We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.

Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]

How low can the animal rights’ terrorists go?

In these days of concern about violent Islamists running amok on our cities, it is always important to remember that other sources of violence can be found, such as the so-called animal rights campaigners:

A children’s nursery has become the latest target of animal rights threats, forcing it to stop providing child care vouchers to parents working for the animal testing group Huntingdon Life Sciences.

Leapfrog Day Nurseries, part of the education business Nord Anglia, said it was reviewing whether extra security measures were needed at its Peterborough nursery, which is nearest to the Life Sciences headquarters in Cambridgesire. It said it already employed “stringent security measures” to protect the children in its care.

Threatening a kiddies’ nursery. They must be so proud.

On a related matter, here is a fine essay taking the incoherent doctrine of animal rights apart. In my view, the doctrine is incoherent, although at the same time I think humans should seek to treat animals as kindly as possible, which is a very human-centric opinion to hold, of course.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on LinkedInShare on TumblrShare on RedditShare on Google+Share on VK

34 comments to How low can the animal rights’ terrorists go?

  • GCooper

    A pretty disgusting incident, that’s for sure.

    And I was as unimpressed by the police spokesman I heard on BBC R4 News at lunchtime as I have been by others asked how they are tackling these psycopaths.

    Am I alone in getting a sense that the old bill aren’t trying very hard?

  • Why don’t the animal nuts go after the lions and leopards who are killing all the poor widdle antelopes? Don’t they care? They should be out on the Serengeti passing out leaflets to the carnivores pointing out how much better carrot stew is than uncooked impala.

  • Stevey

    The doctrine is coherent, but vile: humanity is inferior to nature, and should be done away with, or at least dramatically reduced in numbers. Thus, the VHEMT guys: (Link). The wikipedia article on deep ecology (Link) is also apposite.

  • Johnathan Pearce

    Stevey, good point.

  • Paul Marks

    They work on the assumption that they (the animal rights activists) have a noble cause and that they are noble people (indeed they work on the assumption that they are noble people even before they pick up this particular cause) – and, therefore, that anything they do is noble.

    It is a secular and distorted version of the doctrine of the Elect (not that I like the original predestinationist religions version of the doctrine).

    One can see it (of course) in the actions of the Marxists (all actions are moral if they are helpful in building socialism), but also in the actions of New Labour.

    Mr Blair with his endless lies and spin (and his steady undermining of the principles of the rule of law), or Mrs Blair with her (amongst so many other things) taking 100,000 pounds from a children’s charity in New Zealand (rather than returing any monies – as is normal when a person makes a speech for charity).

    They do not see themselves as doing anything wrong – because they are noble people and, therefore, everything they do must be noble.

  • That J. Neil Schulman essay is bang on. Also as far as the “Voluntary Human Extinction Movement” is concerned: good luck to them, I hope they are successful in their aim of not breeding!

  • GCooper

    Paul Marks rightly draws our attention to the venality at the very heart of Za-NuLabour.

    Could this, by any chance, throw some light on the apparently relaxed attitude to home grown animal rights (sic) terrorists and the small sum of £1 million donated to said party by the Political Animal Lobby just prior to the 1997 election?

  • Verity

    I agree with Jonathan and the posters above, but I am leery about introducing a subliminal equivalency here.

    How long before Islamofascist apologisers – yes, Bunglawangla and Sickbal Sacranie, I’m looking at you – begin pointing the finger and saying we’re “discriminating” against Islamic suicide bombers when we have our own white-skinned terrorists born in Britain. It doesn’t take much for these people to get twist the bit to fit between their teeth and then not let go.

  • Verity – there is no discrimination and this is something that needs – repeatedly – to be made clear.

    People who threaten or commit acts of violence against – others regardless of their excuse – are criminals. They should be arrested, prosecuted and – if found guilty – they should be locked up.

  • I feel that it is a problem of letting inferior people have access to superior tools.
    In other words – lock the nuts up!

  • Pete_London

    How low can the animal rights’ terrorists go?

    Oh lower than this. A year ago they dug up and removed the remains of Gladys Hammondto in order to force her family to close its business. The business is closed and they still haven’t revealed what they have done with her.

