|
More Uncaged sites:
| |
Newchurch Guinea Pigs Closure
 Uncaged
urges Government to change policy to deal with the underlying causes of
anger and frustration driven by compassion
Yesterday's announcement of the closure of the Darley Oaks guinea
pig breeding farm offers a possible reprieve for the animals currently
incarcerated there who had been destined to suffer and die in vivisection
experiments.
We implore Darley Oaks Farm to work with animal welfare organisations
to adopt the guinea pigs out to loving homes, rather than despatch them
to their deaths.
Recent media coverage of the campaign has focussed on incidents of intimidation
and criminal damage. Uncaged does not support or condone any form of pre-meditated
violence or aggression towards any animal, be they human or nonhuman.
However, it is clear that the conduct of the media, the Government and
the research industry is a causal factor - an explanation rather than
a justification - for illegal campaign activity.
Firstly, media attention on animal rights campaigning is mostly lazy
and ill-informed (though for a more thoughtful approach see this
article (1)). Coverage
tends to concentrate on a small minority of relatively 'sensational' illegal
actions rather than covering the vast majority of peaceful and dignified
animal rights campaigns. It is therefore not surprising that some activists
feel that the only way to get publicity for their grievances is through
illegal activities. It is possible that an exaggerated image of 'extremism'
plays into the hands of animal abusers and may alienate the public from
the animal rights movement. Presumably, this is one of the reasons why
journalists, who tend to have close relations with the pro-vivisection
lobby, are happy to promote an image of 'extremism'.
However, significant responsibility for illegal campaigning must rest
with the Government and the vivisection industry. On 1st December 2004,
the Prime
Minister told Parliament that illegal campaigning was not justified
because of Britain's supposedly strict regulatory system for animal experiments.
(2) But the scarce evidence
that has become available regarding the effectiveness of the regulatory
system reveals that the Government and research industry routinely collaborate
to avoid the rule of law. In relation to Darley Oaks itself, to the best
of our knowledge the Government failed to take any action following evidence
of disturbing conditions in the guinea pig breeding sheds, where animals
were found dead and existing in filthy conditions.
Perhaps the clearest example of Home Office bias and misconduct involves
pig-to-primate organ transplant research conducted by Imutran Ltd between
1995 and 2000. Uncaged published leaked
documents describing these experiments following a two-and-a-half
year legal battle with Imutran and Novartis. Uncaged won having argued
that there was a public interest in exposing wrongdoing on the part of
Home Office Inspectors and the researchers.
In these procedures, genetically-engineered pig hearts and kidneys were
transplanted into the necks, abdomens and chests of baboons and macaque
monkeys. Having endured major open surgery that had a 25% failure rate,
the animals were then dosed with toxic doses of several immunosuppressive
drugs in a futile effort to prevent rejection of the pig organs. The suffering
of several primates clearly exceeded the 'moderate' severity
limit attached to the procedures. In reality, many primates were allowed
to deterioriate until they were 'found dead' or 'in
a collapsed state'. The huge doses of drugs - on occasions eight
times higher than doses used in human beings - lead to deaths due to poisoning
and/or infection. Some drugs caused internal haemorrhaging. Other illnesses
included viral and protozoal infections, lymph cancer, intense nausea,
severe stomach inflammation and diarrhoea, dehydration, fatal pneumonia,
persistent wound infections and breakdowns, brain trauma, heart attack,
pneumonia and anaemia. These are just a small selection of the harrowing
observations of the dying primates recorded in the official study reports:
- "...looking very weak with head in hands... Vomiting profusely."
- "very distressed and having difficulty breathing... animal collapsed",
- "uncoordinated limb spasms",
- "suffered a stroke",
- "retching and salivating",
- "abdomen swollen and appears fluid filled. Salivating. Very laboured
breathing. Extreme difficulty trying to walk",
- "large volume of bloody mucoid faeces",
- "Collapsed on cage floor, appears weak and unable to get up,
breathing shallow and rapid, salivating, heavy lidded eyes, body and
limb tremors."
In addition to failing to enforce the regulations in the Imutran case,
the Home Office has since gone to great lengths to avoid accountability,
refusing to set up an independent inquiry and issuing a series of false
denials and half-truths in order to obstruct justice. Given the level
of suffering involved, such behaviour is unconscionable.
Given these Government-endorsed regulatory breaches, ironically, the
logic of the Prime Minister's argument is that illegal campaigning
is justified. Uncaged would not go that far. It is clear however, that
the contempt for the rule of law exhibited by the Government and the animal
research lobby renders their protestations at illegal campaigning hypocritical.
Furthermore, their arrogant disregard for regulations provokes activists'
disillusion with 'constitutional' methods of campaigning.
For any legal progress that has been made to tackle the problem of animal
experiments has been undone by biased and inadequate implementation of
laws and regulations.
Unfortunately, this cavalier approach to regulation has been entrenched
in the Home Office for over a century. However, if the Government is genuinely
committed to consistently upholding the rule of law, then the most productive
and legitimate course of action would be to initiate a radical change
in policy style. In other words, the Home Office needs to break its incestuous
ties with the powerful vivisection industry and instead adopt the position
of a neutral arbiter, judging the arguments put by all sides on their
merits rather than the economic power or social status of the advocates.
FOOTNOTES:
- Adam Nicolson, 'Animal rights and wrongs', Guardian,
24 August 2005. www.guardian.co.uk/animalrights/story/0,11917,1555032,00.html
- Michael Fabricant: I am grateful to the Prime Minister
for his reply, and my constituents in Yoxall, Newborough and Newchurch,
who have been terrorised by animal rights extremists now for five years,
will also be grateful. We welcome the legislation, although, as with
everything, the devil will be in the detail. But does the Prime Minister
also accept that there are genuine animal rights campaigners? What does
he say to those who read the pamphlet, "Labour Britain: New Life
for Animals", which made the pledge in 1997 that a Labour Government
"will support a Royal Commission to review the effectiveness
and justification of animal experiments"? Does the Prime Minister
not stick to what he promised, or was that just talk again?
The Prime Minister: I was going to say that we could
dissect that question, but it is probably not the right thing to say.
We pledged to ensure better welfare and better safeguards in animal
experiments, and we delivered on that pledge. We have made sure that
all experiments that are conducted are conducted according to the tightest
possible regulations. It is for precisely that reason that we are in
a strong position to say to animal rights extremists that we have tough
measures in this country, so there can be no justification whatever
for harassing and intimidating people who are going about their lawful
business.
Uncaged Campaigns 24.08.05 |
