http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/oxford/2006/02/334333.html is pretty full so lets continue here...
also
Demo Tuesday 7th March
Meet 10am at the edge of the exclusion Mansfield Rd
Well this has been one of the best debates I've seen here on Indymedia and I think it really proves it's a great thing.
The debate has been strong but I personaly feel completely unconvinced by the arguments the pro-test group. I think they have failed with thier weak arguments and perhaps some of them are beginning to question thier logic and evidence.
So for those still in the balance here is a little recap of past events leading to this whole fiasco. Mayby they will see that this is more than just an animal rights issue (although I feel that's enough to justify the protest) but a public rights issue also......
The following text is taken from here.. (if you want to see the comments also)
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/oxford/2005/11/328899.htm
As part of our campaigning strategy we will be challenging the government and government-aided institutions (and those institutions which hold the government in their pockets), to accountability and openness. To date, the government has avoided significant exposure for its failure to meet its pre-election promises regarding their Animal Rights agenda, nor have they been sufficiently challenged for their undemocratic governing approach within a democratic country. (Take for example their recent underhand chicaneries over the proposed primate lab in Cambridge).
The government, vivisection industry and the media commonly use negatively emotive language when describing those opposed to the abuse of animals. We are often referred to as "terrorists" because we have been forced to choose unorthodox methods to draw attention to an issue where other means have failed; pro-active action has often ensured that animal rights has put issues requiring attention firmly on the map. We should remember that government tactics such as this are commonplace the world over whenever the status quo is being challenged for an injustice. The use of terminology suggesting violence to describe animal rights activists is a transparent tool attempting to divert attention from the real perpetrators of violence who thus become the implied victims, therein masking the true face of those inflicting terror and what goes on behind laboratory walls.
We as a movement have often been accused of violating civil liberties and democratic laws because we have spoken out against injustice. In thus speaking out, we have always been motivated by the principles of Individual Rights and the violation of those rights. These do not just refer to the rights of animals but to the right of individuals to be fully informed of the truth behind the lies of vivisection. Surely keeping the public in ignorance of the scientific and moral facts is a violation of their civil liberties and democratic right to choose? The collusion of the government and vivisection industry to conceal the truth from society is a violation of those rights which are meant to stand for so much in our democratic society.
At SPEAK, we believe it is time for the public to be allowed to make an informed decision on this debate and that means hearing both sides of the argument.
The SPEAK campaign is about saving both human and non-human lives; can the vivisection fraternity say the same thing? Let the public decide once they know the full truth.
Background to the NEW campaign
The SPEAK campaign was born from the victory of a campaign against Cambridge University, the following is a brief history of that campaign and its incredible success.
In February 2001, South Cambridgeshire District Council heard a planning application from Cambridge University to build a huge new research complex to carry out experiments on monkeys. It would be Europe's largest primate vivisection laboratory.
At the planning hearing there were objections from anti-vivisectionists, environmental campaigners, local residents, and even the police.
The council unanimously rejected the application, to the relief of residents and campaigners.
A wealthy and influential government minister, with a vested and personal interest in the biotechnology industry, then intervened on the side of the university.
David (Lord) Sainsbury recommended that the council should ignore the green belt designation 'in the national interest'. He claimed that the proposed research was of 'national importance'.
The billionaire Sainsbury has donated over £11 million to the Labour Party, and was rewarded with the title Lord Sainsbury and given the influential post of Science Minister, within the Dept of Trade and Industry.
Among his huge business interests is sole ownership of a biotechnology company, as well as the world-wide patent for a key gene which is set to make substantial profits.
Despite the powerful intervention of Lord Sainsbury, when the university appealed, on 6 Feb 2002 South Cambridgeshire District Council once again overwhelmingly refused planning permission for the primate centre.
Cambridge University appealed again, this time to the National Planning Inspectorate.
Both Sainsbury and Prime Minister Tony Blair made further statements publicly supporting the university's application.
On Nov 26 2002, a public hearing began. The government announced that it intended to take the highly unusual step of making the decision, rather than leave it to the planning inspector.
When the planning inspector did reach his decision it was against Cambridge University and he stated that Cambridge University and the Government had failed to prove that the proposed reseach centre was in the national interest.
However true to their democratic credentials Blair and Sainsbury effectively hijacked the whole planning process and issued a 'decree' that overturned the decision of the independent planning inspector.