    These nutters will turn to murder before long. Not only has nothing been done to discourage them, a sympathy exists in government for their aims. Following the inevitable murder Blair will quiver his lip, Clarke will vow determined action and it will all be bullshit. As GCooper points out, the government has been bought and paid for.

  • Verity

    Re Islamonutters, Blair shook his finger at the camera and said, “Make no mistake. The rules are changing.” That was that. Done and dusted. Nothing has changed.

    Re welfare recipient and father of seven Omar Bakri, who somehow found the fare to fly to Beirut, Charles Clarke announced firmly that he had been banned from ever setting foot in Britain again.

    Two weeks later, Bakri was back, living in his wefare housing and giving newspaper interviews.

    Yes, Paul Marks put it in a nutshell.

  • Ken

    It says something when an 82-year-old is detained under the prevention of terrorism act yet nothing is done against these terrorists. It’s not just nurseries they’re targeting. They now think that any person or building connected with Oxford University is fair game.

  • Anonymous

    I am an AR activist involved with Viva!USA and API. I know the people personally. Neither they nor I condone violence against people, because as we see it, people are just smart animals and all animals deserve respect. Yes, there are those who feel that making threats and violence against people is justifiable, but the mainstream AR movement does not condone that kind of activity. You may choose to mock the AR movement but mockery only demonstrates ignorance. Try reading more, not just psychotic doctrines written by extremist AR activists. If I took the approach you all seem to be taking, I would read the KKK doctrine and walk away believing that all white Christians are insane. (I stumbled on your blog by accident. I won’t be back. Just wanted to put in my $0.02.) Be well, and blog onward! -Anonymous former carnivore/fisherman who is now Vegan for reasons not related to insanity

  • Steve P

    “Anonymous former carnivore/fisherman who is now Vegan for reasons not related to insanity”

    Sorry, but insanity is the only valid reason for turning Vegan.

  • veryretired

    The point being missed in this discussion is the final main point of the essayist cited—that the only possible method of attaining the goals of the AR movement is by assigning to the state the power to enforce rules prohibiting any offense against any other animal.

    Since this would involve nearly every conceivable aspect of life, and, indeed, require the abolition of animal husbandry, a millenias old human occupation which is one of the pivotal turning points of civilization; and the consumption of animal protein, which is considered one of the primary springboards for humans’ evolutionary development, the AR program is the ultimate totalitarian dream come true—control over the very foundations of human development and culture.

    The founder of the movement has stated very explicitly that the optimal carrying capacity of the Earth as to humans is about 100 million. There is only one method possible if one wishes to reduce humanity from 6+ billion to 100 million.

    The previous attempt at population control on this scale required numerous camps where showers were not for cleanliness, and ovens were not for cooking.

    Of course, our little “anonymous” wouldn’t dream of doing anything like that. His (or her) type would only help load the trains. They aren’t insane, after all, only committed to the cause.

  • Jen P.

    Anonymous: “…mockery only demonstrates ignorance.”

    Steve P: “Sorry, but insanity is the only valid reason for turning Vegan.”

    Nice demonstration of Anon’s point.

  • Verity

    veryretired – That’s why Toneee et al find it strangely paralysing. If it’s totalitarian, it can’t be all bad … and may be co-optable …

  • Jen P.

    Veryretired, the point you are missing is that the overall tone of the essay is shockingly similar to those assertions made for keeping slaves in the not-so-distant past of the USA. Given all the technology we now have, it is absurd to assert that we can’t live without animal husbandry. You make yourself out to be a weak individual if you say that you are unable to survive and live exorbitantly well in a society that does not kill or exploit animals. So much for space travel and such; we can’t get off this rock unless we take a cow. How sad!

    You say that the founder of “the movement” only wants 100 million people on earth. What movement? Certainly not AR, because there is no founder. If you mean VEHMT, then that’s a completely separate topic that has little if anything to do with the AR movement. It shows little imagination on your part (or perhaps a great deal of imagination) to draw a comparison between AR people who want nothing but a true balance with nature, and people who murdered and tortured Jews.

    Making that kind of stretch makes me wonder what you’re smoking, and can I have some, too?

  • Jen P.

