They meant no harm, they’re just a little highspirited
‘Animal rights activists’ apparently firebombed a house where a biologist lives with his family at dawn on Saturday.
Feldheim, whose townhouse was firebombed just after 5:30 a.m., uses mice in laboratory research on brain formation. He told The Chronicle that he and his wife, along with their 7-year-old son and 6-year-old daughter, had to drop a ladder from the window of a second-floor bedroom to escape after smoke filled the home’s first floor.
So…they could easily have been killed or seriously injured. Rather a rough form of ‘activism’ then.
In January, a Molotov cocktail exploded on a UCLA researcher’s porch. A month later, six people in masks tried to force their way into the home of a UC Santa Cruz researcher and hit her husband on the head, police said. And at UC Berkeley, officials said 24 animal researchers and seven staffers have been harassed in recent months, with some homes and cars vandalized.
But don’t fret – they’re just trying to send a message. Jerry Vlasak says so.
A different view was expressed today by Jerry Vlasak, a Los Angeles spokesman for the North American Animal Liberation Press Office, which often posts on its Web site communiques from activists taking credit for attacks. He said the benefit of animal research does not justify its expense or the exploitation of animals. Vlasak said the bombers likely were not trying to hurt Feldheim, but were instead “trying to send a message to this guy, who won’t listen to reason, that if he doesn’t stop hurting animals, more drastic measures will be taken … it’s certainly not an initial tactic, but a tactic of last resort.”
‘The bombers likely were not trying to hurt Feldheim’ – when they firebombed his house at 5:30 in the morning when everyone would be asleep in bed? They likely were not trying to hurt him? They were trying to send a message? Jeezis. If you’re going to support bombers, then be honest about it – don’t support them and pretend to think they’re not trying to hurt anyone when they fling firebombs around the neighbourhood. Your pals are not merely trying to send a message, Mr Vlasak.
Ophelia,
Under ‘More on Santa Cruz Firebombing’ , can you point to the original article rather than the copy on the website of those nutjobs?
http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_10084743?IADID=Search-www.mercurynews.com-www.mercurynews.com
Thanks
It will be lovely when (not if) one of these maniacs finally does kill someone and the Vlasaks and Coronados of the world will start trotting out their “well they’re not ALF, they never were ALF” line.
“if he doesn’t stop hurting animals, more drastic measures will be taken”
More drastic than fire-bombing his house while he and his family were sleeping?
Jakob, I guess they will steal his mice.
I was under the impression that people, including Mr. Feldheim, are animals too, and therefore, should be protected by those who want to protect animals. However, it is possible that the animal liberation front take their inspiration from the book of Genesis, in which humans are not considered to be animals.
Nick, you maybe don’t know that it was one of these mice-loving crimials that killed Pim Fortuin over a fur comment, or something to that effect.
Unfortunately, animal exploitation is safe as long as the animal rights movement exists in its current form. These idiots make the life of non-violent rationalists who see a need for reforming such practices immeasurably more difficult – impossible, in fact.
Job,
You are incorrect, I believe. Pim Fortuyn’s murder was connected to neither fur nor any other animal rights issue.
Ed,
Sorry
“Van der Graaf was born in Middelburg and by the time he attended university in Wageningen, he was vegan and an idealistic supporter of animal welfare. Van der Graaf was said to be a highly intelligent perfectionist who was emotionally uncommunicative and intolerant of those with different values to his own. A psychiatrists’ report presented in his trial concluded that Van der Graaf was sane.
He was employed by the environmental organisation Vereniging Milieu Offensief in Wageningen, which he had co-founded in 1992. His job involved conducting judicial proceedings against violators of environmental regulations. He concentrated particularly on contesting intensive animal farming and fur farming. He was said to be highly motivated in his work, working more than the four days per week of his contract and was very successful, winning about three out of every four cases. He lived with his girlfriend and their daughter in Harderwijk, where they had moved in 2001, but was said to have appeared over-stressed since the birth of their child on December 6, 2001.”
True – he claimed he was not motivated in this specific case by animal rights but that was his claim.
Fifi, okay. I was of course checking the site, and forgot to notice that I wasn’t linking to the original article.
Ed
I have tremendous sympathy for anyone wanting to reduce the amount suffering of sentient animals in medical research by the way, I salute their efforts, as long as they’re not violent idiots and they can preset a useful case. I am sure there are plenty who can offer such enlightened input… as you say, the ‘debate’ can easily be hijacked.
