Are you guys just wannabe anti-capitalists?

Are you fighting for the animals or against the businesses?

Its like a policeman stopping a fight in a pub when world war 3 is going on outside....

come off it, the exploitation of animals is as intricate a part of capitalism as the exploitation of labour, the environment, children...
the fight against animal exploitation is as interwoven into the fight for a world without suffering as the fight against prisons, against multinational gene-patenting, against the war machine, against patriarchy.
it is this growing realisation that all struggles are one that is making this movement stronger by the day.

solidarity with all, for a world without ALL walls.

Dear Townie,

are you just trying to start a fight for the sake of it?

Only face-to-face communication is ever going to truly explore the issues you are talking about in a useful way for yourself or the person you're addressing your comment to.

I myself have chosen the ecological angle to try and tackle 'the beast' - everyone does it in their own way - personally I do it this way because it's easier for me to take action and for other people to understand it. I can get across an "anti-system" radical message in a more digestible graspable form. Now that doesn't make me right and someone who works on a different issue or from a different angle wrong. When I used to say "No More Roads" (I was young!), I understood that meant no more what we have now, ie radical change (some might call it revolution...).

And I now get called anti-capitalist!! First by the mainstream media, and now by fellow activists who've taken this media-created label for themselves! I don't like it - it's pretty meaningless, lumping me together with other people who are for example authoritarian; it's also negative, division-creating, and is just tackling a symptom of the problem. What's wrong with the capitalist system we're part of? Lack of respect and hierarchy I think - you could find those under a non-capitalist system too, and indeed, in the above debate we're already in the so-called anti-capitalist movement dissing each other rather than getting on and taking action to try and make the world a better place. So there.

"Now that doesn't make me right and someone who works on a different issue or from a different angle wrong."

You could well have something in that. Unfortunately from my perspective quite a lot of the things people work on seem wrong. You know that things are wrong, we all do, thats how we ended up on this website in the first place.

I wasn't necessarily critisising their actions either. I reckon the best we can hope as activists is to be t.i.t.s. (thorns in their side) and they seem to have done that pretty well.

I'm just baffled that people haven't noticed the cruelty going on, on a massive scale in the countryside. Only a few months ago the media was bombarded with anti fox-hunting animal loving decent citizens. Now, with a million times the suffering, barely a person has flinched or dared to speak out.

Perhaps it's human nature though. Princess Diana made half the UK cry but the genocide in Rwanda (excuse spelling) was virtually ignored. But this still doesn't excuse the people calling themselves activists. There has been no serious opposition to MAFF's kamikaze logic, despite the massive pollution, the endless early deaths, the emotional stress that many people are put under by MAFF, the army, and the police to volunteer their animals for a pointless death, and a worse than pointless disposal.

Its not just the animal rights people though, its the farming unions, the vets, *some* of the farmers (a lot of them just want the money before their animals are worthless) and ultimately the government who have drafted in the army to deal with what amounts to little more than animal flu!

Worst of all, they've conned absolutely everyone into letting them do it! I find it hard to believe there aren't nightly riots on the streets...

It has really come to something when the general public has the wool almost literally pulled over its eyes on such a huge scale. I have attempted to distance myself from any element of being British but despite my best efforts I still find myself being ashamed of it.

So, if my last post sounded like a dig at animal rights prostesters, I am sorry. It was more a general venting of despair at the appalling state of modern society in this country and most of the rest of the world.

p.s. If you're just feeling short of ideas, many farms are now open to lawbreakers and trespassers. go on, rescue some sheep today.

In my home town, Sevenoaks, which is over 100 miles from Huntingdon, and quite a small town of little consequence, someone has recently been on a mission with a can of spray paint, scrawling anti HLS slogans. I am familiar with SHAC becuase I normally reside in Cambridge, a large university town near to Huntingdon and I was surprised to see the graffiti in Sevenoaks recently. It would seem that SHAC's campaign is now expanding its scale to a more national level.

My question is that, in the light of HLS's supposed thorough shake up of staff and management, and its supposedly far higher standards, why does SHAC still feel the need to campaign against this company?

I'm not dissing anyone as I don't know anything about it but I am curious...

If HLS is now "alright" then surely SHAC have already won.

As I see it, the problem with HLS wasn't vivisection itself, but the fact that kicking and torture and laughing and swearing at animals and unnecessary purely sadistic experiments were going on.
As I am aware, this has now ceased but vivisection itself still continues under more controlled conditions.
As I am aware, many of the products being tested are non medicinal chemicals such as fertilisers or soap.

My question is, what exactly is SHAC's issue with HLS?

I pretty much agree with the last point. I don't see why so much fuss is being made specifically about HLS. Okay, I can understand why people don't like animal testing, but surely, if all the augurement is about the cruelty to the animals, then surely we should be supporting HLS? I say this for two reasons.
Firstly, there's that stuff about HLS getting into trouble in the past. Call me niave, but surely since there's been controversy about them in the past it is less likely for something similar to happen in the future, as it people will be more suspicious?
Secondly, there is the fact that all new medicenes (as I understand it) have to be tested on animals by law, before they can be (legally) used. You can argue as to whether this is a good thing or not, but that's got nothing to do with HLS. THe point is, that even if you do force the closure of HLS, then animal testing will still HAVE to go on, but just not at HLS. Surley this is bad? Not only is HLS less likely to have more 'sadists', but, as I understand it, here in the UK we have (some of) the strictist animal welfare laws in the world, so if we force the business to go abroad by closing HLS, we could actually make animals suffer more, rather than less, and of course reduce the amount of companys in this particulkar market, making the others more powerful. Maybe I'm missing the point here, but, ah well.

I guess viviection is something which needs to be questioned in our society, even if it is necessary in certain cases. In this respect I think that the protestors are doing a good job in so much as their activities are high profile publicity stunts which have certainly got people talking about the issues.

Sure medicines need to be tested BUT

we do not need 30 identical treatments for a sore throat AND

we do not need any more cosmetics (UK still imports cosmetics whose component ingredients have been tested on animals) or washing up liquids or even agrichemicals. I even hear a rumour that tobacco is tested on animals (but don't quote me on that). That last one is quite ironic, finding that it gives the animals cancer and then selling the product anyway.

I think a lot of testing should be banned even if we still continue to test valuable medicines.

I'm not sure how valid the case against HLS now but if SHAC do manage to shut them down, I won't be too sad because there is definitely something to be said for MAKING AN EXAMPLE of people. If you're saying yeah ok you used to be bad in the past and now you've reformed but we're still going to shut you down anyway then that's sending out a pretty strong message. On t'other hand if you do let them get away with it then that's a bit like saying to pinochet (or lady thatcher or whoever) ok you did kill people but you're not doing it anymore so we're going to let you off. What kind of signals does that send out..

But then there IS the issue of sending business away to countries with less stringent legislation.

It's a difficult one.