"Then they came for the animal activists..." Do we speak out enough?
- Thread starter taffboy gwyrdd
- Start date
GarfieldLeChat
fucking awesome but wrong
fairy nuffeditor said:
taffboy gwyrdd
Embrace the confusion!
GarfieldLeChat said:
I think "the actions" might be a bit all inclusive. Rescuing animals from labs where experiements are largely superfluous, very often scientifically dubious, sometimes dangerous and always cruel, strikes me as being quite noble.
Again, for all I know what I just said was itself criminal.
My point is that whatever legal and propaganda dirty tricks are carried out against AR now (Im not talking about extreme stuff, wantonly hyped up) is comming for environmentalists very soon. The "chill factor" is a deliberate goal of the state in my estimation. For example, FIT are ubiqitous at the most banal and fluffy of events.
The stretching of the term "terror" to become ever more inclusive is key. In the US ALL federal offences can now be so interpreted. That wont happen here probably but the goalposts are shifting. We need to be in solidarity with AR NVDA and I dont detect much of an appetite for that on this thread, which is sad. Here's the proof:
free spirit
more tea vicar?
Garf, I think you're kinda missing the point of this thread.
To quote the OP
note the use of the word tactic, not legislation.
While this isn't exactly internment, there does seem to be a deliberate new tactic emerging of targetting people seen as being the ring leaders of the AR campaigns, charging them with 'conspriacy to blackmail', then opposing bail and locking them up on remand so as to get them out of the way for as long as possible whether or not the eventual prosecution is successful, and at the same time impounding as much of the campaigns leaflets, computers etc as they can.
The basic logic behind it seems to be to disrupt the campaigns as much as possible, decapitate the leadership, and presumably attempt to scare people into submission.
This seems to me to be a significant change of tactic, and a major raising of the stakes. The schnews article is right IMO that they're testing these new methods out on the AR people first because they think they can get away with it due to a few highly publicised incidents where they've apparently crossed the line.
Locking up campaign leaders on remand for long periods on conspiracy charges is a very dangerous development IMO.
To quote the OP
note the use of the word tactic, not legislation.
While this isn't exactly internment, there does seem to be a deliberate new tactic emerging of targetting people seen as being the ring leaders of the AR campaigns, charging them with 'conspriacy to blackmail', then opposing bail and locking them up on remand so as to get them out of the way for as long as possible whether or not the eventual prosecution is successful, and at the same time impounding as much of the campaigns leaflets, computers etc as they can.
The basic logic behind it seems to be to disrupt the campaigns as much as possible, decapitate the leadership, and presumably attempt to scare people into submission.
This seems to me to be a significant change of tactic, and a major raising of the stakes. The schnews article is right IMO that they're testing these new methods out on the AR people first because they think they can get away with it due to a few highly publicised incidents where they've apparently crossed the line.
Locking up campaign leaders on remand for long periods on conspiracy charges is a very dangerous development IMO.
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
Well maybe if AR types stopped directly targetting individuals and their families perhaps the OB response wouldn't have been so severe as it is? What I love about stuff like this is that whenever DA types escalate their actions, they call foul on the OB for doing the same...
free spirit
more tea vicar?
to put this another way, had they decided to use these tactics against the core group of people organising the DISSENT camp at the G8 protests, or even taken it wider to target the key people within each of the local affiliated groups, they could have arrested us on a 'conspiracy' charge a couple of weeks prior to the G8, impounded all our computers, mobile phones, leeflets and any equipment we had already got stashed for the camps (for evidence), put us on remand til after the G8, and there's a very real possibility that the entire thing would have collapsed and there'd have been no meaningful anarchist presence at the G8 at all.
They could then have just quietly dropped the charges afterwards.
I know that the decentralised working methodology of groups like dissent is in theory supposed to be able to help overcome this kind of tactic, but in practice I'm not sure whether in those circumstances it would have been possible to cope with the loss of the main people involved in the planning or not.
It probably is possible to improve the strategy and tactics of orgnisations to be able to plan for and cope with this apparent new tactic, but only if the tactic is recognised, discussed and planned for in advance.
They could then have just quietly dropped the charges afterwards.
I know that the decentralised working methodology of groups like dissent is in theory supposed to be able to help overcome this kind of tactic, but in practice I'm not sure whether in those circumstances it would have been possible to cope with the loss of the main people involved in the planning or not.
