Animal Wrongs
During the first century B.C. Spartacus led a rebellion against the imperial might of Rome in the name of oppressed slaves. In the eighteenth century, France saw rebels storm prisons and behead the king in the name of equality, liberty and fraternity. The African National Congress fought bitterly in the name of the black majority of South Africa during the second half of the twentieth century.
In twenty-first century Britain people set fire to buildings and attack individuals of a university in the name of fluffy rabbits. There is a legitimate argument to be had with regards to animal testing and it would be wrong for Oxford University, the government, and Britain’s scientists to ignore the need to justify a science that has long been shrouded in controversy. But it should be just that: an argument.
Setting fire to boathouses, leaving traces of an accelerant in college pavilions, and intimidating and harassing individuals connected to the University is counter-productive to the animal rights cause. Such acts of violence polarise public opinion, strengthen resolve of those they target, and perpetuate a negative image of those who believe that an animal’s welfare is as important as a human’s.
Until this week SPEAK, the campaign group leading the opposition to the construction of the new animal research facility on South Parks Road, had tended to stay on the side of respectability. However disruptive students found their weekly demonstrations and verbal attacks on the University, they had always officially distanced themselves from the violent actions of other anti-vivisectionists.
When questioned by The Oxford Student this week, SPEAK spokesman Robert Cogswell refused to condemn the attacks on the Hertford Boathouse and Corpus Christi pavilion. He declared that he did not consider damage to property as violence. In failing to establish clear water between the legal SPEAK campaign and extremist groups, Cogswell has severely damaged the reputation of the legitimate animal rights campaign.
The recent spate of attacks appear to be the actions of either seriously deranged or seriously desperate individuals. People are more likely to listen to animal rights campaigners when they are not hysterically declaring violent warfare on the world’s most famous university. Perhaps the animal rights campaign is a cause worth committing acts of violence and intimidation for.
Maybe in decades to come groups like the ALF will be remembered alongside the ANC and those that brought down the ancien regime. Chances are they will merely go down as a bunch of obscure terrorists.
5th Oct 2005