It was during this period that SPEAC (Stop Primate Experiments at Cambridge) was formed by a coalition of animal rights groups to fight the proposed labs.
This resulted in some infighting between the various university authorities, after startling revelations that those applying to build the labs had lied to the university governing body in order to get the go-ahead. Most notably they had neglected to mention that the proposed lab would involve animal research at all, and that resulting protests would cause severe disruption to the university.
It had also emerged at this time that the projected costs of the lab had shot up by 25% to £32million, and that the university needed to find another £7million to go ahead. This was partly due to the expected costs of security as a result of the inevitable protests which the centre would attract.
SPEAC were determined that the monkey laboratories would not be built, and mobilised a mass movement to oppose the plans. Through non violent action they organised a concerted wave of pressure against the university, that ultimately proved effective. On the 27th January Cambridge University finally capitulated in the face of such pressure. The nightmare scenario of Cambridge becoming the primate vivisection capital of Europe had ended.
Now begins the next phase in the fight to end vivisection. Oxford.
So what do you think pro-test posse?? You say you believe in Human Life. Does that include Human Rights? What do you expect of your future rights if this kind of behaviour is allowed to continue?
Oh and feel free to continue giving reasons why you think animal testing is worthwhile.
But before you do....
www.curedisease.net
www.vivisection-absurd.org.uk
And think about this...
"It also goes deaper than just Oxford. Jerry Vlasak (before he was barred from the country for comments he made on a radio show) tried to engage in debate with many of the large animal testing companies in this country - to have the same reaction be all - absolute panic, gates being closed, phones slammed down, letters ignored etc...
Not only that but key philosophers from outside the country are being banned from the country - such as Steve Best - and I quote "....The Secretary of State considers that should you be allowed to enter the UK and attend further UK demonstrations or conferences you would continue to express such views. In doing so, you would be committing listed behaviours and would therefore be behaving in a way that is non-conducive to the public good. In light of these factors, the Secretary of State is satisfied that you should be excluded from the UK on the grounds that your exclusion is conducive to the public good. We instruct you not to travel to the UK as you will be refused admission on arrival. There is NO statutory right of appeal against the Secretary of State's decision."
Debate is being stifled everywhere - due to cries of extremism and terrorism. If people want a debate, there are people ready to debate with them. The problem is that no-one opposing animal rights wants a debate because they will lose."
Jools
The debate has been strong but I personaly feel completely unconvinced by the arguments the pro-test group. I think they have failed with thier weak arguments and perhaps some of them are beginning to question thier logic and evidence.
So for those still in the balance here is a little recap of past events leading to this whole fiasco. Mayby they will see that this is more than just an animal rights issue (although I feel that's enough to justify the protest) but a public rights issue also......
The following text is taken from here.. (if you want to see the comments also)
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/oxford/2005/11/328899.htm As part of our campaigning strategy we will be challenging the government and government-aided institutions (and those institutions which hold the government in their pockets), to accountability and openness. To date, the government has avoided significant exposure for its failure to meet its pre-election promises regarding their Animal Rights agenda, nor have they been sufficiently challenged for their undemocratic governing approach within a democratic country. (Take for example their recent underhand chicaneries over the proposed primate lab in Cambridge).
The government, vivisection industry and the media commonly use negatively emotive language when describing those opposed to the abuse of animals. We are often referred to as "terrorists" because we have been forced to choose unorthodox methods to draw attention to an issue where other means have failed; pro-active action has often ensured that animal rights has put issues requiring attention firmly on the map. We should remember that government tactics such as this are commonplace the world over whenever the status quo is being challenged for an injustice. The use of terminology suggesting violence to describe animal rights activists is a transparent tool attempting to divert attention from the real perpetrators of violence who thus become the implied victims, therein masking the true face of those inflicting terror and what goes on behind laboratory walls.
We as a movement have often been accused of violating civil liberties and democratic laws because we have spoken out against injustice. In thus speaking out, we have always been motivated by the principles of Individual Rights and the violation of those rights. These do not just refer to the rights of animals but to the right of individuals to be fully informed of the truth behind the lies of vivisection. Surely keeping the public in ignorance of the scientific and moral facts is a violation of their civil liberties and democratic right to choose? The collusion of the government and vivisection industry to conceal the truth from society is a violation of those rights which are meant to stand for so much in our democratic society.
At SPEAK, we believe it is time for the public to be allowed to make an informed decision on this debate and that means hearing both sides of the argument.
