Tag: Great Britain

Animal Liberation Front Claims Responsibility for Attack on Home of GlaxoSmithKline Executive

In October, the Animal Liberation Front claimed responsibility for Sept. 7 attack on the UK home of GlaxoSmithKline executive Paul Blackburn.

In an e-mail posted on animal rights extremists sites, the ALF claimed,

On the night of Weds 7th Sept we Brigade G of the Animal Liberation Front detonated a bomb on the doorstep of GlaxoSmithKline director Paul Blakburn, Beaconsfield, Bucks.

This contained 2 litres of fuel and 4 pounds of explosives. We did this because GSK is a customer of Huntingdon Life Sciences and GSK we realise that this may not be enough to make you stop using HLS, but GSK this is just the beginning.

We have identified and tracked down many of your senior executives and also junior staff, as well as those from other HLS customers.

Drop HLS or you will face the consequences. For all the animals inside HLS, we will be back.

Members of Blackburn’s family were in the home when the extremists ignited the incendiary device — so much for all that nonsense about ALF taking extreme care not to risk human lives.

The ALF also claimed responsibility for a September 23 attempted arson at a sports facility in Oxford.

Source:

Firebomb in Beaconsfield. Bucks Free Press, October 4, 2005.

Man Becomes First In UK Charged Under Laws Targeting Animal Rights Extremists

In October, Mark Taylor, 38, became the first person charged in the United Kingdom under new laws there designed to crack down on animal rights extremism.

Taylor was charged under a provision of the Serious and Organized Crime and Police Act of 2005 that targets those who interfere with contractual relationships so as to harm an animal research organization — i.e. harassing employees and companies who do business with animal research firms.

Taylor was charged with three such counts of interference with contractual relationships so as to harm an animal research organization, two counts of aggravated trespass, and one count of assault.

He was arrested back on July 16, 2005 after a protest at a company that is a supplier to Huntingdon Life Sciences.

Source:

Charge under animal research law. The BBC, October 5, 2005.

More Than 500 UK Researchers Sign Research Defence Society Statement In Support of Animal Research

In August, the Research Defence Society announced that more than 500 British researchers had signed its Declaration on Animals in Medical Research, including three Nobel laureates and 190 Fellows of the Royal Society.

The Declaration highlights the important contributions made by animal research to benefit humanity and underscores the importance of further research. Fifteen years ago, a similar declaration was circulated by the Research Defence Society which ultimately garnered 1,000 signatures including six Nobel laureates.

Simon Festing, executive director of the Research Defence Society, said in a press release that,

We are delighted to have gathered over 500 signatures from top UK academic scientists and doctors in less than one month. It shows the strength and depth of support for humane animal research in this country. Abolitionist groups often claim that their position has scientific or medical support, but itÂ’s no surprise that they cannot back this up.

Cancer researcher Nick Wright, dean of Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry explained why he signed the Declaration,

I have signed this Declaration because I recognise the enormous contribution made to modern health care and public health by animals in medical research. As the pace of discovery quickens, it becomes even more important if we are to maintain this momentum. This is why I believe that we should all publicly acknowledge our debt to animal experimentation.

The full text of the Declaration reads,

Declaration on Animals in Medical Research

Throughout the world people enjoy a better quality of life because of advances made
possible through medical research, and the development of new medicines and other
treatments. A small but vital part of that work involves the use of animals.

In 1990, top scientists and physicians from the UK, as well as Nobel Laureates,
signed a Declaration that stated, among other things:

“Experiments on animals have made an important contribution to advances in medicine and surgery,
which have brought major improvements in the health of human beings and animals.”

Fifteen years later

We reaffirm our support for the 1990 Declaration, and for the statement from the House of Lords Select Committee
on Animals in Scientific Procedures (2002) that: “there is a continued need for animal experimentation both in applied
research and in research aimed purely at extending knowledge” and for the statement from the Royal Society report
The Use of Non-Human Animals in Research (2004) that: “humans have benefited immensely from scientific research involving
animals, with virtually every medical achievement in the past century reliant on the use of animals in some way”.

Animal welfare

We acknowledge and respect the sentience of animals. Until we no longer require animals in research, animal
welfare is of paramount importance. We aim to gain the benefits from animal research with minimal suffering
and distress. It is crucial to promote best practice and maintain a culture of care in research establishments.
Every effort must be made to: replace the use of live animals by alternative techniques; reduce the number of
animals used to the minimum required for meaningful results; and refine the procedures and improve housing
to ensure the well-being of the animals.

Controls

The UK is widely acknowledged to have the most rigorous controls on animal research in the world. Both
institutions and individuals must adhere to legislation governing the use of animals in research.

Openness

We wish to see an open and responsible debate about the use of animals for all purposes. This can be difficult
in the face of animal rights extremism. We encourage institutions to provide clear information about animal
research, and foster rational discussion about the ethical, medical and scientific issues.

Ethics

All use of animals by society should be considered in an ethical context. Proposals to use animals in science must
be critically evaluated and justified. The validity, usefulness and relevance of the research need to be demonstrated
in every case. Research using animals should be subject to cost / benefit assessment and ethical review.

Signed (as individual)

Sources:

Animal testing backed by 500 UK scientists. Reuters, August 25, 2005.

15 years on: top scientists and doctors back animal research. Press Release, Research Defence Society, August 24, 2005.

Activists In Monkey Suits Turn in Anti-Primate Research Petition

On August 2, several animal rights activists dressed in monkey suits showed up at Number 10 Downing Street along with Liberal Democrat MP Norman Baker to turn in the 163,000 signatures they had gathered on a petition asking for a ban on primate research in the UK.

