found on peta.org.uk, in which monkeys are screaming in terror as they have poisons and tubes shoved down their throats, I am certain the results of the poll would have been different. excellent idea, might help the funding crisis in the NHS at the same time! I don't think any sane person would like to see animals tortured for the sake of it, but I suppose if really necessary animal testing is the only way drug companies can get information on the effects of new drugs/compounds on whole living organisms. However, testing should be kept to an absolute minimum (anyone who thinks small mammals don't feel pain has obviously never owned a cat/dog etc that has been injured), so drug companies should be forced to share data with each other on the results of their experiments as a condition of receiving their experimentation licences. Afterall, there is no point in dozens of beagles or whatever suffering from having some chemical poured into their eyes if it has been done and the effect has already been recorded by some other laboratory somewhere else before. To not share such information becaase it's 'commercially sensitive' would be immoral. So a 'yes' to animal experiments, but with a genuine commitment to use them only when really necessary and when the work hasn't been done or documented by anyone else before. I'm amazed at the amount of comments I've read here from the Animal Rights side of the argument that can only be described as sheer stupidity. I'm saddened to discover that, despite the fact they are in the minority, there are still so many people who don't have the sense to be able to see past the sad looking eyes of a puppy. Get a life, and get a job. It seems to me that medical technology and the understanding of the body ,its disorders and treatment strategiesis advancing at such a pace that animal testing may become a thing of the past,given enough time. Meanwhile there is the choice between prolonging human suffering at the cost halting animal suffering or maintaining the status quo. Personally I believe that humans are the only species endowed with cociousness and hence their suffering is greater than any animals,and it not only affects the afflicted. I read your article on the threat to song birds from grey squirrels, rats and cats, it seems likely that a cull will be necessary if we are to maintain biodiversity in the UK, what rights for the cat, rat and squirrel then, or for the song birds for that matter. I abhor bullfighting and could never condone it however I recognize that the bulls, up until entering the ring for their eventual fateful encounter, are treated better that 90% of the world's human population. Likewise laboratory animals are cared for in a compassionate manner in order that we, the dominant and rational animal protect and enhance the life of our fellow beings. Perhaps a system where people who feel strongly about animal rights can opt out of recieving drugs tested on animals on the NHS (similar to a donor card). Obviously this would have to be irreversible else you'd have plenty of health twenty year olds signing up then opting out as soon as they get a bit ill. Then we can see how principled and commited these 'activists' really are and how many of them are in it because they are angry and enjoy violence. Of course they are terrorists and should be Testing on animals causes unnecessary suffering and the government should be supporting the rights of the animals not using it as a cheap vote winning strategy.Just look at the tests of the so called"elephant man" case that drug had been tested on animals in a dose 500 times stronger without ill effect.Penicillin kills guinea pigs,aspirin causes birth defects in cats,Tamoxifen causes cancer in rats but is used for breast cancer in humans.These are just a few examples but there are many ,many more.Animals suffer pain and distress as much as humans is this really a pro-life attitude? According to a dictionary definition I read, then some animal rights activists are terrorists. Are they hypocritical too? Amongst a Jain community they may be deemed thoughtless to animals because they don't wear masks or sweep their path ahead to protect microscopic animals. In addition, don't thay put rabbits, hedgehogs etc at risk when they drive to their destination, which I presume most do (one would have to drive very slowly to avoid harming said creatures).If a rabbit gets squashed, it didn't know that what had happened was just an accident. Could these issues make extremists more circumpect? Most animal tests are irrelevant for two legged animals-take thalidomide it was ok when tested on animals and the result on humans...Most people can eat lemons and chocolate but lemons for cats and chocolate for dogs can kill them.Its time to outlaw these tests on animals and then people who feel strongly about them but are not heard wont have to resort to these attacks.Tony Blair is clearly seeking to find a controversial area to increase his popularity and frankly he should address the root cause of these attacks-abuse of innocent creatures. Regardless of the term used to describe them, animal activists are extremely dangerous. They represent the inherent and historically constant human behavior type of absolutism which grabs the cause de jour of what ever age they live in. I write as a veterinarian working in the pharmaceutical industry. The industry has not done a good job of communicating the realities and complications of animal research to the general public. Partially as a result, there is massive ambivalence, and some hypocrisy, amongst the public, many of whom seem to believe that it is possible to take a "pure" and coherent position in favour of stopping the use of animals immediately while also supporting the development of new medicines (and using them when they become available). Four points: I would write more, but yes only has three letters. Human trials are not as effective because of the Nuremburg laws. So we have to use animals. Now would everybody grow up! Most certainly the animal rights activists should be branded as terrorists and they should, when caught, receive the same types of jail sentences as regular terroists. To have years of research destroyed by some idiots, can set back research on potential treatments for many ailments by decades. And as someone mentioned earlier, maybe part of their sentence should include being used as a test subject themselves. I see very little difference between the animal rights terrorists and their major sponsors such as PETA and other similar organizations (Voices for Animals, etc.). Donors to these organizations often do not fully realize the objectives and hidden agendas of these organizations. Voices for Animals for example believes, but does not promote in their literature, that