It probably is possible to improve the strategy and tactics of orgnisations to be able to plan for and cope with this apparent new tactic, but only if the tactic is recognised, discussed and planned for in advance.
free spirit
more tea vicar?
don't get me wrong, I'm no massive supporter of the AR campaigns, and don't like some of the tactics they've employed, but I think schnews is correct in it's analysis that the police are merely testing out this tactic on the AR campaigners because they know they can get away with it.kyser_soze said:
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
So have there been any trial precedents set as to whether these laws can be applied in this way?
free spirit
more tea vicar?
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by trial precedents - as the point of this tactic seems to be to take key people out of the equation for long periods by putting them on remand pre-trial.kyser_soze said:
According to the schnews article referenced in the OP, there are currently 4 people on remand, 3 of the since may 2007 on conspiracy to blackmail charges, plus others on trial for conspiracy to breach sections 145 and 146 of the SOCPA.
the point for the police doesn't seem to be even whether they are convicted or aquitted in the end, it's just a tactic to get them out of the picture for as long as possible by any means necessary, in order to disrupt the campaigns and scare people into submission.
If they are found not guilty, presumably there could be some compensation due, but in reality this is likely to be peanuts in comparison to the policing costs of policing even one big AR demo I;d have thouhgt, so I doubt the police give a shit... essentailly encouraging the police to push the boundaries and potentially even act outside the law, in the knowledge that they're happy to pay the fine if it comes to it (IMO).
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
It's in the OBs interest to not let it get to court. If you get a trial, and the defence successfully argues that the application of these laws in this way is outside their scope and spirit, the OB won't be able to use it as an approach again.
GarfieldLeChat
fucking awesome but wrong
not in realtion to very dangerous people who have little regard for humans.
Normally the hyperbol would state these are terrorists.
that's maybe taking it too far however the lack of regard that the AR movement has for it's fellow speicies does make both their actions and their ideologies one which does need to be monitored. and i'm glad that they have been locked up jsut as the morons who burn down pediatrations homes should be locked up...
viglanty action such as this cannot be condoned in civilised society. It simply can't. There's many arguments to say that there are faults with the current system but when in essence you choice is to attempt to erradicated your fellow humans for their actions in such a minor and petty matter (and in the grand scheme of things animal testing is petty) then you have bought that ticket, you shouldn't complain when the you then decide you don't like the ride.
And i think it's dishonest to lump AR in with other forms of activism as well, the default action for AR is to use a level of violence which other direct actions vehemently oppose.
There's a seperate debate to be had over whether or not violence (using the tools of the state to overthrow the state) is an acceptable action within Direct action.
there are few other direct action groups whose next step would be to build fire bombs or to target in significant members or state publiclly that you are a target if you work for certain companies. regardless of the role.
It's one step away really from timothy mcvay and the like. and it's totally non comparitive to legitimate armed struggle as well.
there's also the issue of anthropromorphication which has never been address but the attempts of the AR to bestow humanistic traits on other animals. and confere those rights. Non of which is actually fair to the animals as it assumes a number of things which cannot be proved ie it's a faith.
and this describes best the idology behind this group of activists it's a faith based action not a poltical one and all relgious actions or attempts to coerce the state or the people by violent means should be rejected.
The wider issue is is it acceptable in todays day and age with no proven benifits to test certain things on animals. And cosmentically no it's not medically regardless of the follow through to human trails then yes. of course it is.
how do you enforce or maintain a ban on cometic testing on animals whislt still allowing research to be performed to widen you knowledge and understanding of the illness. It's an entirely different thread again.
what can be said however is that it's not through violent means.
as for the alws are then used and abused and used in manners which they were never particularlly written to cover.
OK let's deal with some of the myths about this for example. the use of the harrasment law to deal with an AR activist who had been sending threatening letters hanging round outside the phone making intimidating phones calls etc etc so the stalker law which has been claimed not to have been meant for activists but for stalkers of a sexual nature is perfectly vaild as the legislation isn't purely about stalking but about more general harrasment.
if you are going to rally against particular use of certain laws then learn also why they were applied in a given circumstance.
the thin end of the wedge. really? you think that the harrasement law being used against people who harras is the thin end of the wedge...
It is of coruse right to be worried particualrlly in the present climate of further and more invasive interference from govt and it's agents, in fact in any climate. but this is barking very far up the wrong tree.
and as has been shown it's not like this is a new phenominom the beanfield was a long time ago...