    Oh, wait… sorry, veryretired, you were right. When Anonymous said that all people and animals deserve respect, I’m sure what he really meant was we must exterminate all humans. It seems so obvious now. :-p

  • Alfred E. Neuman

    Ahh, Jen P. Animals eat other animals all the time…but it’s bad if we do? I suggest you walk into the wide open spaces of Africa and exhort the lions to leave off the zebras. Wait…you’re not willing to do so? Or is it “natural”? I have yet for a vegan or vegetarian idiot to explain to me why other animals are allowed to eat meat–including our closest cousins, the chimpanzees–but we aren’t. Can you explain that?

  • RAB

    Jen P. What do we do with all the cows, sheep, goats, pigs etc after this mythical time when you think we wont need them anymore?
    Ya know when we’re in this agrarian paradise (a bit like the dawn of time- but you have to humour him) that you visualise?
    You folks say global warming is a problem dont you? Well shall we keep letting all these great hulking beasts fart up a couple of hurricanes just because you think their cute, equivilant or in any other way cuddly?
    You are out of your mind!
    If we dont eat them, there is no point keeping them around.
    It used to be called symbiosis when I was in school.

  • veryretired

    Jen—Please respond point by point to the arguments made very concisely in the essay referred to in the original post.

    When you have done so, and refuted the author’s arguments logically, not with snotty little ad hominem attacks on the person writing, then I may bother to try to discuss adult subjects with you.

    At this point, you do not qualify as intellectually competent enough for my time and effort.

    Smoke that.

  • Johnathan Pearce

    Jen P., a problem I have with animal rights is that rights, understood, only make sense within the context of beings with volitional consciousness and possessed of free will. A shark, bunny rapid or bee are rather lacking in these qualities. That is why I see no coherence in using the doctrine of rights in discussing the treatment of animals. I do, however, think that developments in technology make it easier for us to test new medicines in ways that require fewer, not more, tests on animals.

    Unless you want to make veganism compulsory, I cannot see how the AR agenda can become reality without coercing millions of people and although many AR people are presumably appalled by violence, it appears a hard core are willing to use it, including murder.

  • Ted

    You would think that the old MI5 idea of letting extremism thrive in the UK so that it can be contained (which is how the 7/7 bombings happened) would have been wiped out by now. It does not work, as extremism left untouched becomes more virulent and more dangerous. Witness animal rights.

    Animal rights activists – I mean, have you ever heard of anything more absurd? The loss of religion in society does not mean people are any less religious. Now people hang on to other movements founded on semi-fact, superstition and apocalyptic visions of the future : environmentalism, animal rights, islamic extremism.

    I have 2 children, a 2 year old and a 6 month old. At the moment I would have to conclude that the state gives their right to live safely the same weight as the right of these loonies to ‘free speech’. That worries me greatly. The critics are right – someone will get killed – but it’s more likely to be an enraged member of the public killing an extremist, as the state clearly is not doing anything.

    Any normal government would do these things in the light of increasing extremism : (i) kill the most extreme of these people, say the known leaders; (ii) round up the known participants in acts of terror; (iii) bulldoze their houses; (iv) ban all affiliate groups, especially PETA. That would be the end of these idiotic movements for good and would re-affirm the supremacy of the secular, modern democratic nation state – one based on factual analysis and scientific reason, not bizarro faith-based theories.

    At the moment it’s all hot air and appeasement and it doesn’t work. I am rapidly losing faith in the ability of Blair & Co to do anything constructive with these internal threats and would vote for a far tougher guardian in these dangerous times. I suspect I am not alone.

  • Steve P

    Jen P: Who said I was mocking?
    Anyway, Anonymous’s statement “mockery only demonstrates ignorance” is merely a chippy remark from someone who doesn’t like to have their beliefs questioned, much less laughed at.

  • Given all the technology we now have, it is absurd to assert that we can’t live without animal husbandry.

    Of course we can, at least in the First World, if enough people want to invest in alternative technologies that do not use animals as components. I just have no wish to. As far as I am concerned, non-human animals do no have rights and so Animal Rights is meaningless. I think social pressure that gives incentives to people to not do certain things to animals is just fine, but to treat them as having objectively derivable rights in the same way a human does is preposterous.

    I simply do not care that animals are used for testing or food or trapped for fur.