there should be no animal agriculture (so we must all become vegetarians), that we should not own pets of any sort as that is an infringement on the animals rights. You have just published an e-mail from my Father and reading other comments on the site I find it amazing the number of people for experimentation, Tony Blair has just condoned it,presumebly to enhance human life, this from the man who is directly responsible for countless thousands of deaths in Iraq and hundreds of our young soldiers not to mention Americans, am I missing something here or does he need more cannon fodder hence the Animal experiments? Its all wrong so how can It be right? Digging up someones remains and holding them as ransom. This is one of the tactitcs they use. Enough said in my book. And of course this government has pushed through a miryad of anti-terror laws to stop these people. Fear not. Perhaps Andrea Walker could tell us exactly how and why she and her family torture animals? To put animals such as Dogs,Cats,Monkeys and all animals we can regard as domestic pets through pain because of the cosmetic and smokeing industry Is clearly wrong,where these animals are used for heart,limb, and brain transplants,It would not bother me If these centres got closed down. Not only are they terrorists but they are also self deluded and gullible. The motivation for most "animal rights" activists is part mawkish sentimentality for the "animals" and part blind hatred for anyone able to get on with a successful career. A profile of typical animal rights terrorists reveals an introverted resentful male control freak with a massive inferiority complex and often a manipulated besotted, controlled and insecure female. The "animals" are just a convenient hook on which they hang their renentment and jelousy at the way others are able to live happy and successful lives. "Animal Rights" activists are just a bunch of cause de jour empty heads who are searching always for something to make them feel good and virtuous without actually helping anyone. They would be better off going out and getting a life for themselves Treating the animal activists as terrorists is NOT ignoring the animals - they are two separate things. Testing of drugs on animals for the benefit of medical research is a valid method of experimentation - although I would not particularly object to the use of murderers & rapists being used as well. This is not gratuitous violence towards animals - whereas the argument for costmetics, etc is no so justifiable. I am a Pharmacy student, and when I finish my degree I plan to do a phd and make my way in the pharmaceutical industry. Research and Development interests me most. It does frighten me to think that this may put me at risk from these terrorists, but in just that same way that I will still board a plane or use the Underground in defiance or Islamic terrorists, I will still pursue my intended career in defiance of these kitten-cuddlers. I wish there was a way that the neccesary testing could be carried out without harming animals, but unfortunately, in some cases there quite simply is not. As an animal lover myself, it hurts me as much as it does anyone else. But I'll be damned if I'll let this or anyone prevent me from doing what I see as a just and righteous job - helping to heal the sick and save the dying. And no amount of intimidation will change that, because I do have morals, and my aim in life is to be a good christian, and to help save others. Terrorism: the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimindation or coercion or instilling fear. Is it immoral to inflict pain and suffering on an animal? Maybe. But it is even more immoral to inflict pain and suffering on a human, be it by animal rights terrorism, or by ceasing research on potentially life saving medicines. I would be interested to hear of an animal rights campaigner that would deny their diabetic child life saving insulin for example - produced after tests on dogs. Anybody who would consider such action has got their priorities seriously out of order. Animal rights extremists in general are deluded. Something that needs dicussing bigtime is the fact that Adverse Drug Reactions are costing the health service �466 million per year & that's just the ones that are recorded!!! 250,000 patients are admitted to hospital each year with ADR's. This is evidence pure & simple that animal testing does NOT work! Stealing human remains, arson, criminal damage to property, intimidation, threats of violence. Animals are best friend. We have found that out now. Under the defintion of terrorism in the Terrorism Act 2000 there can be no other conclusion. Most people ignore health warning 9e.g. do not drink during pregnancy). They then blame the NHS for not being able to cure them. They say that more research should be done on animals. Does anyone else see the irony of testing products aimed at, and designed for, humans on animals? Last time I checked, I am rather different to an animal in countless ways. Granted I have some friends who may consider me an animal however, hopefully they have not considered testing strange products on me. In short, although I understand the need for some testing, which should be done in a harmless and caring manner, I feel that tests conducted on animals are essentially pointless. Activists who conduct terror-like operations should be labelled terrorists and should rather turn to the courts to destabilise those organisations that pursue animal testing. Violence begets violence and even though I am against vivisection, I do not condone violent tactics in any way what so ever. Eradicate the cause and the violence/ terror will diminish. As I understand it terrorists plan and commit unspeakable acts in furtherance of their aims - though tend not to hang about to answer for their actions. If the definition of a terrorist is those who terrorise others then the answer to your question must be yes. A democracy means we are allowed to get public support through peaceful means and change government policy using this route. It takes time but can work. The Animal Rights activists I have come across enjoy violence and the fear they can engender, getting a sick thrill from the feelings of 'power' it gives them. But it has little or nothing to do with any concern over animals or their welfare. In reality they are themselves 'animal abusers' by using aninmals as a cloak to try and excuse their own latent violence. Cosmetics and medicines should be trialed on humans - starting with animal rights activists. These animal rights activists who intimidate people are nothing but cowardly hypocrites. Why hide behind anonymity? They know they are doing wrong and are nothing but thugs. They should be treated like the criminals they are. Ah, wait