Normally the hyperbol would state these are terrorists.
that's maybe taking it too far however the lack of regard that the AR movement has for it's fellow speicies does make both their actions and their ideologies one which does need to be monitored. and i'm glad that they have been locked up jsut as the morons who burn down pediatrations homes should be locked up...
viglanty action such as this cannot be condoned in civilised society. It simply can't. There's many arguments to say that there are faults with the current system but when in essence you choice is to attempt to erradicated your fellow humans for their actions in such a minor and petty matter (and in the grand scheme of things animal testing is petty) then you have bought that ticket, you shouldn't complain when the you then decide you don't like the ride.
And i think it's dishonest to lump AR in with other forms of activism as well, the default action for AR is to use a level of violence which other direct actions vehemently oppose.
There's a seperate debate to be had over whether or not violence (using the tools of the state to overthrow the state) is an acceptable action within Direct action.
there are few other direct action groups whose next step would be to build fire bombs or to target in significant members or state publiclly that you are a target if you work for certain companies. regardless of the role.
It's one step away really from timothy mcvay and the like. and it's totally non comparitive to legitimate armed struggle as well.
there's also the issue of anthropromorphication which has never been address but the attempts of the AR to bestow humanistic traits on other animals. and confere those rights. Non of which is actually fair to the animals as it assumes a number of things which cannot be proved ie it's a faith.
and this describes best the idology behind this group of activists it's a faith based action not a poltical one and all relgious actions or attempts to coerce the state or the people by violent means should be rejected.
The wider issue is is it acceptable in todays day and age with no proven benifits to test certain things on animals. And cosmentically no it's not medically regardless of the follow through to human trails then yes. of course it is.
how do you enforce or maintain a ban on cometic testing on animals whislt still allowing research to be performed to widen you knowledge and understanding of the illness. It's an entirely different thread again.
what can be said however is that it's not through violent means.
as for the alws are then used and abused and used in manners which they were never particularlly written to cover.
OK let's deal with some of the myths about this for example. the use of the harrasment law to deal with an AR activist who had been sending threatening letters hanging round outside the phone making intimidating phones calls etc etc so the stalker law which has been claimed not to have been meant for activists but for stalkers of a sexual nature is perfectly vaild as the legislation isn't purely about stalking but about more general harrasment.
if you are going to rally against particular use of certain laws then learn also why they were applied in a given circumstance.
the thin end of the wedge. really? you think that the harrasement law being used against people who harras is the thin end of the wedge...
It is of coruse right to be worried particualrlly in the present climate of further and more invasive interference from govt and it's agents, in fact in any climate. but this is barking very far up the wrong tree.
and as has been shown it's not like this is a new phenominom the beanfield was a long time ago...
free spirit
more tea vicar?
it is however a new tactic.GarfieldLeChat said:
http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/pressreleases/archive/2006/127_06.html
so to be clear, garf approves of this tactic being against AR activists.
What would you think if the same tactics were used against the Smash EDO campaigners? Their protest tactics are pretty similar, though slightly less extreme, and could easily be charged under the same laws I'd have thought.
free spirit
more tea vicar?
btw you'll note that it's not actually the harrassment laws being used in these cases, it's 'conspiracy to blackmail', but don't let that put you off eh
Bakunin
I am Noodle's bitch.
free spirit said:
Attempts have been made by the lawyer I referred to earlier, the apparently rather dubious Timothy Lawson Cruttenden.
http://www.smashedo.org.uk/pressreleases/05-11-21.htm
GarfieldLeChat
fucking awesome but wrong
they are in no way simialr one is to harass and inflict damage on perosnal property of indivuals regardless of their psotition in the company as a way of bullying people out of their jobs and homes. the other is legitimately attempting to stop people from carrying out the business of selling weapons which kill and maim humans.free spirit said:
it's not targettign indivuals regardless of their postition it's not firebombing or paint strippering cars it's not digging up bodies to hold the corpse to ransom...
If you think that in anyway these are similar you need to get a sense of scale and perprective that sadly you seem to be lacking...
slightly less extreme, christ next you'll be say an h bomb and a pape cut are similar only the paper cut is slightly less extreme...
