Animal rights 'activists'? No, terrorists

[T_i_B]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,1300089,00.html

In the UK Prevention of Terrorism Act 1976, terrorism is defined as "the use of violence for political ends any use of violence for the purpose of putting the public or any section of the public in fear". In the past year, livelier sections of the animal rights community have energetically used violence to put several, carefully targeted sections of the public in fear. So much so, that numerous members of the public have capitulated to their demands. And yet, these strikingly successful terrorists are rarely identified by their proper name. Instead, they are called animal rights "extremists", or "activists", even just "protesters". As if they were just crosser, or a bit more radical, than the average member of the RSPCA.

In fact, other than the fear of their reprisals, the only persuasive reason for calling these bullies by a prettier name is their obvious delight in posing as freedom fighters, aligning themselves with Nelson Mandela as if there were some sort of telling similarity between the historic cause of black South Africans and the ones they have devised for British foxes and guinea pigs, to mention just a couple of the animals whose needs are currently considered paramount. So far, there seems to have been limited interest in freedom fighting on behalf of the creatures daily oppressed by the men from pest control: ants, beetles, moths and rats.

For the species du jour, however, no sacrifice is too great. "If we are not giving it 100%, then we're simply not giving it enough," writes a contributor to Arkangel, one of the more excitable websites, urging recruits to get behind various campaigns of violence and intimidation; "this isn't a hobby, it's a way of life that we've all chosen. We KNOW it's a better way of life for us, for the animals and for the planet, so isn't it worth fighting for?" If this writer does not define precisely what is meant by "fighting", other correspondents are less squeamish, posting bragging accounts of their attacks on everything from cement companies to circuses to individuals who have offended their principles.

For months, as the BBC's John Waite described in his powerful Face the Facts report, animal rights campaigners have been trying out a new tactic, targeting all contacts of the Hall guinea pig farm. They intimidated, and threatened, and vandalised property belonging to associates, neighbours and employees of the Halls, effectively terrorising a whole village until its residents agreed to sever contact with the Halls. A golf course was vandalised, because the Halls used its gym. A publican's windows were broken, because he served the Halls. Activists have regularly been heard in the media crowing over their success, presumably confident that, in their case, their will be no prosecutions for inciting violence.