  • llamas

    Jen P. wrote:

    ‘ . . . a true balance with nature, . . . ‘

    Oh, you mean like this:


    Mr Treadwell and Ms Huguenard certainly achieved a ‘true balance with nature’ – as bear food.

    Nature, in the abstract, may have some level of ‘balance’, although ‘balance’ does not equal ‘stasis’. But the very nature of Nature is that it works by every organism exploiting another organism, and being exploited in its turn. It just so happens that we have risen to the top of this chain – and a pretty precarious place it can be sometimes.

    The difference between us and the organisms just a couple of steps below us on the chain is that we can talk about it. And talking about it has allowed some of the outliers on the scale of understanding of ‘nature’ to express unnatural views about ‘exploitation’, and a desire to impose ‘true balance’ on a system which only works because it is unbalanced.

    The lion does not lie down with the lamb. That’s a religious pipe-dream, not a statement of how nature works. ‘Animal rights’ activists are just another point at the edges of a spectrum of human sentience, whose ideas make about as much sense as the folks who claim to have discovered perpetual motion or that the Earth is hollow.

    If caught, the terrorist psychopaths in question should be air-dropped onto an island in Alaska well-populated by wild bears, along with plenty of food, and discover for themselves what it feels like to be threatened with violence and death. As Fred Bear once famously said, it would ‘cleanse the soul . . . ‘



  • I’m all for animal respect but I cringe at the word rights. Rights imply law. Rights imply mutual recognition of said rights.

    I’ll respect a mosquito’s right of life when said animal stops tresspassing and physical harassment. And so on.

    That most species are incapable of the level of intelligence, conciousness and free will to grasp this – activists included – is a good argument, but remove the rights issue and we’re back to a simple food chain in which case the battle of humans versus bacon and sushi is fair game.

  • Tony Di Croce

    I also am against unnecessary animal cruelty… HOWEVER, the very first time even one persons life can be even marginally improved by the mass slaughter of house cats I will be the first one practicing with my “Whacking Stick”.


  • Pete_London

    What do the gun-grabbers think of this? Let’s assume that Brian Cass of Huntingdon Life Sciences is correct that children attending the nursery have been threatened. It’s reasonable to assume that these people will resort to violence, they’ve done so before. Deadly violence isn’t far off, in my opinion. I’d like the gun-grabbers to tell me why parents of these children should not be armed, ought not to be armed and why it is best for them and their children that they are not armed.

  • Verity

    Pete_London – Damn’ straight. And the teachers should be armed too … oh, wait a minute … they’re all socialists and think guns are not only barbaric, but American!

  • John K

    I feel that the people at HLS who have been attacked by these terrorists have an excellent case to apply for a firearms certificate for a personal protection weapon. In a similar situation in Northern Ireland they’d get one without a doubt. As pistols are subject to general prohibition in GB they’d have to apply direct to the (well guarded) Home Secretary for a section 5 permit, which he’d refuse because it is Home Office doctrine that firearm certificates are never issued for self defence. Then, if the HLS person had nothing better to worry about (such as having his life threatened by animal rights dingbats) and had £100,000 he was willing to risk, he could take the Home Secretary to court. I happen to think he’d win a judicial review, because the Home Office’s blanket policy of automatic refusal of all cases without considering the facts is unreasonable, but then I haven’t been made a judge by Charlie Forkbender, so what would I know?

  • Tim Stevens

    There isn’t really much point in debating Jen and others of her ilk.

    The bottom line for me is: I love animals and abhor cruelty towards them, but would never see them as possessing ‘rights’. I’m also a physician and research scientist in neurodegenerative diseases and rely on the results of animal testing. I’m quite happy for sorry sentimentalists to peddle their views – I can choose not to listen to them. But if any of these people dare to threaten anyone close to me – loved ones or friends, or mere acquaintances whose views I respect – I will respond with force. Proportionate force, that is; if you threaten me verbally I will report you to the police, take an ‘incident number’ and check back regularly with my local police station to confirm how the investigation is going. If you threaten me physically I will demand police protection and arm myself, however illegally. If you make one move to harm my family or me, I will kill you, even if I have to go to jail as a result (which is a likely outcome in the deeply rotted moral and legal culture that currently exists in England).