Anyone who knows just the most rudimentary facts about life in contemporary Britain knows that the Government, businesses, and most of the British citizenry, brow-beaten by political correctness, bend over backwards to avoid offending our Muslim community. A lot of members of this very community are hard-working and loyal to this country, no doubt about it. But if you were going to write a script for a medical drama where a bomb goes off at a British bus station, circa 2007, from what community do you think it's most likely that your bomber originated?
For instance, for roughly twenty years — from the late '70s to the late '90s — if you wanted to write an effective script for a gritty drama involving a bombing in Britain, then you would have focused on the IRA or any number of little similarly minded IRA splinter groups. You could have made it as clear as possible that you weren't blaming the whole of the Irish community in Britain, that this was only the work of fanatics. But nevertheless, your bomber would have been Irish and he probably would have come from a heavily Irish community that may not necessarily have "harbored" him — they may not even have known about his politically fanatic leanings — but certainly the point would be taken. No matter how apologetically you tried to write the script, the tragedy would have been caused by an Irish man or Irish men.
Still with me? Good. Just for the record, I am half-Irish myself, and proud of it, yet I fully acknowledge the reality of this sort of typecasting. It just would have made no sense to blame the fictional atrocity on any other group because anyone living from 1978-1998 would have automatically thought, in the wake of a bomb blast, "Those bloody Irish!"
These days, it's fanatics from the Muslim community that are attacking us, their sense of grievance being stoked by reactionary mosques across the land. Fact, not fiction, not conjecture. But that hasn't stopped the BBC from ignoring reality and blaming their fictional bombing on someone else as they did with the latest edition of Casualty.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Dave Nalle
Mark, I think you point out a very real problem here. However I think you also mistakenly minimize the threat of animal rights extremists in the UK. These groups are much more active there than they are in other parts of the world and they are also much more violent. While they have not yet done a great deal of bombing, their history of acts of violence against individuals - not just facilities - is chilling. Researchers have had their children threatened, been beaten (in at least one case to death) and have had their personal property destroyed.
The ELF is currently listed as the #1 domestic terror threat in the US, and they are much more active in the UK than they are here.
dave
2 - Philos
I'm in the US and I can tell you that confusing real terrorist groups with a small handful of radical animal advocates as they have done here is bizarre, to say the least and very harmful to civil liberties.
As Senator Frank Lautenberg (Dem. N.J.) objected, in Senate hearings on this issue, "we must take care not to lump legitimate groups with terrorists. To do so would only minimize the very real threats against our society."
Who's next, he wanted to know --"Right to Life? Sierra Club?"
In a recently filed lawsuit, the ACLU has documented the way that, for political reasons, the FBI has expanded the definition of domestic terrorism to include mainstream groups who criticize government policy, i.e., groups such as Greenpeace, PETA, the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, and the ACLU itself. The ACLU? Domestic Terrorists? Get serious. These groups are not terrorist groups. They are simply groups opposed to government policy.
Environmental and animal-rights groups threaten profits of big business. And when the profits of mega-corporations are at stake, the threat becomes political. Corporations teamed with the current ultra pro-business government would like to stamp out all environmental (and animal)groups...and labeling them as terrorists is just another step in that direction.
3 - daniel
Dave writes:
"Researchers have had their children threatened, been beaten (in at least one case to death) and have had their personal property destroyed."
No one has been "beaten to death" - ever. The only recorded incident that even comes close is Brian Cass being attacked outside him home, 2001. He wasn't "beaten to death" - he was barely scratched. In and out of AE within half an hour.
Can you claim otherwise. Who is this mythical person who has been beaten to death? Name Names.
Fact is, you CANNOT name names. Because no one, not a single person, diddy squat, has ever been "beaten to death" by AR activists. The fact that your peddle this mistruth only indicates the ill formed hysteria about ar activists - illustrating the point of the opening article quite well.
In fact, all the deaths have been on the animal activists side: Jill Phills, Tom Hill etc. I've followed ar extremism since the 70's. No one has ever been seriously hurt by activists. Only one or two have sustained minor injuries. yet there have been as least five animal rights activists murdered by huntsmen, etc, since the 70's.
You post is not very convincing. For example you say that the ELF is more active in the UK in the USA. What? name one significant act from the ELF in the UK in the last ten years. There are none. The ELF has no real presence in the UK, never has. It's far more active in Sweden.
You claim that the opening article ~"downplays" ar activism: then to prove this, you simple make lots of stuff up that has no factual basis at all. Great.
4 - Dr Dreadful
Mark, the BBC has produced dramas featuring Muslim extremists as bombers - the show Spooks (screened in the US as MI-5, for obvious reasons) is one example that comes to mind.
