[100% veg*n ] barry horne

[Guest guest]

demo wrote:

>

> > He might not be " just a firebomber " but he was, nevertheless, a

> > firebomber.

>

> I don¹t know, I am a bit disappointed Ian.

 

Less of the personal attacks please. People can disagree with you

without disappointing you, surely?

 

> strictly speaking I would not say that Barry Horne was a firebomber at all.

> this was one point I was making. he was not an arsonist going out with the

> intent to start fires which is what he got sent down for.

 

As I said, he might not be " just a firebomber " , (he wasn't), but he was,

nevertheless, a firebomber. Simply having a motive other than watching

the pretty flames doesn't stop you from being a firebomber.

 

> he was an civil

> rights going out with the intent to stop animal rights abuses.

 

ISTR he firebombed high street shops, not establishments where he

thought animals were being abused.

 

> I have always

> been disgusted at the bias of the law toward the protection of property over

> the protection of individuals rights [ never mind animals or the environment

> ]. in fact he got punished even more to be made an " example of "

 

Here, I agree with you. Twenty years was several times too much.

 

> sadly, it reminds us of whose law it is.

 

Ours, ultimately. (And the Lords, but they are on the way out.)

 

> I often noted that if Horne and his

> like had raped or murdered they would have gotten off far more lightly than

> for what they did. the scale of punishment in current laws against arson are

> a bit anachronistic. routed as if they in the middle ages.

>

> it is very convenient for the establishment to be able to diminish what the

> likes of these people do by reinterpreting sticking some other lesser crime

> onto their actions. this country has no provision for " crimes of conscience

> " which is what he did and is never likely to for as long as it is against

> the interests of the establishment.

 

Well, you can plead that you were committing one crime to prevent a

greater one, as nuclear protesters have successfully done.

 

> it is abhorrent that courts are going out of their way to increase

> punishments of environmental and animal right activists in Europe but more

> so in the USA. the branding of conscientious objectors or criminals of

> conscience as " terrorists " .

 

Such as Earth First, who have damaged property, but not hurt anyone.

 

There are AR terrorists in the UK.

 

> It stinks of the same bad breath that opposed the civil rights movement for

> African Americans so maliciously for so long. or in fact those that opposed

> the the nascent American Nation earlier. to speak with that same breath

> lowers you to becoming one of their lackeys promulgating their oppressive

> consciousness. but may be you find some solace in the moral high ground?

 

You can disagree with people without lowering yourself to personal

attacks. You should try it.

 

> it is a complete misjudgement of history to believe that Gandhi made it all

> happen his way. I would be hard pressed to find the references but I think

> he acknowledged this and it was the bi-polar attack on the Empire that

> brought about Indian Independence in which the radicals played at least an

> equal part.

 

The argument had been won with the public of the subcontinent. The

argument for AR has not largely been won with the public of the west.

 

> this clearly relates to the animal rights and environmental movements. a few

> more deaths on either side are inevitable for " something will have to be

> done about it " .

 

You seriously think that deaths, in themselves, convince people?

 

> can you really believe that progress happens from a few

> nice folk writing polite letters or rational argument?

>

> all respect to them but you look at any major human rights or environmental

> issue that has arisen in the last two hundred and it sure as hell required

> heads being knocked, blood being spilt and some innocent folk dying.

 

Who died to get the RSPCA founded? That was a big deal in its day.

 

--

Ian McDonald

 

http://www.mcdonald.me.uk/

[Guest guest]

vegan-network, Dr Ian McDonald <ian@m...> wrote:

 

> > sadly, it reminds us of whose law it is.

>

> Ours, ultimately. (And the Lords, but they are on the way out.)

 

Sorry I don't agree with that one. Or do you mean our law in the

sense that its part of the same law that we all must abide by.

Seeing as people have to starve themselves to death, start petitions

or demonstrate to even have a chance of getting members of government

to even start thinking about how they're going to get away with not

changing laws I don't see how the law is ultimately ours.

 

The thing about Barry horne was that arson was his method of

activism. I personally prefer non-destructive/constructive activism,

eg people who do scientific research using anything but animals. But

whether its more moral than burning buildings down is questionable

because even an animal friendly drugs company is still going to be

pumping out obscure substances into the pharmaceutical market, and

affecting many more peoples' lives than say, bombing a Mcdonalds.

 

Jules