But there’s something non-coincidental between animal rights people & idiocy. The idea of animal rights often is one of nature being pure, needing respect, needing preservation &c &c, as against the dirtiness of the industrial or the technological world. Such a stance, as any stance involving ‘purity’, invokes idiocy.
Of course, Ed, there are other reasons for limiting animal suffering than the above – but wouldn’t you agree with me that a lot of the ‘green’ stuff we are drowned in nowadays has quite more far reaching claims than common decency or keeping on the safe side.
Job,
I’m aware that Van der Graaf is an animal rights activist. My point, however, was that, despite this, Fortuyn’s murder was connected to neither fur nor any other animal rights issue. Such a connection initially seemed a reasonable hypothesis, I’ll grant you. But ultimately it was unsupported by any hard evidence and, given that Van der Graaf himself offered a plausible motive for his actions, simply unnecessary.
[W]ouldn’t you agree with me that a lot of the ‘green’ stuff we are drowned in nowadays has quite more far reaching claims than common decency or keeping on the safe side.
I agree all but wholeheartedly. In fact, the only mite of disagreement stems from the fact I consider your assessment a dramatic understatement.
“I have tremendous sympathy for anyone wanting to reduce the amount suffering of sentient animals in medical research by the way, I salute their efforts, as long as they’re not violent idiots and they can preset a useful case.”
Except that scientists and medical researchers already have incredibly strict ethical standards when it comes to the treatment of their experimental animals. Make no mistake, the AR crowd is not interested in improving the condition of experimental animals–they want to see the labs shuttered, permanently.
In fact, I would go so far as to say that most researchers who use animals in their research have a far better grasp of the scientific and ethical issues at hand than any given member of PETA or SHAC, the majority of whom are blindly repeating their leaders’ inchoate rage and ignorance.
[S]cientists and medical researchers already have incredibly strict ethical standards when it comes to the treatment of their experimental animals. Make no mistake, the AR crowd is not interested in improving the condition of experimental animals–they want to see the labs shuttered, permanently.
You’re falling foul of the petitio principii fallacy. Whether or not current practises and legislation go far enough towards minimising animal suffering is a crux point at issue, so simply presupposing that they do is rather illegitimate. It’s somewhat irksome, moreover, to be labelled dishonest and told what I think and what I want by someone who firstly has never met me and secondly is relying upon spurious reasoning.
You’ve made yr case Ed, lobby the rest of us? What are the reductions that can be made:
Ed, for a moment there you had me in a moment of ‘maybe, …’ then you go off all Calimero-like, taking something as personal which wasn’t even directed at you as far as I can see…
What’s wrong with common decency? What specifically is your claim, other than dissociating ‘violence & idiocy’ from the ‘true’ AR without saying what true AR is?
If there are arguments that the current (as dzd points out, quite strict) rules are unsufficient, what are they & what, according to you, are proper means in a strife to change those rules?
JoB, I think Ed means that , for him, all animal experimentations should be banned. It’s not a question of rules or ethical standards. At least that’s how I read his petitio pricipii comment. Maybe I am wrong?
But yeah, your question is still valid: what are the means Ed would find proper to achieve this goal?
You’ve made yr case Ed, lobby the rest of us? What are the reductions that can be made:
You’re opening a can of worms there. What I believe and how it informs my thinking concerning the need for animal welfare reforms really requires infinitely greater scope than this thread allows. Even so, I’ll offer you an extremely brief summary.
Despite much searching, I have never come by a rational defence of speciesism – i.e. the view that humans, regardless of their individual characteristics, are significantly and inherently more morally valuable than other animals. The only such defences I’ve been offered ground themselves in religion or mysticism; distinctions drawn along purely biological and thus morally irrelevant lines; circular reasoning; nebulous concepts of blood, kinship and destiny; the notion that “it’s natural”; ideas that, when subjected to reducio ad absurdum, could just as easily justify xenophobia, racism or sexism; simple equivocation; dubious use of set theory; or the unapologetically irrational. In light of this, I cannot with good conscience work from a speciesist standpoint. Luckily, the degree of sentience a given being exhibits – its consciousness, ability to suffer and have preferences, etc. – seems well suited to serving as a rational basis for moral value. The upshot of this, of course, is that I take animals much more seriously. Nevertheless, given that rats, mice etc. likely lack a particularly conscious or developed preference to continue living or form plans, I consider killing them to be a morally negligible act when it’s done in the name of genuinely important science. Causing such animals prolonged and unnecessary suffering, conversely, is rather more problematic. But as has been touched upon, existing legislation is strict: rats, mice, etc. are simply not protected. (Incidentally, I consider medical researchers generally to be dedicated professionals who do important work on a limited budget. So I find it highly implausible they are frequently carrying out lethal or cruel experiments pointlessly or in the name of idle curiosity. Even so, I would ideally like to see such animals formally protected by the legislation.) One rather more concrete way in which these ideas inform my views on laboratory animals is that I believe extremely sentient animals such primates etc. – due to the fact they are more sentient even than certain human beings – need to be protected from any lethal or significantly invasive experimentation. Will this “hamper vital research”? Well, possibly, in the same way that refraining from lethal experimentation on unwilling human beings does.
The above might not seem a complete argument. I’ll stress, again, that it’s not intended to be. It’s simply an extremely brief summary of my beliefs. To truly flesh the concepts out would require countless pages.
[W]hat, according to you, are proper means in a strife to change those rules?
Well I think the most compelling form of protest would be some kind of mass extermination of humankind. Then the animals and plants can live together peacefully in a word of lovely, rich and organic greens and browns.
More seriously, however, that’s something of a non-question; I suspect we agree on what constitutes non-violent, non-intimidating, rational protest and what doesn’t. (Obviously burning families does not.)
For the greater good is at least an honest argument dzd,just dont tell me it is ethical to experiment on our fellow creatures just because we can,it isnt.Marie I hold myself to a higher standard than my cat.
Ed, being acutely aware dzd anwered to Nick, it does not follow that you were referred to.
Anyhoo, you say it’s infinitely beyond this thread to expound your reasoning, then make it clear it is based on your supposed fact that there is really not more than arbitrary difference between a human & the rest of the animals. You have to admit this is quite arbitrary a statement as is clear from what you say not so very much later: “Firstly, animals are not moral agents, whereas the human beings experimenting upon them are.”
There’s your difference – it is not in the very least arbitray so: please try again.
As to self-regulation, doctors & so on are self-regulated by law – law admits courts (at least of arbitration) for a couple of professions like this. It is then not left to, but rather delegated to. Lawmakers can perfectly well raise the standards used – it’s not the type of self-regulation of multinationals.
As to non-violent opposition: I put it to you that current democratic opinion is adequately expressed by the care as outlined by dzd. Would you agree then: unless you get the votes to change it, the scientists involved cannot, & not even morally, be reproached for their actions.
Ed, being acutely aware dzd anwered to Nick, it does not follow that you were referred to.
Dzd claimed that those who maintain that current legislation is insufficient – i.e. people like me – must be dishonest and must really want “the labs shuttered permanently”. Thus while he didn’t single me out personally, his remarks referred to me.
[Y]ou say it’s infinitely beyond this thread to expound your reasoning, then make it clear it is based on your supposed fact that there is really not more than arbitrary difference between a human & the rest of the animals. You have to admit this is quite arbitrary a statement as is clear from what you say not so very much later: “Firstly, animals are not moral agents, whereas the human beings experimenting upon them are.” There’s your difference – it is not in the very least arbitray so: please try again.
So it’s the moral agency a given being exhibits that renders it significantly more morally valuable. Thus beings that are not moral agents can justifiably be experimented upon for the benefit of those that are. Well you’re right, that’s not in the least bit arbitrary. Such a principle, however, has some unexpected and rather unpleasant results: it renders all human beings who are not moral agents legitimate fodder for experimentation. This is not a consequence I find palatable. Thus I cannot consider moral agency a defensible distinction. (I would, ideally, have made this problem clear earlier. But expounding upon every such factor would have required infinitely greater scope than this thread allows.)
As to self-regulation, doctors & so on are self-regulated by law – law admits courts (at least of arbitration) for a couple of professions like this. It is then not left to, but rather delegated to. Lawmakers can perfectly well raise the standards used – it’s not the type of self-regulation of multinationals. As to non-violent opposition: I put it to you that current democratic opinion is adequately expressed by the care as outlined by dzd. Would you agree then: unless you get the votes to change it, the scientists involved cannot, & not even morally, be reproached for their actions.
