More New Laws Won't Stop Anti-Vivisection Violence - Only The Promised Royal Commission Will Do That


I do not approve of, support, encourage or condone violence against vivisectors but I understand why it occurs. And the Government will not stop it by introducing yet more tough legislation designed to label animal rights campaigners as terrorists and to marginalise and demonise protestors and demonstrators fighting against vivisection research laboratories. Sadly, many animal lovers feel that street protests and physical protests are now their only way of making their point. Whatever the Government does the protests are set to get tougher.

Even respectable, traditionally law abiding citizens now believe that there is little or no point in campaigning peacefully.

New Labour's new, tough laws are intended to appease drug companies and laboratory bosses who are whining that their staff and investors are being targeted.

But the increase in violence is a direct result of the Government breaking its own promises and refusing to listen to those who are opposed to vivisection.

In its 1997 pre-election campaign, New Labour made a number of promises on animal issues.

Most of these - such as the clear promise to ban hunting - have been broken and long forgotten.

One of the most significant was a clear commitment to hold a Royal Commission to assess the value of animal experimentation. Way back in 1997, Blair and his chums were desperate to get votes from anyone. They made firm, clear promises to animal rights campaigners. And there is no doubt that the promise to have a Royal Commission (made in direct response to letters I wrote to Blair) won New Labour thousands of votes.

But as soon as the 1997 election was won, New Labour suddenly and conveniently `forgot' the promise to consider a ban on vivisection.

Today New Labour gives animal research laboratories more support and protection than any Government in history.

The official line is that animal experiments are of value to doctors and patients. The Government's policy now is that vivisectors are doing valuable work and saving lives and that only nutters who care more about animals want animal experiments stopped. The assumption the Government and the vivisection industry perpetuate is that doctors support vivisection and only nutters oppose it.

This is a lie.

And it this very lie which is pushing animal lovers into tougher and tougher protesting.

The truth is that I can produce more solid scientific evidence proving that vivisection is worthless than the supporters of vivisection can produce in its support.

I can produce more doctors and scientists to condemn vivisection than the vivisectors can produce to support it.

The real problem is that the Government has stifled all debate on the subject.

The pro-vivisection lobby is rich and powerful and funded by the drug companies which have a strong vested interest in continuing with animal experiments.

Animal experiments are enormously valuable to drug companies.

The fact is that if a drug causes problems in animals the inconvenient results are ignored because animals are different to people.

On the other hand if a drug doesn't cause problems when given to animals it is passed fit for use on humans.

The truth is that reliance on animal experiments is one of the reasons why iatrogenesis (doctor induced disease) is now one of the three main causes of illness and death in Britain - alongside heart disease and cancer. One in six people admitted to hospital need treatment because they have been made ill by a doctor.

Every time I have debated this issue with supporters of vivisection I have won.

The response from the pro vivisectionists has been to refuse to debate with me.

Similarly, it's difficult to avoid the conclusion that the Government abandoned its promise to hold a Royal Commission to assess vivisection because it was clear that the anti-vivisectionists would win.

Vivisectors and their supporters readily admit that most animal experiments are unreliable and produce results which are not relevant to human patients.

Logically, that means that all animal experiments are useless.

If you don't know which experiments you can rely on, you can't rely on any of them.

If the Government and the vivisection industry really want to stop the violence they should stop trying to turn grey haired old ladies and well meaning teenagers into terrorists.

Instead they should have an open debate - ideally the promised Royal Commission which helped them win the 1997 election. If the vivisectionists believe they are right and will win, what have got to lose?

If they win they can argue that animal rights people are simply nutty animal lovers with no scientific backing.

Of course, if the vivisectors lose the scientific debate (which I believe they will) there will be no more vivisection and so profits will crash.

The bottom line is that I believe that the industry and the Government would rather have the violence than risk a proper debate.

Indeed, the violence gives them an opportunity to demonise and dismiss those whose argue (and can prove) that vivisection is scientifically unsound.

And, of course, it gives them an opportunity to introduce a few more laws and to take away more of our rapidly diminishing freedom.




Copyright Vernon Coleman 2004

Home