The Beeb is probably over-sensitive about Casualty - it, along with EastEnders, is probably the drama programme about which it receives the closest public watchdog and media scrutiny - but when you get right down to it, it is just a TV show.
Also, one of the challenges of writing drama is not to be too predictable. So if they had made the bombers Islamic extremists, apart from the protests from imams and race relations groups they would have had some sarcastic letters and e-mails saying, "Wow, Muslims did it? Never would have seen that coming..."
5 - Mark Edward Manning
Funny you should mention Spooks, Dr. D, because from Littlejohn's same column that I link to here, he wrote: "Take the MI5 series, Spooks. It's good fun and well done, but it's a complete parcel of nonsense designed to peddle the Guardianista worldview."
He's right, it is. Damn good show, but clearly written with the extreme Lefty, anti-War on Terror mindset.
6 - moonraven
daniel,
I see you have caught onto Dave Nalle--who makes up EVERYTHING he posts--with the possible exception of his name.
7 - Mark Edward Manning
Sorry, Dave, but I'm not buying it. I've heard that the FBI and MI5 alike have gone after animal rights extremists, when they haven't even done anything extreme, just to justify their budget and say, "See, we're protecting the public from terrorists!"
I'm not applauding.
When the authorities in both countries start going after the source of the much more dangerous and insiduous terror, then I'll be impressed.
8 - Dr Dreadful
#5: I saw that too, Mark.
I'm watching Spooks on BBC America over here. They're only midway through Season 2 at the moment, so I don't know how it develops, but one of the recent episodes did involve a radical Muslim cleric in Birmingham (I think the character was originally from Afghanistan) who was training teens to be suicide bombers.
9 - Dave Nalle
No one has been "beaten to death" - ever. The only recorded incident that even comes close is Brian Cass being attacked outside him home, 2001. He wasn't "beaten to death" - he was barely scratched. In and out of AE within half an hour.
You're quite right, Ecoterrorist Sympathizer Dan. It had been a while since I researched my prior article on the subject, and he was merely beaten with bats and a pick-axe handle. An associate was later delivered a powerful mail bomb which the police managed to remove and detonate. So yes, despite the intent of these ecoterrorists to kill several people in these cases they failed. Not actually succeeding in their attempts at murder makes it all okay, I guess.
And BTW, I meant the ALF when I mentioned the ELF as far as actions in the UK. However, the ELF is still #1 on the terrorist most wanted from the FBI. Here in the US, of course, there's plenty of ecoterrorist violence, especially from things like tree spiking by groups like EarthFirst which has resulted in maiming and critical injuries and multiple arsons from the ELF who like to burn down new housing developments.
But I guess it's all okay because it's for the fluffy bunnies and majestic trees. Humans are just a blight on the planet anyway.
Dave
10 - Doug Hunter
Yes, I have more fear of environmental wackos than of muslim extremists but not from violence. As someone pointed out above, the main weapon of all these groups is lawsuits. The fucked up US legal system allows many of these groups to thrive on what is essentially blackmail.
Most people aren't wealthy enough to be much of a target so they're not really able to grasp the problem.
Remember the $54 million pant lawsuit against a dry cleaner. Everyone agrees that justice was served because the case was finally decided for the defendant. What the average person misses is that the defendant paid over $100,000 in legal bills to defend themselves. That's a travesty, an innocent or blameless person should never have to pay money to prove their innocence, the loser should always pay.
Businesses and especially large corporations face this bullshit on a daily basis from special interest groups including environmental ones. We need loser pays and massive tort reform in this country now. Given the option between that or bulletproof homeland security, I'd take the legal reform in a heartbeat.
11 - Clavos
"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers."
12 - Philos
Calling people "Ecoterrorist Sympathizer[s]" is a well-worn but fallacious tactic used by people like Dave. And when someone's sense of the gravity of terrorist threat is so badly disproportionate to the evidence, it is hard not to suspect bias.
As Tom Regan, Professor Emeritus at NC State University says, the media and the public are fed a carefully orchestrated public-relations script. The industries and their supporters "speak with one voice, tell the same story, even use the same words to denigrate their common enemy: animal-rights extremists".
Regan traces the script to a 1989 American Medical Association white paper that recommended portraying animal rights advocates as "anti-human," "anti-science," and "responsible for violent and illegal acts" while the "animal-exploiters would portray themselves as sensible, moderate, and scientific, only advocating the humane and responsible use of animals." The animal-user industries follow this script closely, and as Dave demonstrated they are quick to brand activists with the handy "ecoterrorist sympathizer" label...after all, ad hominem attack is easier and more effective for scare-mongering, than refuting facts.
