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! 

If you were wondering whether the supporters of Save The Newchurch Guinea Pigs were ready to hang up their hats, then think again - they’ve decided to throw their lot in with SPEAK, campaigning against Oxford University.

Now this wouldn’t be a matter for concern if SNGP had been a law-abiding, peaceful campaign; but the thought of body-snatching fanatics, whose tactics included hate mail, malicious phone calls, hoax bombs and arson attacks, finding another cause is disturbing as far as I’m concerned.

Bearing this in mind, you’d think that an organisation claiming to advocate only peaceful protest would have qualms about accepting ‘all their [SNGP’s] resources’ but apparently not.  SPEAK/ SNGP’s announcement shows that they are welcoming this addition with open arms.

This is another indication that SPEAK is not the legal campaign it claims to be.  For previous warning signs see blog entry Arrested SPEAK protestors were not local and the words of SPEAK’s spokesman, Mel Broughton, reported in the Oxford Mail after a demo in January.

Well, looks like none of the five SPEAK protestors arrested at Saturday’s demo were even from Oxford!

The five arrested for breaches of public order were released on bail until Thursday, January 26. They are barred from entering Oxford. Two are from Essex and others from Northampton, London and Kent.
The Oxford Mail, 16th January 2006

This suggests several things, including:

1. SPEAK is having trouble finding support amongst locals and is having to bus supporters in an attempt to increase numbers.

2. Since those arrested were presumably making trouble, SPEAK is deliberately bussing in people who escalate protest beyond what is expected of peaceful demonstrators.

The latter is very possible when you consider that some of the protestors felt the need to cover their faces (why would any law-abiding citizen feel the need to do so if they are merely exercising their democratic voice in a legal manner?), and when you consider the threatening words at the protest from Mel Broughton, spokesman for SPEAK;

Now it is time to fight. We must take this chance, we must do what is necessary… The time has come for fighting, not talking… You have got every opportunity to enter this city any time of day or night and they won’t stop you. They are going to have to worry about what will happen next.
The Oxford Mail, 16th January 2006

The final comment ‘they are going to have to worry about what will happen next’ perturbs me, following as it does a literal call-to-arms.  This doesn’t sit well with the idea of a peaceful organisation, which SPEAK claims to be.

This weekend saw yet another weekend of protests from our friends at SPEAK. Not just two demonstrations on Saturday and Sunday, but a rally in the town hall. A handful of protesters were still planted on the pavement outside the new animal laboratory on Monday even (to the great enjoyment of all those working around the area; see my earlier comment about megaphones)

Having seen the demonstration and its so-called violent abuse by the police, I am beginning to wonder if it was actually the same demonstration I had been at.

Yes, there was a little cafuffle at the front, when a few of the more militant activists tried to break through the lines of policemen and women protecting the science area. These were dealt with in what seemed a very civil restrained manner. To me it seems pretty obvious that if you are going to attack a line of policemen, they are not going to step aside and give you a pat on the back.

As for the suggested intimidation by the coppers, that again seems only the demonstrators’ own fault: if you are going to threaten to attack any building that is part of the university and you fail to provide your own stewards to the demonstration, it seems only logical to me that a close-guarding heavy police presence is required. The police seemed very civilised to me. In fact, having seen them in action during potentially violent football matches, to my eyes there was no sign of intimidation at all. The front rows of officers did not even have helmets and shields! And if, like the SPEAK website so happily claims, the fight is not with Thames Valley Police, but with the University itself, why are demonstrators hurling objects at the police?

This whole weekend of demonstrations proved once again to me that the activists involved in this protests are just bleating: everybody is out to get them, no one is cooperating, the university and all its workers are evil, etc. etc. If they could keep their violent component and conspiracy theories under control, none of this would be necessary and peaceful protest could take place, perhaps even dialogue. As it stands we just have to live with the continual threat of violence and they will have to live with the police being on their case. 

SPEAK had a demo at Oxford on Saturday (14th Jan) at which they claimed there was an ‘unprovoked police attack’.  According to SPEAK, their protesters showed ‘discipline and self-restraint’ –

despite provocation on many occasions by Thames Valley Police officers, who were clearly looking for a confrontation.
SPEAK

Strangely, independent articles in The Guardian, The Oxford Mail and The Oxford Student (the latter two being well placed to comment knowledgeably on local happenings) didn’t have quite the same slant on SPEAK’s behaviour:

... the builders roll an empty wheelbarrow directly in front of the protesters, who hurl abuse at them with the aid of a megaphone.
The Guardian, 14th January 2006

Violent clashes at an animal rights demonstration in Oxford saw protesters break through metal barricades and hurl missiles at riot police…
The Oxford Mail, 16th January 2006

The demonstration did not pass without incident. Individuals hurled abuse at police, accusing them of traumatizing police horses.
The Oxford Student, 17th January 2006

The police officer who oversaw the demonstration also noted that a lawful protest (as had been discussed with the organisers) should not involve participants wearing masks to conceal their identity and the removal of barriers put there to ensure public safety.

