RDS applauds the major institutional shareholders who have pledged in a letter to the FT today that they will not cave-in to animal rights extremists. The story is front-page news of the FT. Seven leading international financial institutions with billions of pounds invested in the health sector have said that they will maintain substantial shareholdings in companies that are legitimately engaged in lawful research to the benefit of society.

The group includes the Wellcome Trust which itself is a world leading funder of all types of medical and veterinary research, including research using animals. The Wellcome Trust has had for many years a robust policy on the use of animals in medical and veterinary research, and give substantial background information to that policy on their website.

This move is surely a sign of growing confidence within the scientific and financial community that the Government is serious about tackling animal rights extremism.

The British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection (BUAV) may have been a bit premature in stating publicly in a press release last week their hopes that the “focus on animal rights extremism will be laid to rest with Gladys Hammond’s remains”.

Perhaps they weren’t counting on the stupidity of the animal rights extremists in launching a new campaign of threats against shareholders of the pharmaceutical company GlaxoSmithKline.

Bad luck BUAV!

Other contributors have admirably highlighted that this most recent attempt by animal rights activists to rattle GSK’s cage by picking on their shareholders has, in some ways, been a tale of contrasts.  As Tigger pointed out, the letters themselves are cowardly and pathetic, to say nothing of the premise that the Campaign Against Huntingdon Life Sciences (CAHLS) could actually contact, track back, and then name and shame 167,000 individual shareholders.  And which shareholders did activists cravenly choose to write to?  Pensioners – little old ladies – the demographic most likely to be spooked by an ominous missive.  Which is why it’s so gratifying, as GeorginaTheGiraffe underscored, to see that everyone from the news media to government to police has come down on the activists like a ton of bricks, countering cowardice with strength and reason.

But the contradictions don’t end there.  A survey of comments on the letters from various animal rights groups suggests that ‘the movement’ is all over the map:

There was a time when RDS would be almost the only organisation responding to new tactics by the animal rights extremists. How things have changed. Condemnation of the threatening letters to GSK shareholders came quickly from all quarters. There was a much quicker and more co-ordinated response from the government and police, which can only be welcome.

RDS was delighted to see members of the Pro-Test organising committee symbolically buying a share each in GSK, as reported on the BBC website.

We believe the extremists have taken on more than they can handle this time. They simply cannot intimidate all 170,000 GSK shareholders all at once. And if they did, imagine the media outcry then.

Today’s news about the targeting of GSK shareholders by Campaign Against HLS (Who? Seems SHAC has disappeared) has rightly focused on some salient points, namely the illegitimacy of these tactics and the abuse of shareholders’ information.

However, I also saw a fascinating quote in The Guardian from other ‘animal rights activists’;

Privately, animal rights activists are sceptical that an individual or a grassroots organisation would have the resources to send the letter to 170,000 shareholders or publish addresses online.
The Guardian, ‘Animal rights activists tell drug firm’s small investors to sell up or else’, 9th May 2006

This is the only acknowledgement I’ve yet seen of an important practical consideration.  Without disparaging the concerns of those few people who have been unfortunate enough to receive a letter, a quick totting up of the figures (on the back of a fag packet if I smoked, but in these modern times actually done on my mobile) shows what a desperate, and pathetic, attempt this was to grab a few media headlines.

CAHLS has threatened to write to all of the 167,000 individual GSK shareholders (see The FT, ‘GSK says investors targeted by extremists’, 9th May 2006) will receive a letter from them within two weeks.  This would cost a huge sum of money – even if we’re generous in our calculations!

Even if CAHLS:
1.  Hand-delivers half of the letters to keep costs down (unlikely because (i) there really aren’t enough activists willing to cross the line into illegal action to deliver 83,500 overnight and (ii) it would be risky hand-delivering letters, someone would be bound to see and then identify the miscreants).
2.  Uses 2nd class stamps (a bad idea in light of their self-imposed, two-week deadline and the Post Office’s track record on deliveries).
3.  Made their activists bring their own pen and paper, rather than the group buying envelopes etc.

83,500 letters @ 23p each = £19,205

Chances of a new, grassroots organisation having £20k for any sort of campaign?  Zero.
Chances of an established group secretly funding a £20k hate-mail campaign in light of legislation changes?  Slim to none, you’d hope.

