Problem

Intrusive animal-rights campaigners

Other Names:
Intolerant antivivisectionists
Animal rights militants
Anti-blood sports protesters
Nature:

As regards human beings, the animals rights issues are a matter of consciousness-raising, attempting to bring to human consciousness new respect and concern and to change behaviour toward animals. In order to make the required leap of attitudes, animals rights activists find it necessary to over-correct their views, making animal consciousness not just one issue among the many which a person is concerned about, but rather the major focus of existence. Very few other issues – most of them religious in some respect – consistently drive adherents to the public abuse of offenders and to violent confrontation and terrorist activities.

Incidence:

The animal rights movement is a loose coalition of groups ranging from the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, which uses advertising and telephone campaigns to encourage better treatment of animals to extremist groups like the Animal Liberation Front, whose members believe that animals are entitled to the same rights as people and that violent and illegal tactics, like fire-bomb attacks on stores selling fur products, are justified to disrupt cruelty against animals. Within a six-month period, ALF members smashed more than 1,000 shop windows with ball bearings and caused hundreds of thousands of pounds' arson damage to factories and meat transporters in the Greater Manchester area. These extremist groups insist on strict vegetarianism, denounce any use of animals in laboratories and even foreswear wool clothing because sheep can be nicked in shearing. The USA FBI has declared the Animal Liberation Front a terrorist group.

The Campaign for the Abolition of Angling in the UK mounts two to three sabotages of recreational fishers every week. Tactics are to use underwater breathing gear for a quiet underwater entry to caution the fisherman use bamboo rods to stir in the water and dustbin lids to make a noise to warn away the fish.

Claim:

When activists resort to violence and intrusion for the sake of a statement, they disarm themselves of credibility. All animals deserve a life of dignity on this earth. Yet when an animal dies, its death is a natural consequence of the life cycle. To deny the fact that animals feed upon other animals is to deny the history of nature.

Counter Claim:

To eat flesh and wear the fur and skin of other beings is to proclaim one's own barbarity, leaving oneself open to treatment befitting barbarians. If activists aren't intrusive, no power exists in peace loving convictions. Robbing another creature of its dignity is not the act of a rational, caring human being. Thus, the only way to peace is through intrusion.

Narrower Problems:
Hunt sabotage
Problem Type:
E: Emanations of other problems
Date of last update
12.12.2017 – 14:52 CET