Don't you just love the way animal rights activists are portrayed in the media?

by Joe Soap Sun May 21, 2006 03:53

In fairness you cannot deny the rather horrific tactics used by some animal rights activists lately. Any sort of extremism like that is bound to be big news. How dare they force there views on other people in such a disgusting and threatening manner!

by cool j Sun May 21, 2006 04:54

What are these so called "horrific" tacticts JS. Do you not think that jailing 3 animal rights people for admitidly the tastless act of interfering with a grave for 12 years each was extreme and draconian to say the least given that such a sentance is way beyond that handed down in most rape, paedophilia and even some murder cases. The only horror in all this is the sick cruelty inflicted on animal like monkeys and dogs in unregulated labs in Britain and increasingly in this country many of which I may add are located in remote parts of the country so as not to attract attention to their vile activities .

by cool j Sun May 21, 2006 05:09

I remember a few years ago an interview hoisted by John Sopel on BBC concerning Animal rights. The man was so blinded by his own biased opinons that the poor Animal rights person could hardly get a word in above Sopel's hysterical and unfounded rantings!!!

by Hedgehog Sun May 21, 2006 05:16

Interfering with corporate interests is worse than murder and a strong message had to be sent to stop activists daring to do so in future. These guys were used to send that message. (though it was a tastless act)

I get the distinct impression that putting 'em in the ground is perceived as less of a crime than digging them up these days.

JS your rapier like wit is astounding!!

by Hedgehog Sun May 21, 2006 05:21

Thanks coolj
wonder if that interview is on the web. do post a link if you have one

by Fiery Steve Sun May 21, 2006 15:04

Some animal rights campaigners in England dug up the corpse of someones mother-in-law, and blackmailed employees. Surely thats unwelcome?

by Hedgehog Sun May 21, 2006 15:15

Please read previous comments before posting. we agree it was tasteless but 12 years in prison? really!

by Joe Soap Sun May 21, 2006 17:08

There are several issues being discussed here:

1. The media's portrayal of animal rights activists - in particular the extremists who have caused so much trouble.

2. The judicial system and the sentence handed down to some of the perpetrators.

3. The behaviour of multinational medical companies.

Whilst I agree with you all on points 2 & 3 (i.e. that 12 years is too harsh and that many multinational companies act dispicably) I strongly believe that the actions of animal rights extremists is something that is both worrying and newsworthy. Any form of extremist behaviour that involves people forcing their views on others is always of concern to society. That's my point, please don't skew it.

by cool j Mon May 22, 2006 03:38

THats the reason why they are gunning for the animal rights lobby with the help of a typically coniving media!!

by Joe Soap Mon May 22, 2006 05:12

Evidence, evidence...?

Everytime a newspaper runs a story about animal rights extremists it does not mean they are choosing to ignore a story about multinational companies. The two are pretty much unrelated.

There is no conspiracy, there is no hidden agenda. There is only a lack of interest - on the part of the media and the general public - in the actions of multinational companies and a very real interest in the actions of animal rights extremists.

by cool j Mon May 22, 2006 10:37

I think you a little innocent JS as to the ways of the world. Interest in a subject can only be garnered if it is reported. The mainstream media in this country and elsewhere are loath to report stories that make the estaiblishment or big business look bad. I know this for a fact being involved in the Shell to Sea campaign. In recent weeks we've had Shell involved in polluting the local water supply and one of its rigs ramming a fishing boat off Erris head(not the first such incidient eithier). Of course the mainsteam media ran a mile from such stories, indeed the Sunday Times yesterday decided to do a hatchet job on Maura Harrington a woman who has campained tirelessly against SHell on behalf of Erris, the OKinaw people of Nigeria etc. Of course the journalist wasn't interested in here good work on behalf of the oppressed and instead sought to discredit the woman over a minor public order offence that hasn't even come before the courts.
Its all about what people are presented with through the media and if the media fail in there primary duties in giving balanced coverage than its no wonder we have all this hysteria and nonsence concerning Animal rights activists!!!

by Joe Soap Mon May 22, 2006 10:58

So people gobble-up whatever the media feeds them and the media is under the thumb of big business? I think it is you that is innocent of the ways of the world. That's some serious conspiracy thinking you have going on there.

Most people, I think you will find, are intelligent enough to discern what is or isn't newsworthy. Most people can decide for themselves what they personally find interesting. And most people, you should know, find the acts perpetrated by animal rights extremists disgusting and abhorrent. They do not consider it "hysteria and nonsense", and for you to dismiss their concerns speaks volumes.

by Hedgehog Mon May 22, 2006 17:18

JS, Obviously you havent seen videos of animal mistreatment. Have a look at the movies linked to here: http://homepage.eircom.net/~furfreegalway/furinfo.html

then we can continue our discussion on what you consider to be disgusting and abhorrent ok?

And thats just one issue of many. All for stupid fur trims we dont actually need at all.