I certainly cannot agree. I am not a moral relativist, and so I do not believe that right and wrong can be determined by a vote.
Ed,
You’ve a rather quaint, somewhat self- centered, idea of what reference is.
I like your backpeddling but no cigar: I did not state that nor being a moral agent qualifies for abuse. I am merely pointing out that distinctions between animals & humans are not arbitrary – I should say: I pointed to the fact that you pointed that out. As to fodder – I do not maintain animals should be such fodder, let alone humans.
I would not concede that there is such a thing as human beings that are not a moral agent. You jump to a conclusion, & frankly it is a rather disconcerting one: we should not make such arbitrary distinctions between human beings!
I’m far from a moral relativist myself but here’s the thing: if everybody has the freedom to decide on no-go areas & disregard democracy on such beliefs we would not have abortion. So except for a relatively limited set of ‘universal human rights’ the rest is up to vote – such is the rule of our lands.
Now I know 2 things – 1. you find that animal rights are moral absolutes & 2. you find that one should not break the rule of law to enforce that absolute – that leaves you with this conundrum of my 1st question – what means would you allow for to get the moral absolute in the democratic rule of law?
(to be clear whilst I am by no means a moral relativist I do not think myself the current state of animal rights has come even near to violating morality – although I’m sure things can be vastly improved & I know many people are busy like hell improving finding such means as to making use of animals avoidable)
Yeah…but this post really was about the tactics of the ALF, not about animal rights in general. I’d quite like to stay on topic.
Job,
You seem to have lost your temper. I don’t believe this discussion – in its current form, at least – is likely to yield useful results. I would happily address your points, one at a time. But I will only do so if you will agree to maintain at least a basic level of politeness. Some adherence to the principle of charity would also be appreciated. Is that a reasonable request? I happen to be your fellow interlocutor; I am not your ideological enemy.
OB,
Understood. You have my apologies.
OB, well, we kind of all agree: the ALF was wrong.
JoB, democracy and the rule of the law are not always the same things. In most European countries the death penalty is illegal, it’s certainly not a result of democracy.
Which brings us back to the ALF’s methods. If you believe that this level of suffering is unacceptable, the rule of the law will not stop you. Neither should it really…
Ed, no, I did not loose my temper but I am quite OK to apologize, if I gave you that impression. Anyway, the points are there, exceptionally I’ll put my e-mail address. My point had nothing at all to with you personally, I don’t know you & will probably never do.
OB, my point was that the animal rights movement has ideas that tend to lead up to such tactics.
Arnaud, “If you believe that this level of suffering is unacceptable, the rule of the law will not stop you. Neither should it really…”
Exactly!
On the rule of law/democracy thing, I’m not quite getting it. The death penalty is illegal in Europe because of votes – surely – it certainly wasn’t stipulated as such in the original constitutions. Maybe you’re mistaking 9 o’ clock news street interviews with democracy?
(oops, was that impolite?)
If the rule of law is not democratic I do believe one has the right to oppose (the means of opposition are yet other type of discussion).
If the democratic vote would lead to a violation of universal human rights, I do believe the resulting law should be opposed with all means.
The paradox is where most of the world is today.
20 years after its abolition, 69% of Canadian citizens were still in favour of the death penalty. I don’t really have the time to do a search on European statistics (the Canadian data were the first to come up and besides this is not about the DP) but I wouldn’t be surprised if, in a lot of countries the result were similar. Still, in Canada the DP is illegal and that goes against the will of the people…
Now I remember reading that most of the British public were in favour of using animal experimentations for scientific research. Assuming that this support stays stable the AR campaigners have little hope to achieve their aims through democratic means. What means would people like Ed (let’s call them committed but moderate AR campaigners – CBMARCs!) find acceptable? Going after the firms profiting from these experimentations through boycott and the like? Going after the people, the scientists conducting these experiments, naming and shaming? Making such a nuisance of themselves that people will give up through sheer exhaustion?
Let’s remember that the animal rights lobby had more than a sympathetic ear in the Blair government (fox hunting, etc…) and still did not manage much when it came to animal research.