The SPEAK campaign is about saving both human and non-human lives; can the vivisection fraternity say the same thing? Let the public decide once they know the full truth.
Background to the NEW campaign
The SPEAK campaign was born from the victory of a campaign against Cambridge University, the following is a brief history of that campaign and its incredible success.
In February 2001, South Cambridgeshire District Council heard a planning application from Cambridge University to build a huge new research complex to carry out experiments on monkeys. It would be Europe's largest primate vivisection laboratory.
At the planning hearing there were objections from anti-vivisectionists, environmental campaigners, local residents, and even the police.
The council unanimously rejected the application, to the relief of residents and campaigners.
A wealthy and influential government minister, with a vested and personal interest in the biotechnology industry, then intervened on the side of the university.
David (Lord) Sainsbury recommended that the council should ignore the green belt designation 'in the national interest'. He claimed that the proposed research was of 'national importance'.
The billionaire Sainsbury has donated over £11 million to the Labour Party, and was rewarded with the title Lord Sainsbury and given the influential post of Science Minister, within the Dept of Trade and Industry.
Among his huge business interests is sole ownership of a biotechnology company, as well as the world-wide patent for a key gene which is set to make substantial profits.
Despite the powerful intervention of Lord Sainsbury, when the university appealed, on 6 Feb 2002 South Cambridgeshire District Council once again overwhelmingly refused planning permission for the primate centre.
Cambridge University appealed again, this time to the National Planning Inspectorate.
Both Sainsbury and Prime Minister Tony Blair made further statements publicly supporting the university's application.
On Nov 26 2002, a public hearing began. The government announced that it intended to take the highly unusual step of making the decision, rather than leave it to the planning inspector.
When the planning inspector did reach his decision it was against Cambridge University and he stated that Cambridge University and the Government had failed to prove that the proposed reseach centre was in the national interest.
However true to their democratic credentials Blair and Sainsbury effectively hijacked the whole planning process and issued a 'decree' that overturned the decision of the independent planning inspector.
It was during this period that SPEAC (Stop Primate Experiments at Cambridge) was formed by a coalition of animal rights groups to fight the proposed labs.
This resulted in some infighting between the various university authorities, after startling revelations that those applying to build the labs had lied to the university governing body in order to get the go-ahead. Most notably they had neglected to mention that the proposed lab would involve animal research at all, and that resulting protests would cause severe disruption to the university.
It had also emerged at this time that the projected costs of the lab had shot up by 25% to £32million, and that the university needed to find another £7million to go ahead. This was partly due to the expected costs of security as a result of the inevitable protests which the centre would attract.
SPEAC were determined that the monkey laboratories would not be built, and mobilised a mass movement to oppose the plans. Through non violent action they organised a concerted wave of pressure against the university, that ultimately proved effective. On the 27th January Cambridge University finally capitulated in the face of such pressure. The nightmare scenario of Cambridge becoming the primate vivisection capital of Europe had ended.
Now begins the next phase in the fight to end vivisection. Oxford.
So what do you think pro-test posse?? You say you believe in Human Life. Does that include Human Rights? What do you expect of your future rights if this kind of behaviour is allowed to continue?
Oh and feel free to continue giving reasons why you think animal testing is worthwhile.
But before you do....
www.curedisease.net
www.vivisection-absurd.org.uk
And think about this...
"It also goes deaper than just Oxford. Jerry Vlasak (before he was barred from the country for comments he made on a radio show) tried to engage in debate with many of the large animal testing companies in this country - to have the same reaction be all - absolute panic, gates being closed, phones slammed down, letters ignored etc...
Not only that but key philosophers from outside the country are being banned from the country - such as Steve Best - and I quote "....The Secretary of State considers that should you be allowed to enter the UK and attend further UK demonstrations or conferences you would continue to express such views. In doing so, you would be committing listed behaviours and would therefore be behaving in a way that is non-conducive to the public good. In light of these factors, the Secretary of State is satisfied that you should be excluded from the UK on the grounds that your exclusion is conducive to the public good. We instruct you not to travel to the UK as you will be refused admission on arrival. There is NO statutory right of appeal against the Secretary of State's decision."
Debate is being stifled everywhere - due to cries of extremism and terrorism. If people want a debate, there are people ready to debate with them. The problem is that no-one opposing animal rights wants a debate because they will lose."
Jools
Comments
Display the following 34 comments