The Next of Kin campaign, organized by the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection, argues that medical research with primates is cruel and should be abolished.

Most British newspapers wrote bland summaries of the event, typically with a short quote from Simon Festing of the Research Defense Society saying,

BUAV are right to highlight the similarity of primates to humans – that is why they are so useful. But they are only a fraction of the number of animals used in research, around 0.1%, and they have been essential in a number of areas, including hepatitis vaccine, fertility studies, the modern contraceptive and research into Parkinson’s disease.

The Manchester Evening News, however, ran a story which was read like BUAV itself had drafted the story. That included this odd claim,

Less than 20% of medical primate use is for medical research, with 70% for the profit of pharmaceutical companies.

. . .

Research suggests toxicology procedures, to benefit pharmaceutical companies — the majority of primate use (70%) — can lead to loss of appetite, nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, weight loss, lethargy, unsteady gait or loss of balance and even death.

Just accepting the figures for now, toxicology research isn’t medical research? Does Manchester Online believe that pharmaceutical companies should start selling drugs without first having performed toxicological assays?

Sources:

Total ban on primate testing plea. Manchester Evening News, August 2, 2005.

Petition calls for end to testing on primates. Matthew Tempest, The Guardian, August 2, 2005.

British Pharmaceutical Association Says Number of Violent Animal Rights Attacks Down

In August, the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry issued a press release saying that the number of attacks by animal rights activists were down in the first half of 2005 compared to 2004, but that the organization is concerned by a number of extremely dangerous attempted attacks earlier this year.

According to the ABPI, there were just two cases of damage to company property by animal rights activists through June 2005, compared to 29 such incidents during the same period in 2004.

Attacks on private property of pharmaceutical company employees was also down, from 56 in the first half of 2004 to just 35 instances in the first half of 2005.

The ABPI credits new efforts by the British government to crack down on violent animal rights extremism.

ABPI director of science and technology Philip Wright said in a press release,

However, the figures indicate that Government’s commitment to tackling the problem of extremism is starting to pay off, and we hope that both the commitment and the drop in incidents continue. At the same time, the number of legal demonstrations has remained at the same level, so the right of people to protest in normal, democratic ways has not been compromised.

But the organization is still concerned by two incidents earlier this year in which bombs were left at the homes of individuals connected with the pharmaceutical industry. Wright said,

While the reduction in the number of incidents is welcome, it is disturbing that, in some cases we are seeing more aggressive attacks taking place. In particular, we are seeing cases where incendiary devices have been attached to cars, which is a very worrying change of tactics.

Sources:

Fewer violent protests. Heather Tomlinson, The Guardian, August 2, 2005.

Fewer but more aggressive animal extremist attacks recorded. Press Release, Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry, August 2, 2005.

British Court Rejects Latest Fox Hunting Appeal

In July, the UK’s High Court rejected a second appeal by fox hunting supporters to overturn the 2004 Hunting Act. That act banned fox hunting with dogs.

In their appeal, the Countryside Alliance argued that the Hunting Act violated the European Convention on Human Rights because it was a “sectarian measure.” Essentially, they argued that the hunting ban was an irrational, ideologically-motivated law akin to, say, a ban on a specific religious practice just because it was practiced by a minority of citizens.

Countryside Alliance’s lawyer, Richard Gordon, had argued that,

What emerges strongly, however the argument is put, is, we suggest, the very divisive nature of the legislation.

Many members of the House of Commons voting on the issue obviously objected strongly to hunting on doctrinal grounds – that is clear.

But we say strong feelings cannot be, and are not in law, a substitute for the exercise that has to be undertaken before Convention rights can be legitimately interfered with.

. . .

We say, if one takes away the strength of feeling from the furor over hunting, very little is left in terms of law, and a total ban of this kind is not justified.

The High Court soundly rejected that line of reasoning. Justices May and Moses said that there was varying opinion about whether or not foxes suffer more when hunted by dogs vs. when they are shot, but that the legislature had a legitimate reason to address this issue. They said,

We consider that there was sufficient material available to the House of Commons for them to conclude that hunting with dogs is cruel.

. . .

[It was] reasonably open to the majority of the democratically-elected House of Commons to conclude that this measure was necessary in the democratic society which had elected them.

The Countryside Alliance bemoaned the verdict, with its chairman John Jackson telling the BBC,

The judges have accepted that there is interference with some of the claimants’ rights, and that the Hunting Act will have a substantial general adverse effect on the lives of many in the rural community.

However, the court, ignoring events in the Commons and the Lords, appears to have proceeded on the assumption that Parliament had a legitimate aim and has itself then speculated on what that may have been.

Whether the court is right to have proceeded in this way is plainly a controversial question./p>

Animal rights advocates, on the other hand, were very pleased. John Cooper, chairman of the League Against Cruel Sports, told The Guardian,

We welcome this recognition that there is no human right to be cruel. The Hunting Act is a popular act, the ban is being enforced and, most importantly, animals are no longer able to be abused in the name of this barbaric bloodsport. This is a resounding defeat for the hunters, who need to move forward and accept the democratic will of parliament and the majority of the general public, and learn to take non for an answer.

The Countryside Alliance is still waiting for the Law Lords in the House of Lords to rule on its appeal of the High Court’s February rejection of its argument that the Hunting Act is in violation of Great Britain’s Parliament Act.

There are likely to be further appeals, but at the moment, the odds of the fox hunting advocates actually prevailing seems pretty slim.

Source:

High court rejects hunting ban challenge. Press Association, July 29, 2005.

Hunt campaign loses court battle. The BBC, July 29, 2005.

Hunting ban ‘a sectarian measure’. Liverpool Daily Post, July 5, 2005.