We cannot help but wonder how many days of action are needed by the antivivisection groups to make their case. No sooner have Animal Aid held their ‘Action Day for Primates’ on 25 August, than the National Anti-Vivisection Society is to demonstrate for ‘International Primate Day’ on 1 September. We didn’t see any media coverage of the Animal Aid event, and we don’t expect much for the NAVS.
Once again we have to listen to the very limited combined weight of expertise of various celebrities like actress Jenny Seagrove and TV presenter Michaela Strachan. One wonders when these people are going to bother to actually find out some of the facts about primate research instead of trotting out the same tired old antivivisection propaganda.
Perhaps those who care to take part in these days of action should take note of the latest posting on the relatively new blog of SPEAK Political, which claims that “we scratch and claw for every piddling little victory whilst allowing the big picture to completely elude us. At our present rate of achievement, in another 100 years we won’t have moved on much from where we are now. No wonder so many of us drift away disillusioned.” SPEAK used to have lots of days of action. Perhaps the animal rights movement depend too much on celebrities and days of action?
Unfortunately the nastier side of anti-viv ‘action’ has reappeared today with claims that Savlon and other Novartis products have been contaminated. This seems to be an attempt to blackmail Novartis into cutting links with HLS.
While this campaign is almost bound to fail and will probably only serve to remind the public just how unpleasant some anti-vivs are it does raise a question. Should Boots and other firms have recalled Savlon? It strikes me that such responses only serve the extremists.
The anti-vivs claim that they are non-violent so it seems unlikely that they would actually contaminate any products, since the backlash against them resulting from any injuries would do more damage to their cause than any benefit they might hope to gain.
Why not call their bluff and ignore such claims? Or would the corporate lawyers have a collective fit if this was suggested?
In the meantime I must remember to buy a tube of Savlon when it returns to the shelves!
The SPEAK Political blog reference in this entry contains a whine from a supporter that their MP had checked them out on Google. Perhaps the on-going extremism shown by the Salvon incident explains why!
But the sidebar on this blog is most illuminating
Some animal rights activists engage in direct action as a means to fight the animal abuse that is endemic in our society. This takes many forms but can sometimes involve breaking the law. At SPEAK Political we believe that some struggles are above man-made laws and therefore in certain circumstances it can be acceptable to break them.
A classic from the Gerry Adams school of disingenuousness.