BTW ireland still engages in fur farming and has 6 active fur farms.
This is illegal in many countries including uk (hence also NI)

How often do you see this hit the times or indo front pages??

fact is, society wants to discredit groups,such as those defending animal rights, who rally against practices that are ugly but profitable. Activists across the board are well aware of this and have to be very careful not to give ammunition to the press. The powers that be can generally do what they like most of the time and their unpleasant actions dont get much coverage except on sites like indymedia. If they do get some coverage then it's rarely balanced. It aint just co-incidence!

Animal rights activists are among the gentlest people I know. Yet they are often demonised because the media have done such a good hatchet job.

You JS are helping them do their job for free! You should at least get paid for it if thats what you choose to do with your life. Glaxo, for one, are not short of a few quid!! :)

http://www.worksmart.org.uk/company/company.php?id=3888...ounts

by Joe Soap Mon May 22, 2006 23:07

Right, I'm going to go through what you said, simply and logically. And I'm going to demonstrate to you why you are making no sense whatsoever.

1. "JS, Obviously you havent seen videos of animal mistreatment."

Yes I have actually; don't be so condescending. You don't know me so don't assume you know what I have or haven't seen.

2. "then we can continue our discussion on what you consider to be disgusting and abhorrent ok?"

I still consider digging up bodies disgusting. Imagine if that happened to your partner or parent's bodies! People value humans over animals. We bestow respect and dignity on humans - dead or alive - that we do not on animals. That is human nature.

3. "All for stupid fur trims we dont actually need at all."

Most things we don't need - but there are lots of things we want. People want to eat meat, some want fur. You better get used to this. Anyway, those animal rights extremists were targeting a medical company, not a fur farm. People need medicines. And for you to side with people who would deny humanity life-saving and life-improving is sick and wrong.

4. "BTW ireland still engages in fur farming and has 6 active fur farms.?This is illegal in many countries including uk (hence also NI)"

That doesn't make it illegal in Ireland. Sovereignty is what it's called.

5. "How often do you see this hit the times or indo front pages??"

Rarely, if ever. Doesn't mean there's a conspiracy!

6. "fact is, society wants to discredit groups,such as those defending animal rights, who rally against practices that are ugly but profitable. Activists across the board are well aware of this and have to be very careful not to give ammunition to the press. The powers that be can generally do what they like most of the time and their unpleasant actions dont get much coverage except on sites like indymedia. If they do get some coverage then it's rarely balanced. It aint just co-incidence!"

Society - in general - doesn't agree with animal rights activists. As we live in a democracy, you must accept that a minority cannot force their opinion on the majority.

7. "Animal rights activists are among the gentlest people I know. Yet they are often demonised because the media have done such a good hatchet job."

Clearly there are some that aren't so gentle - terrorising people and digging up bodies doesn't fit my definition of "gentle".

8. "You JS are helping them do their job for free! You should at least get paid for it if thats what you choose to do with your life. Glaxo, for one, are not short of a few quid!! :)"

Right. That's not even an argument.

Please don't fire off random shots that don't have any relevanceto the argument. You're not helping your cause.

by Hedgehog Tue May 23, 2006 16:39

Look, your "points" are not particularly good and certainly not as wonderfully logical as you believe. I think thats clear to any readers of this thread and at this point I am happy to leave it up to them to decide for themselves.

The fact is I've been in these kinds of discussions before and no matter what I write, I'm certain you will come up with more and more crap for me to reply to, using standard techniques such as the straw man, etc, whilst ignoring any refutations and wasting more and more of my time and energy to no effect because the fact is you are not really interested in the subject, just the argument for it's own sake. It's one of the standard patterns you encounter in discussion forums like this on the internet. I see it for what it is and the best way to deal with it is to disengage. Thats why I choose not to answer your points. I do not wish to be some stupid foil in your quest to improve your rhetoric. You see, difficult as it may be for you to understand, I actually care about the subject itself.

Choosing not to engage further with trolls does not mean you are taking moral high ground or are unable to respond to the trolls arguments. It just means You're not a masochist or a fool!!

ok i'm done playing now. you can continue to play with yourself if you like :)

by Joe Soap Tue May 23, 2006 17:03

You haven't responded to a single point I have made. Instead you make snide comments and you call me a troll?!

If you genuinely believe in your cause - and I believe you do - then dismissing people who disagree with you is not the sensible thing to do. Disengage if you want, but you won't convince anyone if that's your attitude. And excusing extremists certainly won't help.

by Elvis Wed May 24, 2006 11:52

Animal rights activists only deter support with tactics like digging up the dead,

It is disgusting!

Look at all Gandi achieved with non-violent protest and then compare it with a group digging up the dead to upset others.

Shame on them, shame on those who supported them.

However a 12 year sentence should knock that on the head!

Animal rights activists will never win popular support with behaviour like this but sometimes I suspect that they don't want to. There is an element among them who just like being anti-social and this is a way for them to "legitimise" their behaviour.

I mean how else do you justify digging up the dead?

by dmitriy Tue May 30, 2006 16:18

Glaxo is a slightly more disgusting organization.
Probably, my investigation of recent criminal endeavours of GSK may be helpful to present campaign of animal activists?
My article "Glaxo Conspiracy against H.Pylori discovery" is at: