RE: RE: should we forget our differences for the sak e of the animals?

[Guest guest]

Here's my twopennorth on the subject, having read Angie's stout and solo

defence of those who feel that extreme action is justified.

For what it's worth, Angie, I'm with you. I personally don't take violent

direct action - never have, can't think that I ever will. But neither will

I condemn it. The only direct action that I find difficult is the realease

of non-indigienous species into the wild (i.e. from mink farms), but even

then I do not condemn those who did it. At the end of the day fur-farming

has been abolished in this country - maybe those releases contributed to

public awareness, maybe the government decided that having mink farm in this

country was more trouble than it was worth. We cannot know either way

whether those releases contributed to the end result.

And as for harrassing workers having no point - please! Remember Shamrock

farm? Since the '50s people have been protesting, writing to their MPs etc

etc etc. No joy - the animals just went right on suffering and Shamrock

went right on getting richer. Then the AR movement said " enough " ! The heat

was turned up (sorry for the pun!), the campaign was made personal and 18

months later the place was bulldozed. And like it or like it not, those

fire bombs had to have played a part in that.

I was told a long time ago in connection with my work, that unless the

person taking an action was made to feel the consequences of those actions,

they would never modify their behaviour. That was in relation to making

people clear up their own messes so that they didn't do it again, but I

think it works just as well in relation to vivisectors and their suppliers.

Remember that episode of Red Dwarf where every negative act committed had

consequences for the perpetrator? If you tried to set someone on fire you

went up in flames yourself? Brilliant! That's what I've wanted for

Christmas ever since - a world where there was true justice. We'd soon see

how concerned these scientists are to cure the world's sick by cutting up

animals when the scalpel turned and slit *them* from throat to groin.

Sanctimonious scum.

And I believe that Angie is right - criticism hurts when in comes from your

own side. Bad enough that everyone in the world seems to hate vegans, let

along vegan AR activists, but when the bad-mouthing comes from people who

you thought shared your goals and supported you in your caring, well, that

stinks. If you don't want to condone something, don't. Everyone is

entitled to their own opinions and no-one is suggesting that anyone here

should engage in violent acts. But please think twice before adopting a

holier-than-thou stance towards other people who want animal liberation. I

repeat what I've said before - the day those filth experience exactly what

they dish out, I'll listen to their sob-stories. Until then I hope they

rot.

Cathy

[Guest guest]

Thank you Cathy !!!!!!

-

" Cathy Jupp (BR) " <cjbr

 

Friday, August 03, 2001 4:14 PM

RE: RE: should we forget our differences for the sak e

of the animals?

 

 

> Here's my twopennorth on the subject, having read Angie's stout and solo

> defence of those who feel that extreme action is justified.

> For what it's worth, Angie, I'm with you. I personally don't take violent

> direct action - never have, can't think that I ever will. But neither

will

> I condemn it. The only direct action that I find difficult is the

realease

> of non-indigienous species into the wild (i.e. from mink farms), but even

> then I do not condemn those who did it. At the end of the day fur-farming

> has been abolished in this country - maybe those releases contributed to

> public awareness, maybe the government decided that having mink farm in

this

> country was more trouble than it was worth. We cannot know either way

> whether those releases contributed to the end result.

> And as for harrassing workers having no point - please! Remember Shamrock

> farm? Since the '50s people have been protesting, writing to their MPs

etc

> etc etc. No joy - the animals just went right on suffering and Shamrock

> went right on getting richer. Then the AR movement said " enough " ! The

heat

> was turned up (sorry for the pun!), the campaign was made personal and 18

> months later the place was bulldozed. And like it or like it not, those

> fire bombs had to have played a part in that.

> I was told a long time ago in connection with my work, that unless the

> person taking an action was made to feel the consequences of those

actions,

> they would never modify their behaviour. That was in relation to making

> people clear up their own messes so that they didn't do it again, but I

> think it works just as well in relation to vivisectors and their

suppliers.

> Remember that episode of Red Dwarf where every negative act committed had

> consequences for the perpetrator? If you tried to set someone on fire you

> went up in flames yourself? Brilliant! That's what I've wanted for

> Christmas ever since - a world where there was true justice. We'd soon

see

> how concerned these scientists are to cure the world's sick by cutting up

> animals when the scalpel turned and slit *them* from throat to groin.

> Sanctimonious scum.

> And I believe that Angie is right - criticism hurts when in comes from

your

> own side. Bad enough that everyone in the world seems to hate vegans, let

> along vegan AR activists, but when the bad-mouthing comes from people who

> you thought shared your goals and supported you in your caring, well, that

> stinks. If you don't want to condone something, don't. Everyone is

> entitled to their own opinions and no-one is suggesting that anyone here

> should engage in violent acts. But please think twice before adopting a

> holier-than-thou stance towards other people who want animal liberation.

I

> repeat what I've said before - the day those filth experience exactly what

> they dish out, I'll listen to their sob-stories. Until then I hope they

> rot.

> Cathy

>

>

> To send an email to -

>

>

[Guest guest]

At last some one understands what I was saying Angie

-

" Cathy Jupp (BR) " <cjbr

 

Friday, August 03, 2001 4:14 PM

RE: RE: should we forget our differences for the sak e

of the animals?

 

 

> Here's my twopennorth on the subject, having read Angie's stout and solo

> defence of those who feel that extreme action is justified.

> For what it's worth, Angie, I'm with you. I personally don't take violent

> direct action - never have, can't think that I ever will. But neither

will

> I condemn it. The only direct action that I find difficult is the

realease

> of non-indigienous species into the wild (i.e. from mink farms), but even

> then I do not condemn those who did it. At the end of the day fur-farming

> has been abolished in this country - maybe those releases contributed to

> public awareness, maybe the government decided that having mink farm in

this

> country was more trouble than it was worth. We cannot know either way

> whether those releases contributed to the end result.

> And as for harrassing workers having no point - please! Remember Shamrock

> farm? Since the '50s people have been protesting, writing to their MPs

etc

> etc etc. No joy - the animals just went right on suffering and Shamrock

> went right on getting richer. Then the AR movement said " enough " ! The

heat

> was turned up (sorry for the pun!), the campaign was made personal and 18

> months later the place was bulldozed. And like it or like it not, those

> fire bombs had to have played a part in that.

> I was told a long time ago in connection with my work, that unless the

> person taking an action was made to feel the consequences of those

actions,

> they would never modify their behaviour. That was in relation to making

> people clear up their own messes so that they didn't do it again, but I

> think it works just as well in relation to vivisectors and their

suppliers.

> Remember that episode of Red Dwarf where every negative act committed had

> consequences for the perpetrator? If you tried to set someone on fire you

> went up in flames yourself? Brilliant! That's what I've wanted for

> Christmas ever since - a world where there was true justice. We'd soon

see

> how concerned these scientists are to cure the world's sick by cutting up

> animals when the scalpel turned and slit *them* from throat to groin.

> Sanctimonious scum.

> And I believe that Angie is right - criticism hurts when in comes from

your

> own side. Bad enough that everyone in the world seems to hate vegans, let

> along vegan AR activists, but when the bad-mouthing comes from people who

> you thought shared your goals and supported you in your caring, well, that

> stinks. If you don't want to condone something, don't. Everyone is

> entitled to their own opinions and no-one is suggesting that anyone here

> should engage in violent acts. But please think twice before adopting a

> holier-than-thou stance towards other people who want animal liberation.

I

> repeat what I've said before - the day those filth experience exactly what

> they dish out, I'll listen to their sob-stories. Until then I hope they

> rot.

> Cathy

>

>

> To send an email to -

>

>