GarfieldLeChat
fucking awesome but wrong
what do you call digging up a corpse and holding it to ransom then conspisy to upset the dead...free spirit said:btw you'll note that it's not actually the harrassment laws being used in these cases, it's 'conspiracy to blackmail', but don't let that put you off eh
let's be clear what they did was an attempt to black mail as oddly they felt that grave robbing wasn't going to serve the relevant punitive charges for digging up a corpse they looked at the intent...
and the harassment laws have been used against AR in the past to dowith Cambridge science labs employees summit you'd know if you had any intrest inthe subject other than being obtuse on a message board...
but don't let a little thing like lack of knoweldge put you off eh
free spirit
more tea vicar?
fuck me garf, you love a good old internet scrap don't you.GarfieldLeChat said:what do you call digging up a corpse and holding it to ransom then conspisy to upset the dead...
let's be clear what they did was an attempt to black mail as oddly they felt that grave robbing wasn't going to serve the relevant punitive charges for digging up a corpse they looked at the intent...
and the harassment laws have been used against AR in the past to dowith Cambridge science labs employees summit you'd know if you had any intrest inthe subject other than being obtuse on a message board...
but don't let a little thing like lack of knoweldge put you off eh
I'm fully aware that the harassment laws have been used in the past, I was merely pointing out that they weren't the laws under discussion in this thread, or in any of the posts I'd made that you were responding to.
If you want to discuss the use of harrassment laws then start a thread to do it, don't attempt to undermine the point of this thread by going off on a tangent.
taffboy gwyrdd
Embrace the confusion!
Bakunin said:
Mine too. But the thread has become (probably predictably) too much an opportunity for people to just say how awful AR activists are, based on a minority of deliberately hyped up cases.
GarfieldLeChat
fucking awesome but wrong
dude why then pick up on the tail end of the post and not address the salient point?free spirit said:
what law would you use to charge people who'd dug up a corpse and then held it to ransom?
If not the blackmail laws...
and how in a case of blackmail would it be possible to find charges if we are not to use the legislation pertaining to that area?
And yes i love an internet scrap over the years it has prevented me form killing hunderds of colluges multipul times...
GarfieldLeChat
fucking awesome but wrong
i don't think that it's a minority of hyped up cases at all most of the work done for instance back in the 80's the anti boots vivisection campagins which didn't focuas on what type of vivisection and fell wildly and lfatly on it's arse when it turned out to be vivscetion for human benifit rather than cosmetic benifit...taffboy gwyrdd said:
in no way do i support boots but am poitning out the sensationalism and frankly willingness to suit facts to agendas has been ongoing for some time...
the awrfullness of the AR movement is endemic with it's agenda really animals above humans. at it's nub. which isnt' really sustainable. that's a pretty extremist view point and it's born from ideals of hurting fluffy wuffy animals should be stopped. and the idea that anthropromorphication isn't taking place which it patently is....
huntingdo life sciene cambridge science etc etc etc all legal businesses who carry out legal works... yet have experinece as have their staff extreme levels of violence on a personal and corperate level...
so it's dishonest to say it's a minority of cases and again sadly seem to have over looked the reality of the situation that the majority of AR actions are aimed at targeting blackmailing and victimsing people in a viglanty action...
hell if they were a hoodied group of black youths it'd be called a gang and this would be called gang violence...
taffboy gwyrdd
Embrace the confusion!
Im not an AR insider but there is no agenda Ive seen to suggest animals are "above humans". That's complete nonsense and strikes me as a propaganda meme, but like maybe I should check with my cat Walnut before I say that. It is quite likely the AR people think that animals have the same right to life as we do and I dont see why not. Humankind (lets face it - its usually men) is highly arrogant and in love with its own intelligence. A misinterpretation of some opening bits of the Bible has allowed western and islamic culture to see ourselves as masters of the earth. Now as a consequence of this psychosis we are setting about destroying it.
HLS may operate in a legal framework. Fantastic, so do BAE and a whole bunch of unsavoury types. I dont really see what your point is here.
The law is a proven amoral ass in many regards, resorting to it as justification doesnt make your case look great at all.
The violent criminal cases ARE a small minority, regardless of what you say. But they suit a propaganda image the establisment want to put out there. In your case it has worked. Like any other campaigning group the majority of actions seem to involve handing out leaflets to people in the pissing rain or marching, fund raising, writing articles, lobbying etc. etc. You are happy to slur a category of people who are actually more likely to be strict pacifists than most others.
Is anthropromorphication at work? perhaps in younger or stupider activists. But most people of reasonable intelligence are in fact capable of telling the difference between humans and other animals. Again you are basically slurring people.
Similar threads
- Poll