But this is just so much industry PR, convenient for promoing simple-minded hysteria, but with little relation to the facts. When the facts are viewed impartially, there's not much to that threat.
But there is a real danger here that should concern everyone: the threat to the First Amendment and our freedom of speech. When the FBI (preposterously) designates animals-rights activists one of the "top domestic terrorist threats" anyone with common sense should be suspicious.
Civil libertarians try to make sense of the FBI's labeling animal-rights activists "terrorists," but it all makes perfect sense when we consider the script, and the motivations behind it.
When we follow the money and the special-interest politics, it is clear who has the hidden agenda and the profit-driven motivation to distort the truth.
13 - Dave Nalle
Or it could just be that he was expressing sympathy with ecoterrorists.
And they could be classing animal rights activists as terrorists because they commit acts of violence and destruction to threaten and terrorize people.
Andi it could just be that we're calling them "anti-human," "anti-science," and "responsible for violent and illegal acts" because that's exactly what they are.
You can CALL reality a conspiracy, but it doesn't make it any less real.
Dave
14 - Clavos
Setting aside for the moment the question of whether or not AR activists employ terrorist tactics, the bottom line is that organizations like PETA place the rights of animals above those of humans in many of the conflicts about which they lobby in favor of animals.
From my POV, this is completely wrong; I refuse to accept that animals have any rights whatsoever, much less any that supersede those of humans.
Needless cruelty to animals is reprehensible and should be punished severely, but such actions as stopping the building of a dam because the habitat of an obscure butterfly will be destroyed are nothing short of ridiculous.
Similarly, attempting to prevent laboratories, particularly those engaged in medical and pharmaceutical research, from using animals in as humane a way as is consistent with obtaining the necessary data, is not only ridiculous, it can (and does) literally put the lives of humans at risk.
Since the dawn of history humans have used animals for their own purposes. We have eaten them, dressed in their skins, shod our feet with their hides, even constructed boats and explored the world in boats made from animal hides.
The animals themselves prey on each other for a variety of reasons, chiefly food.
It's called nature.
15 - Dr Dreadful
such actions as stopping the building of a dam because the habitat of an obscure butterfly will be destroyed are nothing short of ridiculous.
Clav, you speak as if these things happen in a vacuum. It might be an obscure species of butterfly, but destroying its habitat has a knock-on effect which may reach far further. The disappearance of the butterfly might affect the breeding of the flowering plant which relies on it for pollination; the disappearance of the plant results in loss of ground cover, which allows for increased soil erosion, which when it rains washes into the local rivers, silting them up and destroying the habitat of numerous fish species which the indigenous people rely on as a food source... and so on it goes.
So it's not so much about the "rights" of a single animal, but more the profound and unknown effect of human interference on an ecosystem that we need to be concerned about. To my mind that's not in the least bit ridiculous.
16 - Amused
Sad the author of this opinion manages to combine endorsing animal exploitation and xenophbia in the same opinion. One would imagine the BBC could spend more of its privileged position educating the public than sensationalist shock jock opinions such as this.
17 - Clavos
Doc,
Despite your dire hypothetical, animals have been going extinct for a variety of reasons for eons, and the world just keeps on rollin' along, with a few changes here and there, but essentially a stable continuum.
I don't agree with you, but I'm also not saying that we should totally ignore the world around us, only that lately we have allowed the alarmists too much free rein and too much power, which they have exercised more than once to the detriment of mankind, IMO.
Often, when they fight this or that project because the mongolian flea will be wiped out, their only stated goal has nothing to do with scenarios such as the one you suggest; they merely insist that we shouldn't allow any species to become extinct on principle.
That policy, in light of the history of organisms and the roles they have played as elements of the ecosphere throughout the ages, IS ridiculous; if NO species become extinct henceforth, evolution will literally cease.
I insist that extinction of species is as much a process of natural evolution as individual death. It will even happen to humanity one day.
You may say that some of the things we (humanity) do are not natural, that we unnaturally strain and even damage the ecosphere, but I would reply; are we not a product of evolution ourselves?
Was it not our possession of opposable thumbs and enough brainpower to refine toolmaking to a much higher degree than the other primates (among other things) that brought us to this point?
All part of the continuum.
18 - Dr Dreadful
It may be all part of the continuum, but the difference with H. sapiens sapiens is that we are the first and only species in the planet's history (as far as we know) to have an awareness of the effect of our actions on the broader world around us.
That awareness brings with it responsibility. As in the hypothetical example above, building that dam may bring benefits but might also set in motion a chain of events which comes back to bite us in the bum. Since we are able to affect our own survival as a species, does it not make sense to bear that in mind?
19 - Clavos
It does. And did I not say so in #18:
"...but I'm also not saying that we should totally ignore the world around us..."