And no, JoB, I wasn’t offended. I am no Calimero (I am afraid, though, that your reference may have been wasted on our “Anglo-Saxon” friends…)
Arnaud,
Your 69% was probably the outcome of a Gallup-like poll. For me, democracy is not something as simple as polling the specific subjects. If it were that way this country, Belgium, would split and merge every other day. It is common in democracy that single issues are dealt with by a representative voted that is elected on their global stance – death penalty was voted out by majority (the stance is not constitutional).
CBMARCs are in a predicament. All your suggestions are OK afaik. But if there stance is that animal suffering is – I guess that is the CBMARC position – an absolute moral no go, then suggestions like yours will tend to fall short and other tactics employed.
Take a case in point: a US swimmer who goes nude to make propaganda for anti-fur statement (I’m quite anti-fur) – I believe this is both effective as it’s legally OK & democratically commendable but against an absolute (it’s not very far away from Islamic taboos) it can’t satisfy a CBMARC. Hence – CBMARCs will tend to become less & less M, which is what I’m claiming.
Sorry OB, off topic-ish still, but Ed, dzd, thanks for your responses. dzd, I appreciate the highest ethical standards may well prevail, but I was wondering: can or should it practically be made policy to constantly looking for ways of reducing suffering ? Or is that too far into dogma ?
“dzd, I appreciate the highest ethical standards may well prevail, but I was wondering: can or should it practically be made policy to constantly looking for ways of reducing suffering ? Or is that too far into dogma ?”
To be perfectly honest I’m not comfortable with lawmakers constructing legislation around concepts that are as nebulously defined as “suffering” (especially w/r/t nonsapient animals), any more than I would be with them creating laws designed for the “promotion of virtue”. If you want to forbid certain practices, make a case against those specific practices.
I’m also bothered by the kind of greedy anthropomorphism so often evidenced by animal liberationists (and an undercurrent of which I can detect in Ed’s posts).
Invoking the “voiceless” implies that the population in question has something of their own to say–and a lab mouse doesn’t in much the same way that a frozen embryo doesn’t and Terri Schiavo didn’t. There is no “I” present to have interests or beliefs, only the animal liberationist’s anthropomorphic projection of what he thinks those interests and beliefs should be.
I will admit that the area is much grayer in the case of presentients such as the great apes. But I think that if people want to place them off-limits, then talking about the “rights” of a group of what are still, in the end, wild animals who do not and will never (during the lifetime of human civilization) be able to grasp such concepts is exactly the wrong way to go about it.
We should at least be honest and say that we want to place them in a preserve to satisfy ourselves, rather than pretending that they would agree with our views if only they could speak.
Thanks dzd. I think animals no more have rights than they have responsibilities, aside from to not crap in my bath when I’m out.
Apologies for the hi-jack OB. Do these groups have any credence in the US? They are piss-poor over here in terms of PR. Most people assume they just want to ban cancer research. It really is that straghtforward. Also, they are so fuckwitted, on action day, most times they’ll get busted before their breakfast of vegan jelly with a big chillum.
I don’t think so, Nick – except they have enough to get recruits. But I don’t think they get as much attention here as they do in the UK, either.
Nick,
In my experience, when it comes to the United Kingdom, I think most people are of the impression that animal rights activists believe an otter or a pilchard, for instance, to be more important than a human being – an impression that, to some extent, seems to be true: it’s the kind of view I’ve seen a number of animal rights “spokespeople” express. I think, moreover, that the animal rights movement’s finest hour in terms of public relations was digging up the corpse of a deceased woman and dragging about for a while – a measure that, like Islamists threatening publishers, seemed to work, irritatingly enough.
Ed
I’d forgotten about that awful exhumation episode, they really did lose the last vestiges of credibility after that, even among the emotional seventeen year olds. As I say, Shac, ALF, they’re all viewed as inescapably idiotic extremists now. Although I’ve no doubt MI5 has them all taped of course…
Oh, Peta, I’d forgotten about Peta. This is what they’re up to:
http://blog.peta.org/archives/mani_large.jpg
– comparing the Greyhound bus attack last week, outside of Winnipeg, to slaughtering animals.
Not that they’re violent. Just sickeningly naive.
PETA and ALF have exactly the same relationship as Sinn Fein and the IRA once had. PETA and its leadership should be investigated and prosecuted under domestic terrorism laws, but for some reason the US government is willing to turn a blind eye to any terrorism that isn’t Islamic.