This seems like the last gasping breaths of the opponents of HLS who are not only in denial about their abject failure, but are drawing attention to it with their ludicrous activities…

At the recent SHAC trial in the US the defendants tried to hide behind the First Amendment – the right to free speech.  They were less concerned with their victims’ ‘inalienable right’ to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, which precedes the First Amendment by 15 years.  The SHAC posse claimed that they could post what they liked on their website (home addresses, contact details, children’s school etc), but they were not responsible for the violence and intimidation thus incited: it was a legitimate tactic in their eyes.  The jury disagreed and the defendants are awaiting sentencing.

One posting on the SHAC site read, “Marsh employees: We know where you work, we know where you eat, we know where you sleep. Is HLS really worth it? We are winning.” SHAC took pains to claim that it was not responsible for the incidents, while at the same time applauded those who were.

If anyone was in doubt about the horrendous impact of these extremist tactics, then the account of Ed Walsh and his wife JoAnn McGee should put those uncertainties at rest.  Their work came under fire from PETA a decade ago because kittens were used in the study – never mind that the scientists hoped to help deaf children with their work.

Happily this sort of personal, individual harassment is rare; and thanks to recent changes in legislation, both in the UK and US, it is likely to become even more atypical.  Public acceptance of the need for carefully regulated animal research where there are no alternative has never been greater (opinion polls, Pro-Test, yadda yadda yadda), the media demonstrates an understanding of the issues involved, and scientists who speak out are no longer lone individuals but part of a group.

There are some serious opportunities in this up-and-coming field!  As the academic newspaper ResearchEurope highlighted recently, animal rights extremists are packing the pokey (if you’re American, that is; if you’re British they’re doing porridge; either way, brush up on your prison slang). 

Quick scorecard check:

• November 2005:  Each of two PeTA employees faces 22 felony counts of animal cruelty and three counts of obtaining property by false pretences after killing the animals they purported to be rescuing.  Case outcome pending.

• 2 March 2006:  Six SHAC extremists are convicted of terrorism in the US and are now on the business end of sentences up to 23 years each.

• 11 April 2006:  Four SNGP extremists face 6-12 years in prison each after pleading guilty to conspiracy to blackmail in the Darley Oaks grave robbery.

Now don’t get me wrong, I myself will plead guilty to at least Schadenfreude in the first degree when hearing that these folks get to spend some quality time behind bars for their crimes.  What I find most impressive, however, is that once locked up, their passion for plotting and committing violent, illegal acts seems quickly re-directed into peaceful lobbying for vegan food and non-animal-derived clothing.

30 years after the founding of the Animal Liberation Front (back in 1976), are we seeing the beginning of the end of that movement?

As reported in many of today’s papers, three animal rights extremists have admitted blackmailing the owners of the Newchurch guinea pig farm over a period of six years. This is a serious crime, for which they face possible jail sentences of up to 12 years.

For this, we would like to thank the hard work of all of the police forces involved, and congratulate them on the result.

What we find interesting is the ages of the defendants, 36, 39 and 36. One of them is a vicar’s son and supply teacher. These are no young firebrands. Rather, they are hardcore activists and weary veterans of an ageing animal rights movement. For some time the extremists have been complaining of the difficulties of getting new recruits to their cause. The recent string of convictions and bad publicity for the animal rights militants can hardly have helped.

Some of those accused could be well into in their forties when they get out of jail. Eventually they will run out of steam, just like the rest of the animal rights movement.

It seems life (or rather, the ALF) is imitating art with their recent ‘liberation’ of ungrateful deer, see Bloodhound’s blog Wildlife prison or wildlife paradise? Happy deers don’t even think about escaping.

In 1998, The Onion, a satirical online newsite wrote a spoof article about the ALF liberating cows, which included the following sentence:

The long-distance transport of the Cumberland cows was deemed necessary in light of an event last August, when 80 Milking Shorthorns were released from the Miklewski farm in Beloit, only to wander back into their pens the next day.
The Onion, 16th Dec 1998, ‘Animal Rights Activists Release 71,000 Cows Into Wild’

Extremists are being brought to book for their tactics (the ‘SHAC 7’ are awaiting sentencing), both the media and public sympathy are against them and the animals are ignoring them - life’s pretty hard for militant animal rights activists!

You probably haven’t noticed the increasingly frantic headlines appearing on the SPEAK website in recent weeks. After all, apart from animal rights fanatics and the odd journalist, we doubt anyone bothers to look at their website. Their recent posts have included the following headlines:

Voice of the voiceless
Not in My Name
IS ANYONE OUT THERE LISTENING?
Distinguishing the Truth from the Lies

It’s a bit pitiful really. Maybe they are frustrated by the noise injunction which means they cannot simply drown out the voices of anyone who disagrees with them. Or maybe they are only just beginning to realise that nobody thinks SPEAK has anything worth saying on this debate.

