There has been a lovely debate on the TES website following my previous posting on animal rights and human rights. What follows is my one-sided summary but the whole debate is avalable on the TES website..
1) It is OK for the government to take away our liberty because this will defeat the terrorists. If you put it that way nobody would agree because it is simply factually incorrect. There is plenty of terrorism in Iraq, Russia, Saudi Arabia - but not much in the way of civil liberties. In fact the absence of civil liberties means that acts described as terrorism may be the only way people can make a point.
2) In the past drugs were tested on animals (with varying degrees of accuracy - Arsenic tends to be harmless to cats!) so therefore nobody should seek alternatives to animal testing now - anybody who does is an extremist.
and 3) There are very real threats against people who experiment on animals and therefore anybody who opposes experiments on animals is a terrorist. That is not such a logical argument is it?
As I said to start with I am not an animal rights activist of any kind but I do believe that the government will use laws against "extremists" to act against legitimate protest. This plays into the hands of the "extremists" however you define them.
The government has already used anti terrorist legislation against peace protestors and anti-capitalist protestors....rather than against terrorists.
FYI most terrorists do not have terrorist tattooed on their foreheads! (This last point refers to a photograph used to "prove" animal rights activists are all terrorists by showing one girl who had the word terrorist written on her forehead)
Posted by derekmcmillan
at 6:56 PM BST
