|current | archives | profile | notes | contact | rings | host|
Animal researchers and vivisectionists: The privileged class
March 18, 2007 ~ 1:15 p.m.
On August 21, 2006, a young and by all accounts good man, 22-year-old, father-of-one Peter Woodhams, was shot four times outside his home in East London by a gang member. Mr. Woodhams had, for the better part of a year, been subjected to serious threats and bullying by local youths.
Six months before being fatally shot, gang members had cornered him and slashed him across the face. Earlier in the day on which he was shot, Woodhams had decided that he'd had enough and confronted the youths, chasing them off. One gang member, however, 18-year-old Bradley Tucker, got hysterical and demanded revenge. Later that same day, Woodhams had reason to confront the youths a second time and, when he ran out of the home, was shot by Tucker.
Hundreds attended his funeral and praised Woodhams as a hero, but one fact remains chillingly clear. The police did nothing to protect young Peter or his family. Even after getting his face slashed, the police provided no routine protection for him. Such is life in modern-day Britain under a Labour government that honestly considers itself "tough on crime."
Now then, how much would you be willing to bet that if Woodhams had been a vivisectionist working for some major pharmaceutical company or medical research lab and had been only idly threatened by animal rights campaigners, he'd have received round-the-clock police protection? I'd wager my home on it.
People just love to whip themselves up into a frenzy over animal rights extremism, which is often treated more seriously than jihadist terrorism. Tony Blair has consistently given support to animal research, even going so far as to sign a pro-vivisection petition called The People's Petition (which only gathered 13,000 names in a country of nearly 60 million, I feel compelled to add), and the police have been informed to crack down hard on protestors. Market stalls that disseminate animal rights or even animal welfare literature have been closed down in case they encourage extremists. In the recent case over the graverobbing by four animal rights activists, even normally pro-animal welfare papers such as the Daily Mirror editorialized about the "vicious" and "evil" acts of the animal rights protestors.
Yet, Islamic fanaticism thrives in Britain. It is estimated that up to 2,000 Britons may be actively involved in terror cells. Mosques routinely turn young Muslim men into pillars of rage and hatred, religiously indoctrinated robots perfectly willing to blow themselves up and hundreds more along with them. And yet, we worry about animal rights protestors. We close down animal welfare stalls and leave the mosques to fester in their own toxic juices.
The streets aren't even safe during the day, and yet David Cameron, leader of the Conservative Party, and who is about as clueless as they come, thinks we should hug "hoodies." (A brief digression if you will: If you dress like a criminal thug, then I will regard you as such.) Yet there are more armed officers guarding the doors of research labs all over the country and the homes of those that work in them than there are troops in the Canadian armed forces. Policemen on the beat is a thing of the past because they're otherwise engaged in helping to protect profits that are drenched in blood. This makes a lot of sense.
If an anti-vivisectionist breaks into a lab and secretly records on camera what goes on there, and does nothing more than this, he gets at least five years. If a hoodie breaks into your home, damaging your place and stealing from you, he is given community service. Poor blighter, he probably just had a hard life. There's nothing for him to do, you must understand ... Now hand me that scalpel so I can slice this dog's balls off in order to better understand testicular cancer.
"Vivisectionists are free to hack limbs off rabbits and claim that as vital medical research. Pol Pot, Idi Amin and Saddam Hussein would all be proud."
Ah, but money talks, doesn't it? This is the reason why we will always hear of the "evil ways" of the anti-vivisectionists, forgetting of course that only a very small minority of animal rights protestors are extremists or would ever engage in terrorism. This is why all governments, no matter how progressive and ethical they claim to be, will always gladly hop into bed with the pharmaceutical and medical research companies. Vivisection is big business. Forget about the dubious science behind it, forget whether it's morally justifiable or not (which is isn't). All we need to focus on are the profits these companies rake in—and how they can always depend on the government, any government, to allow them to carry on profitting off the suffering of "lesser" creatures.
So what if places like Compton or Johannesburg possibly overtake London in terms of safety and quality of life? Vivisectionists are free to hack limbs off rabbits and claim that as vital medical research and make millions doing so. Nice work if you can get it. Pol Pot, Idi Amin and Saddam Hussein would all be proud.
The average Joe or Jill faces the prospect of being blasted to smithereens by Islamic wingnuts or having their lives be made a complete misery by feral youths with no sense of right or wrong whatsoever. All the while, they can count only on themselves for support because the police are too busy providing protection for employees of GlaxoSmithKline or Huntingdon Life Sciences. And this is perhaps the biggest reason why The People's Petiton received only 13,000 signatures. Real people, even if they agree with research on animals, are sick of the disparity.
Animal researchers are a distinguished class in society while the rest of us have to fend for ourselves. And they say only India has a caste system!
You can bet your bottom dollar that if Peter Woodhams' career consisted of egregious torture of animals day in and day out, he'd still be very alive and well.
But, alas, Woodhams was just an ordinary bloke. No-one to be concerned about. He wasn't helping to contribute to the longevity of mankind, so hell with him. While gangs and fanatical Islam thrive in this country, all the stops are being pulled for vivisectonists, obviously people who are a lot more important than you or I.
Why couldn't we experiment on feral teenagers and Islamofanatics instead and cut out the middle man—or, rather, the animals caught in the middle? I can guarantee you that I would no longer oppose vivisection if that's what it entailed, keeping supposedly vital research alive while cutting crime at the same time—and, the thing is, this sort of research would finally be a lot more scientifically sound.
I'd put my signature to that without hesitation.
Copyright © 2001-2007 by M.E. Manning. All material is written by me, unless explicitly stated otherwise by use of footnotes or bylines. Do not copy or redistribute without my permission.
AMERICA FOR TRUE AMERICANS!