One-day they might start to face the facts. The only reason anyone takes any notice of SPEAK is because of the unpleasant disruption which they cause, and because it is the closest the media can get to any comment on the activities of the Animal Liberation Front in Oxford. Since so many of the SPEAK ringleaders have criminal convictions relating to animal rights extremism, they have only themselves to blame for their predicament.

The extremists seemed to be active all around the country earlier this week: in Caversham (near Reading) police found an incendiary device in the driveway of a women who runs a small courier service for the pharmaceutical industry. According to the BBC, a 39-year old man was arrested in the vicinity after discarding another crude incendiary in a nearby garden, and four others are also in custody. Responsibility for the attempted firebombing was later claimed by the ALF.

Animal rights extremists are behind vandalism at a greyhound track in Scotland at the weekend which caused more than £10,000 worth of damage. Vehicles were smashed, tyres slashed, every electrical cable was cut and the stadium was covered in graffiti.

An attempted liberation took place in Auchtermuchty in Scotland, on a free-range, non-intensive deer farm. The zealots wrote “This is a wildlife prison” on the roadways and destroyed the fencing. This attack would be amusing if it wasn’t for the costs to replace the fencing, which are considerable. Apparently (see, for instance, Oxford Gossip), none of the “imprisoned” deer even tried to escape. The animals stayed contentedly where they were. With all that free food and space to roam, more a wildlife paradise than a “prison”, it seems.

What impressed me most about today’s Pro-Test rally in support of the Oxford University research facility was how good-natured it was. There was no doubt that people were passionate about the cause. But there was simply no need for any aggression. No need to shout or hurl abuse. And no deriding people with different points of view. The message was simple and clear - a huge number of people support good science and life-saving medical research. They want to see the research centre built, without fear of intimidation and violence. Good luck to you Pro-Test!

The Sunday Times on 19th February 2006 ‘named and shamed’ the US citizen, living in Florida, who runs the Bite Back animal extremism website in Malaysia

As the article said, this is an extreme site that glorifies extremism, or terrorism as they call it in the US:

“Last week the site circulated a list of 40 named academics and their home addresses, saying that they were “legitimate targets”.Describing some as “scum”, it told animal rights activists they had “everything to gain by hitting these targets hard”. Atwood’s website is used as the main forum for the Animal Liberation Front (ALF). It lists and glorifies successful attacks including arson, burglary and criminal damage on the workplaces and homes of scientists and associated workers. Atwood, a management postgraduate with a criminal record for animal rights activity, has been behind the Bite Back group and allied website for at least three years. British police say they are powerless to act because he is an American citizen living in the US and his website is administered in Malaysia.”

The irony (I am being polite) came home to me because I run an animal welfare charity here in the UK. A US Donor was having real problems making a contribution to us last week. The US Patriot Act has introduced stringent checks for US donations to foreign charities.

Being now less than polite; This Sunday Times story shows it is time the US authorities got their own house in order as well. Free speech and Terrorism both know no borders.

The Liberals’ primary industries spokeswoman, Caroline Schaefer, has proposed new laws to prosecute animal rights protesters who intentionally cause damage to farming operations. She says the party is not targeting animal supporter groups like the RSPCA. “We’re fully supportive of the RSPCA and the legitimate animal friendly groups but it’s the extremist animal rights groups that we believe need to be certainly brought under control if not stopped,” she said.

If this gets you scatching your head ... think the other side of the world where Australia is suffering its own animal extremism campaign that looks decidely familar. With the SHAC 7 in court this week in the US and our own homegrown fanatics threatening all and sundry this clearly shows animal rights is nothing to do with animal welfare but all about a minority trying to impose its views on the majority by lawlessness.

The folks at SPEAK sure are working hard: not only did they put themselves in a lather about the re-start of construction on the research facility at Oxford University, but increasingly they seem to be putting words in people’s mouths – or at the very least shooting wildly from the hip.  Recent self-congratulatory posts to their web site chronicle two organisations’ decisions to dissociate themselves from Oxford University.  SPEAK described Fluid Gravity Engineering as having ‘reached a moral decision to have nothing to do with [Oxford],’ and thanked FGE for ‘basing their future financial dealings on ethical considerations.’ Wow.  Sounds like FGE really had the long knives out for Oxford, eh?  Well, here’s what they actually said: ‘Sirs, We will not be funding Oxford University in the future.  Please can you confirm receipt of this letter and that this is sufficient to ensure we are removed from your list and your supporters informed of this fact.’

Attention, SPEAK: this is the Purple Prose Police!  Pull over!