Skip to content or view screen version

Hidden Article

This posting has been hidden because it breaches the Indymedia UK (IMC UK) Editorial Guidelines.

IMC UK is an interactive site offering inclusive participation. All postings to the open publishing newswire are the responsibility of the individual authors and not of IMC UK. Although IMC UK volunteers attempt to ensure accuracy of the newswire, they take no responsibility legal or otherwise for the contents of the open publishing site. Mention of external web sites or services is for information purposes only and constitutes neither an endorsement nor a recommendation.

Time to give animals the vote

posted on behalf of Angela roberts | 17.05.2005 13:15

The following article is from an excellent article written by Angela Roberts for the Uncaged website

The last three years have been particularly demanding ones. We've been incredibly busy with two of our major campaigns: Diaries of Despair / xenotransplantation and, on the Global Boycott Procter and Gamble front, the exposé of cruel experiments for IAMS' pet food.

Sometimes I find myself so tied up with the daily ups and downs that I temporarily lose sight of the bigger picture. A short break over Christmas however changed that. Early into the New Year I found myself full of questions and thoughts about the direction of our future campaigns and the best way to achieve our aims.

I began to think about why only humans have the vote and we deny that right to animals

I now regard this position as morally unacceptable.

We can confidently say that public opinion increasingly shares these views. There have been protests and campaigns against vivisection for around 100 years and of late the public has now come to embrade our viewpoint, the next stage in that campaign is to enable animals to have a say in their life and future.

I will now be campaigning for this right. Animals deserve to be participating in the election process with votes of their own. The abuse of animals is about power I intend to put that power in the hands of the animals themselves.


Uncaged Campaigns, 9 Bailey Lane, Sheffield S1 4EG, UK
phone +44 (0) 114 272 2220, fax +44 (0) 114 272 2225

posted on behalf of Angela roberts
- e-mail: email info@uncaged.co.uk
- Homepage: http://www.uncaged.co.uk

Comments

Hide the following 12 comments

Unhinged?!!

17.05.2005 16:37

You couldn't make this up!

Which animal pays tax in the UK? How many animals have read Kapital or are you just going to "help" them fill in their postal votes? This is self-righteous nonsense of the highest order.

Save your own species, you have no mandate to speak for any other

Dr Doolittle

The vote ?

17.05.2005 17:04

Am I reading this right ? The writer wants to give animals the vote ?

I probably got it wrong.

as bad as the usenet newsgroups

17.05.2005 18:55

The article by Angela Roberts is here

 http://www.uncaged.co.uk/pranimals.htm

The above is a libel, but what we can expect on Indymedia?

I would suggest Indymedia should moderate the newswire unless publishing garbage is thought acceptable.

Reader

Yea! Right on maan!!

17.05.2005 19:23


At last - someone on indymedia talking sense!!

__

Vote for Animals NOT BY ANIMALS

18.05.2005 09:08

You will see from reading the ACTUAL article at  http://www.uncaged.co.uk/pranimals.htm that Angela Roberts says nothing of the sort. At no stage is it suggested that animals should actually have votes nor participate in 'their own elections.' That is a preposterous and facile idea and the paragraph printed above where this is stated is quite simply invented by the poster. The concept of the Protecting Animals in Democracy article and campaign (www.vote4animals.org.uk) is to allow people to cast their votes to protect animals.

I urge Indymedia to remove this false posting.

Yours
Max Newton

Max Newton
mail e-mail: max@uncaged.co.uk
- Homepage: http://www.uncaged.co.uk

Do not dismiss

18.05.2005 09:43

I don't know if Angela said this or not but I think we should consider the idea before dismissing it out of hand. Animals are involved in society, they are part of our lives and deserve to have a say in that life. Yes of course there are some difficulties in achieving it but I see nothing wrong in working toward a technology solution where communication with the wider animal family is possible.

Jennifer

as bad as the usenet newsgroups

18.05.2005 10:39

When "Jennifer" writes "...I think we should consider the idea before dismissing it..." the 'we' can only refer to those who are hostile to animal liberation/rights/welfare.

Those who want to use and exploit animals without the hinderance and are able to use Indymedia for their purpose.

Indymedia seems to often to have degenerated into a vehicle for the likes of "Jennifer".

Reader

my sides, they have split

18.05.2005 11:14

That's the funniest thing I've read in ages, keep it up!

;-)

Vote 4 Animals

18.05.2005 17:07

Yeah, it's fine having a discussion about this, but not on the basis of statements that have been made up and falsely attributed to Angela Roberts and the organisation Uncaged. They belittle the real aims of the Protecting Animals in Democracy campaign (see www.vote4animals.org.uk).

Is there a moderator looking at these discussions? Because this thread in based on willful or even malicious inaccuracies, and this goes against IndyMedia's 'Charter.'

Max Newton
mail e-mail: max@uncaged.co.uk
- Homepage: http://www.uncaged.co.uk & www.vote4animals.org.uk

Boycott??????

19.05.2005 16:29

Surely we should be advocating abstention from the electoral system?

Puzzled

as bad as the usenet newsgroups

19.05.2005 18:20

This is no basis for advocating any view in a medium, Indymedia UK, that is prepared to publish and continue to publish an item that is a direct, deliberate lie.

The original post was made to libel an activist, Angela Roberts, and the campaign organisation of which she is a part, Uncaged. The ideas attributed to her are in no way her view.

This is not a matter of selective quoting; it is a so far successful, in that it continues to be published, attempt to present her as an idiot. Her actual views on voting are sensible, possibly even dull.

The person who posted the lie is some who will present any lie to advance his/her hostility to others concern for animals. The poster must be delighted the Indymeda UK has been so kind as to continue to publish his/her malicious lie.

There can be no basis for news dissemination or discussion on a website that is so contemptuous of basic truth and accuracy.

Reader

Sorry this stayed up so long

19.05.2005 22:47

Sorry this post wasn't hidden earlier. As you quite rightly say, it's misinformation which is against the guidelines. It can be difficult sometimes to spot plausible fakes, though - if you see any disinfo on Indymedia, you can draw the moderators' attention to it by e-mailing  imc-uk-features@lists.indymedia.org

an imc volunteer