Nor should they include unsettling words such as those heard from SPEAK’s main man:

Former frontman of the 80s band The Smiths, (Saint) Morrissey is a well-known animal rights sympathiser. He spent much of the 90s exiled in the USA, where for some reason it’s a minor celebrity cause: he was winner of last year’s PetA Linda McCartney Memorial Award, no less.  Now, a fan’s question to the online Morrissey fanzine True To You asks him for his “message to the world to make life better for animals on our planet.” Unfortunately, the best that Morrissey could come up with was:

"I support the efforts of the Animal Rights Militia in England and I understand why fur-farmers and so-called laboratory scientists are repaid with violence - it is because they deal in violence themselves and it’s the only language they understand - the same principals that apply to war. You reach a point where you cannot reason with people. This is why the Animal Rights Militia and the Hunt Saboteurs exist. They are usually very intelligent people who are forced to act because the law is shameful or amoral."

After some barbed comments about carnivorous celebrity chefs Jamie Oliver and Clarissa Dickson Wright, and an attack on hunting, he concludes “Everybody needs to hate something, it seems.”
In a Sunday Times article, Clarissa Dickson Wright responded “He’s probably cracked from a lack of animal protein,” while a spokesperson for HLS said “People can have whatever opinions they want, but to condone and encourage acts of violence is entirely wrong and should not be allowed in a democracy.”

For those of you following the PeTA-kills-animals-instead-of-’liberating’-them saga (see previous blogs, PeTA - animal killers and PeTA = hypocritical bull***t, say Penn & Teller), some interesting points are made on CNN’s programme Anderson Cooper 360 Degrees.

You can read the transcript or watch the video.

Ah, the hyposcrisy continues… SPEAK has another pop at Oxford, despite intimidation being one the extremist group’s own tactics.

It has become clear that some of the arrogant and self interested members of this institution now believe that they can use intimidation as a weapon to stifle free speech…

SPEAK

So, let me get this straight… PeTA – the self-styled saviour campaigning against animal cruelty and for the total liberation of animals (including ‘freeing’ pets from their oppression) – has been killing cute, furry animals?!?!

What a surprise… unless you are already familiar with their dubious tactics.  For a glimpse of these, check out the Penn and Teller blog entry below (btw, thanks for posting that Zebedee I found P&T very informative).

Two PeTA employees (not merely members, but people actually paid to ‘save’ animals) are facing 22 felony counts each of cruelty to animals as well as three counts each of obtaining property by false pretence.

The cruellest irony is that many of these strays would have found a home if PeTA had left them alone…

Do SPEAK know something we don’t? How many activists in balaclavas are they expecting to recruit?

Well, looks like disgust about ARE (animal rights extremist) activities round Darley Oaks has spread around the globe – the latest article I’ve seen is from Australia:

GLADYS Hammond was a kindly woman who lived in the English county of Staffordshire. When she died seven years ago, her family buried her in a quiet village churchyard, a fitting resting place for this elderly, unassuming woman. But then in October this year, her remains were dug up and stolen. Why?

In a live web chat on the Channel 4 website last night, long-time animal rights activist John Curtin said he wanted a gentler world, based on love and compassion. But he implied, without actually saying it directly, that he is determined to use violence, intimidation and harassment if necessary to achieve it. How big a contradiction does there have to be for John to start to notice?

John also said that he doesn’t agree with other groups like anti-abortionists and Islamic jihadists, just acting on their beliefs. So it’s only the animal rights extremists then John? Thank you for clarifying that. How thoughtful.

Oh no, the protesters are here again!

Again the Science area of Oxford University is flooded with protesters, police and a lot of facemasks and video cameras. Why does this minority feel it has to cause such a fuss over something it simply don’t understand?

Of course I can’t answer that, but how about regulating the sale of megaphones so that people would have to do an IQ test before purchase? At least we would not have to endure the stream of drivel and ‘facts’ at high volume. Why do we need to hear about the 5-week-old kittens that Oxford University apparently “murdered” in 2002? Something uninteresting and irrelevant does not gain relevance by increasing the volume.

I’d be interested to know what has prompted the toning down of SPEAK’s latest suggestion that their members phone up to complain about an Oxford University department Christmas party.

Recently, SPEAK have incited two of these phone-ins.  The first was aggressive and self-aggrandising:

SPEAK has insisted from the outset of this campaign that we plan to highlight exactly the sort of people that work inside the animal labs at Oxford. We believe that those companies dealing with such people have a right to know exactly who they are doing business with in order for them to make an informed decision. Animal abuse at the university exists because of the lies told by those that work in those departments torturing animals and animal abuse will continue as long as such people are allowed to peddle their lies. SPEAK will never allow those lies to go unchallenged despite the best attempts by Oxford University to muzzle us in the Courts.

We also said: nothing Oxford University does will escape our attention and we meant it!

SPEAK

Have SPEAK been caught on the hop with the announcement from Oxford University that work is resuming on the research centre? A recent post on the SPEAK website urges its supporters to “make 2006 a year to remember, a year in which we see Oxford University abandon their plans”, and claims that victory “is tantalisingly close”.

Ho Hum. What about the rest of 2005? We shall see!