Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Adhib (talk | contribs) at 09:48, 26 April 2005 (Added depth). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Criticisms of SHAC

SHAC adversaries claim that the campaign's tactics are not working. Brian Cass claims that, since the formation of SHAC in 1999, HLS has seen the value of orders placed with it double to just under £100 million worth of custom ("Behind the razor wire with the man from Huntingdon", by Michael Pilgrim, The Evening Standard, London, March 31, 2003).

HLS says it abides by British animal welfare laws. Critics of SHAC argue that these laws are already among the world's strictest laws on animal use in medical testing; closing down HLS would mean displacing animal testing to smaller laboratories in the UK or moving the testing to a country with less strict laws on the treatment of animals in medical testing.

SHAC's efforts are susceptible to the problems common to vigilantism, namely that an entirely unconnected person may be targeted or affected. SHAC relies on leaked information regarding HLS's current clients and staff members, means the details may not be timely or accurate. The company says that SHAC has occasionally harassed staff who had already left HLS.

SHAC supporters have been seen soliciting donations to their cause at street stands in the UK with leaflets and collection cans. As SHAC is not a registered charity, HLS has argued that donors cannot be sure that the funds raised are used for SHAC activities.

SHAC critics claim that the way the campaign decorates its stands gives a misleading impression. Rodents make up 84% of animals used for testing in the UK, cats and dogs make up 0.3%, monkeys 0.1%. , though these general cross-country percentages do not indicate how many of each species is used for testing by HLS. SHAC's critics say that if the picture choices at the stands are not exactly in this proportion, the SHAC supporters are misrepresenting animal experimentation and are committing a fallacious appeal to emotion.

SHAC activists have been criticised for making no contribution to substitution efforts - the refinement and deployment of experimental techniques that can reduce or replace animal experiments.

A major criticism of SHAC is that their claim to be non-violent is open to challenge. Activists may use the information published by SHAC for bomb hoaxes or to cause criminal damage — those associated with HLS often have their cars damaged by paint-stripper, for example. One physical attack believed to be associated with SHAC has occurred. Brian Cass, the manager director of HLS, was attacked outside his home in February 2001 by three men armed with pickaxe handles and CS gas, though there is no firm indication that SHAC activists were involved. . SHAC claim that they do not condone illegal activities and only publish names and addresses so that people can peacefully and legally protest . But, according to testimony to the UK parliament, an internal SHAC document amounts to training for illegal harassment campaigns. Alleged quotes included:

A simple tactic has been adopted recently. Pick your target. Throw a couple of rape alarms in their roof guttering or thick hedgerow, and leg it ... Being kept awake at night hardly puts you in a good mood at work or with your family ... Another idea is to set off extra loud fireworks from a safe distance that will wake up the HLS scum and everybody else for miles around ... From the comfort of your own home, you can swamp all these bastards with send no money offers. They cause huge inconvenience and can give them a bad credit rating. Order them taxis, pizzas, curries, etc, the possibilities are endless. Above all, stay free and safe, and don't get caught. The more preparation you do the better ... Think, think, think. Don't lick stamps, use gloves when pasting stuff ... No idle talk in pubs. Burn your shoes and clothes after your night of action.

Finally, SHAC's basic strategy of direct financial and emotional pressure on individuals, rather than democratic political activity, is described by many as anti-democratic, or 'bullying'. By this reasoning, direct action or civil disobedience would be essentially democratic activities, since activists breaking the law do so without concealing their identities, fully prepared to appeal to a jury of their peers if charged with a crime, and to accept the penalty if found guilty. The ultimate goal is to place moral and political pressure on the government for a change in the law, by deliberately sacrificing one's own liberty. 'Direct actions' encouraged by SHAC, by contrast, are often anonymous and politically unaccountable. Their ultimate goal is to circumvent what a country has voted lawful, preventing individuals from engaging in democratically-approved activities. The sacrifice is not paid by the activist, but by the targetted individual or his/her family. The UK MP for Macclesfield, Nicholas Winterton, says: "It is completely unacceptable to target people going about their everyday business. The criminals carrying out these acts should be making representations to the government and parliament."