a minute, that probably means they'll get a slap across the wrists with a wet bus ticket. Better treat them as terrorists. Yes, absolutely these people are terrorists. It is the only way that they can get exposure for their extreme ideas. These people are not genuine animal lovers (with whom I have absolutely no quarrel) but nasty psychopaths bent on making life difficult for people who have to make a living in a non black and white World. Many animal rights activists have gone too far and have effectively become terrorists. I have a question for them - would they allow anaesthetics to be used on them during surgery? If yes then they are hypocrites because this medicine has been tested on animals. Let's see them suffer for their beliefs. This question invites readers to adopt a polarised position that is dangerous, which threatens to label a multifarous group of people - which includes many people who are extremely gentle, caring, and pacifist, with reasonable concerns - with an extremely negative and provocative title. The values of an enlightened society are not fostered by this sort of question. It's possible to support animal testing AND animal rights. There is a government and industry propaganda campaign to suggest that you have to choose between accepting any proposed animal testing, however unnecessary and flawed, and none. People have responsibilities to animals, whether you call that animal 'rights' or not is irrelevant. Even when,so called peacefully, they create fear, they do not appear to work, therefore live on the State - our money. Let them offer themselves for the experiments. Absolutely not terrorists. Unfortunately some extremist measures are necessary in order to bring to the attention of the mostly compassionate public the miserable plight of animals used as commodities by the uncaring clinically-minded and by greedy big business. We live in a democracy and there are established constitutional procedures for initiating and changing laws. Anybody who breaks the law instead of using these procedures must be prosecuted. Animals are not persons, and therefore have no rights. We are, and we do, but we also have duties in regard to animals including the duty to abstain from cruelty to them. If animals were persons with rights, they would also have duties and liabilities. A fox, then, would have a duty not to kill a chicken and could be punished for doing so - after being given his right to a fair trial of course. Most decidedly YES - and they should be hounded with the same vigour as all other terrorists. Yes of course they are. When diagnosed with any disease or ailment requiring any drug or drugs whatsoever, these people might meet with some sympathy if: Yes of course animal rights activists Yes, and the police and public have put up with their nonsense far far too long due to some misguided political correctness or something. Arrest them all 'by camera' (you know Mr.Plod just like you do motorists) and give severe custodial sentences 'pour encourager les autres' It seems that the animal rights activists are the least well educated with regards to the stringency of regulations governing animal research. In addition, they don't seem to appreciate that for a majority of medical research there is no alternative available. It demonstrates lack of intellegence that these people target medical research, when this is the most valuable, but definately not the only animal testing that occurs! Animals have rights that should be legislated and if not legitimately campaigned for. Criminal acts such as the stealing of human remains; defamation and harassment are barbarous. Animal rights groups are people standing up for those who don't have a voice. It disappoints me that the Telegraph should even give space to the notion that the people attempting to protect the innocent are terrorists. Your paper has become an integral part of the scaremongering nanny state. Please be mor responsible and use a little common sense. It is never right to test anything on Animals, people don`t realise the pain and suffering these poor creatures go through,the people who carry out these experiments are evil, sadistic and mentally disturbed but this is big business we are talking about here,big drug companies sub contract these experiments out so they can distance themselves from the bad publicity, and the twaddle we hear about it effecting the British Economy is another desperate attempt to undermine the good work done by Animal Activists, as usual it`s all about money As the dominant species we have a duty to look after animals, however we have an overriding duty to look after ourselves. Anybody can say humans and animals have equal rights and should be treated as such but if your or a loved one's life depended on a drug requiring animal testing it'd be an easy choice. It is right that animal testing is carefully controlled and despite anti propaganda the animals are largely spared suffering. We should take a utilitarian view, if animals can be used to reduce human suffering in a controlled way its worth it. My father worked for a pharmaceutical giant in the finance dept, and one night his car was destroyed, where is the sense in that? If there is a case for greater enforcement of animal protection enlighten people don't terrorise them. And as for them being called terrorists thats exactly what they are, whether it be suicide bombing or vandalism, they both cause terror and the word can therefore be applied to both groups, but obviously one is worse than the other. Animal rights activists that use forms of terror and violence to try and get what they want are terrorists. Some of the people claim to be animal rights activists but they are not actually activists, they are anarchists and thugs looking to cause trouble. So people are taking it out on the defenseless animals to get back at the activists? That's sick. Labeling animal rights activists 'terrorists' is ignoring the important issue of animal suffering. If these things were done to human beings it would be called torture, an outrage. The activists are only trying to put an end to the suffering,even if their methods are questionable. Why should we do things to animals that we wouldn't do to humans? Why should animals have to suffer because we don't like the activists' tactics? It's not about rights, it's about torturing animals. There is plenty of evidence that humane experimentation on animals during past years has revealed much valuable data on the normal workings of the body,the causes of disease and how better treatments can be found. Most modern drugs have required experiments using laboratory animals for their discovery.
Fair Use Notice and Disclaimer
Send questions or comments about this web site to Ann Berlin, annxtberlin@gmail.com |
