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:
• Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC) Mouthpiece 1: ‘[SHAC] published contact details of individuals connected with HLS in the past, but . . . that was more than five years ago’ (Guardian, ‘Animal rights activists tell drug firm’s small investors to sell up or else,’ 9 May 2006). So they must think picking on individuals is bad, right? But it appears that SHAC Spokesperson 1 was reading from different talking points than:
• SHAC Mouthpiece 2: ‘We think it is perfectly acceptable to contact Glaxo shareholders to . . . inform them of this connection [to HLS]’ (Daily Telegraph, ‘Extremists target Glaxo shareholders,’ 9 May 2006). Ah yes, that’s more like the SHAC we know and love. And the tiniest bit of digging confirms that SHAC Mouthpiece 2 does indeed appear to give the lie to SHAC Mouthpiece 1’s dubious statement: if you visit the News section of the SHAC web site (at www.shac.net), they routinely name the individuals they’re hassling, along with details of their residence and work addresses.
• ‘Anonymous’ 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’ (Guardian, ‘Animal rights activists tell drug firm’s small investors to sell up or else,’ 9 May 2006). So even your allies think you’re liars – super.
• PeTA Spokesperson Poorva Joshipura, in response to BBC reporter’s question, Do moderate campaigners think it’s acceptable to target [shareholders]?: ‘Absolutely’ (BBC News 24, ‘Glaxo investors get threat letter,’ 9 May 2006). One wonders if the BBC will continue to think of PeTA as ‘moderate’ after such comments. With words like these and with increasingly distasteful deeds (see, for example, my PeTA posts from January and February) PeTA continue to paint themselves into a radical corner, from which it will be very hard to emerge with their ‘moderate’ reputation intact.
• Animal Rights Activist John Curtin: ‘Why shouldn’t [shareholders’] details become public . . . I don’t see what the commotion is about’ (BBC News 24, ‘Animal rights activist discusses threat letters,’ 9 May 2006). John’s confusion is perhaps understandable since he’s used to producing a lot more commotion through his own actions: before he was a commentator, he was a grave robber. He may have been a very poor grave robber – his efforts to steal the Duke of Beaufort’s body and send the head to the Princess Royal as an anti-hunt protest were thwarted by frozen ground and poor spadesmanship – but he did two years in the slammer nonetheless(1). Just the sort of commentator you want for fair and balanced analysis of current affairs.
Call me crazy, but the animal rights lobby must be way low on spokespeople. Given that the four activists who recently pled guilty to blackmail in the heinous Darley Oaks body theft will be sentenced in only two days, you would have thought the AR folks could come up with a spokesperson who hasn’t actually served jail time for the same damn crime.
But then again, who would they be left with? Perhaps PeTA’s Pamela Anderson might want to give it a try? It could be a good opportunity for her to counter the assertion made by the title of a recent biopic in the Sunday Express (‘Everyone seems to think that I’m just a bimbo but I’m devoted to helping animals’)(2). Given some of her statements in the article, she’s clearly got the gift for memorable, media-ready phrases: ‘I guess my breasts still have a career and I’m just tagging along with them.’
(1) For further details, see, among others: Paul Bracchi and David Wilkes, ‘Who are the real animals,’ Daily Mail, 3 September 2005; to request a copy of the article, search the Daily Mail web site, ring + 0800 010 111, or e-mail helpline@dailymail.co.uk.
(2) Mike Parker, ‘Everyone seems to think that I’m just a bimbo but I’m devoted to helping animals,’ Sunday Express, 7 May 2006; to request a copy of the article, ring + 08714 341 010 or e-mail expressletters@express.co.uk.
<Wrap up...>