As I hope I made clear in #s 15 and 18, there's a happy medium, and using animals for research (for example), is perfectly OK, IMO.
Wearing leather and fur aren't bad things, either. I will also NEVER quit eating steak.
And if the dam will allow many more crops to be grown to feed many more people, and if after appropriate study, the only adverse effect of building it is extinction of that butterfly species, I say build it.
I'm not alone in this; Nobel Laureate Dr. Norman Borlaug, who, most experts agree, has done more to feed more people in the world than any other single human in history, has often written and spoken very similar thoughts. In fact, I got some of these ideas directly from him, when I was a youngster and a friend of his daughter.
Borlaug is strongly opposed to the worldwide ban on DDT, for example; saying that far more people are dying from malaria than would have been harmed by its continued use, and he's right, IMO.
Greatest good for the greatest number.
20 - Dr Dreadful
I seem to hear the voice of Mr Spock in the Enterprise reaction chamber: "The needs of the many... outweigh... the needs of the few." :-)
You are certainly privileged to have known Borlaug, who history will judge as one of the most significant humans of the 20th century.
Not sure about his (and your) assessment of DDT though. It's nasty stuff. Although there are certainly many other chemicals being spewed into our environment that make it look like spring water...
21 - Mark Edward Manning
Amused: "Sad the author of this opinion manages to combine endorsing animal exploitation and xenophbia in the same opinion."
Xenophobia is a matter of opinion, my friend, so I won't touch that. But I do not endorse animal exploitation. Where did you get that idea? Did you read the part where I wrote: "However, the Government is happy to hop into bed with animal researchers because their legal torture [emphasis mine] rakes in loads of moolah"? How is that an opinion in favor of animal exploitation?
Go back and read the damn piece more carefully, and THEN harangue me if you so wish.
22 - Mark Edward Manning
But I guess it's all okay because it's for the fluffy bunnies and majestic trees. Humans are just a blight on the planet anyway.
Dave, honest to God: No, humans are not a scourge, but at what point would we consider it worth leaving a healthy Earth for future generations? What could possibly be more anti-human than living in the immediate present and who cares about the future? You're too quick to ignore the fact that care for the environment translates into care for humans as well. Surely you would agree, given the strength of your humanist p.o.v., that humans are part of nature, so why keep destroying that from which we evolved?
You know, Government policy is to build more houses to let in all the illegal immigrants, so-called asylum seekers and other people that they just can't say no to. So goodbye Green Belts. These Green Belts gave people living in Britain's major cities refuge, a place to go to get away from the urban hustle-and-bustle, a place to birdwatch and learn about nature. Now, these Green Belts are going to be several scaled back or disappear altogether so we can cram more people onto this already crowded island.
But that's of no concern to you, I'm sure. Sorry to say it, Dave, but from things you've written here and in the past, I get the feeling that you wouldn't mind if living in a world straight out of Silent Running. 'Cause hey, human beings are the only creatures with the right to live on this Earth, right?! And the more of us the better, let's really pack 'em in! Let's see if our population can hit 100 billion and damn the consequences for the Earth or those unlucky enough to live on it. It's all about hitting a milestone and living for the moment, damnit!
23 - Doug Hunter
"You may say that some of the things we (humanity) do are not natural, that we unnaturally strain and even damage the ecosphere, but I would reply; are we not a product of evolution ourselves?"
Certainly worth repeating. The very defintion of 'natural' has always eluded me as I believe humans are as much a part of nature as anything else.
24 - JustOneMan
Clavos your are wrong!!! Animals do have rights!!!
They have the right to be..
1. Fillet
2. Marinated
3. Cooked medium rare
4. And enjoyed with a glass of wine
JOM
25 - Philos
Clavos (and others) said: "The animals themselves prey on each other for a variety of reasons, chiefly food. It's called nature."
I hear this comment frequently, and it tells me that the person has not considered this very carefully and has not been exposed to the formal philosophy on these issues. All of these are basic issues that philosophers have answered. I'll try to provide a simplified answer.
It is perfectly moral and consistent for animals like tigers and bears to kill and eat each other, while at the same time it is not okay for humans to kill and eat them. The reason is simple.
Most adult humans are _moral agents_, beings who can understand right from wrong and base their actions on this understanding. Beings like tigers, bears, babies, people with Alzheimers, and other mentally deficient humans are called _moral patients_, i.e., beings who cannot distinguish right from wrong and therefore cannot be held morally responsible for their actions. However, they can be on the receiving end of wrongful acts done by moral agents - say a parent beating a baby, a nurse abusing an Alzheimer's patient or someone setting a cat on fire.
In short, only beings who can understand moral principles are bound by them.