[IMC-UK-Features] Feature proposal: HLS Exposed - Again! SHAC To Shakedown Financial Investors In The City

[Garcon du Monde]

hello,

Animal Rep wrote:
> Same link -
> https://we.riseup.net/imc-uk/shac-to-shakedown-financial-investors-in-the-city

this article looks much better than before - thank you for taking the
time to improve it.

> For the same topics as before; SHAC, Animal Liberation & Health. As
> startpage special if possible for a day or so? Then as topic specials
> until the event if thats ok, and maybe again on the front page (a few
> days before the event) if this is agreed to be acceptable by
> Indymedia admins. Hope that makes sense, I realise its probably rare
> or unknown for articles to be startpage twice, but I think it makes
> sense as the article is effectively two headlines??

i'm not sure that it does make sense to have it twice: when it is first
posted, it will be at the top of the page. if it then gets pushed down
by subsequent articles prior to the event, it could be pushed back up by
making it a start page special.

arguably, however, the uk server seizure is more important to be kept as
a startpage special - although i agree it could be reduced in size. see
also the proposal that was sent to the list by maqui this evening.

> Garcon du Monde: "i'm afraid that i'm still not happy with this
> article - or, in fact, many of the shac articles."
> 
> If you had a problem with previous articles, you should of raised
> them when they were proposed. Doing so now is only provocative to the
> issue at hand - this article.

i realise this, which is why i tried to indicate that i had *not*
disputed articles in the past: as it is not always beneficial to argue
every situation, but sometimes take a compromise.

> Garcon du Monde: "thus, while i would prefer using different terms
> from "vivisectors" or "vivisection", i think it would be more
> balanced if there was mention of the alternative phrasing, "animal
> experimentation"."
> 
> I could always use animal research to reference vivisection, but it
> would be only further desensitize the nature of the issue. You could
> always call warmongers, or arms dealers 'weapons manufactors', but it
> only has the same effect, strange how that isn't an issue though. I
> don't mind using desensitized terms, but I do prefere including the
> terms that reference the subject how it is. Rape is commonly
> referenced as sexual assault, but I think its unfair to purely use
> the term. I put in "animal experimentation" just to make you happy
> though.

knowledge gained through injuring someone with a gun or other weapon, or
by raping someone, is rarely if ever used subsequently to heal others -
at least, i cannot think of an example.

knowledge gained through animal experimentation _can_ be used
subseqeuntly to heal people - although it often may not be.

> Garcon du Monde:  "what was overlooked, though, was that all the
> other links in the article were either reports on indymedia or links
> to a single website: www.shac.net - and it was to this which i was
> referring."
> 
> I'm not sure why as many articles have entirely indymedia links, or a
> single campaign and indy links.

i guess they are more likely to be campaigns that unite us all?

> Garcon du Monde: "the "scientific facts" presented by shac [3] are
> essentially quoted in isolation, meaning that it is very hard to
> interpret them and to what extent they are true. the only links to
> any scientific references are provided on the "scientific intro" page
> [4] and date from 1989, 1978 and 1998 respectively. Incidentally, the
> last (from 1998) most likely references an articles in the JAMA
> edition published on the 15 april 1998 (the shac site states 14/4/98)
> which looked at adverse drug reactions in humans [5] - and no mention
> at all about anything related to animal experimentation."
> 
> Most facts are presented in isolotion, however I understand your
> concern and have removed the link, but not the claim, as within the
> documentary this is explained. I'm not entirely sure which reference
> you are quoting, but its quite obvious that the reference to human
> trials with adverse drug reactions would be following animal testing,
> this is why it would be relevant, and another source (seperate from
> the pro-vivisection JAMA publication) would show this, as per usual.
> If there isn't the mention of micro-dosing prior to the drug, which
> is entirely relevant to the full-dosage trial failers, then it would
> of been mentioned as the preminilary studies. Keeping the related
> animal studies out of the picture is the norm, as they are deemed
> "irrelevant" to the human studies, only necessary prior to them to
> gain a defence lawsuit.

i don't agree that "Most facts are presented in isolotion" - it surely
depends on the media you view? furthermore, a claim without a citation i
find worse: there is no evidence to back up the statement, nor any way
for the viewer to find out what the evidence was and make up his or her
own mind.

the references i was talking about were on this page:

	http://www.shac.net/science/intro.html

they are [quoted]:

[ 'Animal Toxicity Studies: Their relevance to man, Lumley & Walker (ed)
pp57-67, Quay, 1989]

[AP Fletcher in Proc R Soc med, 1978;71, 693-8]

[Journal of the American Medical Association. 14/4/98]

the last one is from JAMA, which you say is "pro-vivisection" - i would
be curious to know what exactly you mean by this phrase? and, can you
point me towards something, for example, an editorial or other article,
that explains their point of view?

the one i was talking about is available at this url:

	http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/279/15/1200

if you read it, you will find that the authors are not talking about any
specific drugs: they are talking about adverse drug reactions to *any*
drug. thus, of course some drugs, in their development, are likely to
have involved animal experimentation; others are likely to *not* have
involved animal experimentation.

> Garcon du Monde:  "moreover, this is not even an article about
> something that has happened: it is a glorified advertisement for a
> forth-coming demonstration."
> 
> Something hasn't happened? The state tried to shut down SHAC by
> imprisoning seven individuals for 50 years and they failed -
> miserably. The march and protest clearly shows this, especially when
> the police have had to allow it to happen. Secondly, didn't the
> Carnival Against The Arms Trade and Shut ITT articles [1] that
> promoted events also fall into the category or promoting a
> forth-coming demonstration? I was glad to see the glorified advert
> myself. However, despite this being a relevant issue, its now not
> relevant to the article.
> 
> Garcon du Monde: "indymedia has in the past been very clear that we
> do not promote a particular political ideology... i think we should
> stick with this methodology."
> 
> As Chris said, Indymedia promotes a variety of ideologies. To name a
> few; anti-war, anti-racism, anti-militarism, no borders (on the
> migrantion page for example), ocean defence and social struggles,
> there are even topic pages for the ideologies. That's why we're all
> here I thought?


as stated above, ideologies that have greater consensus about them.

now, to talk frankly and specifically about the politics of 'animal
rights' or 'animal liberation' or whatever one would like to call it: we
do *not* all agree. what there may be, however, are areas that we can
agree on - for example, i think that unnecessary animal experimentation
(such as for development of perfumes and 'body care' products, or simply
for pleasure) is wrong and should not be carried out. there may also be
groups or individuals that carry out animal experimentation in a manner
that is not as they claimed they would, and this i think is also wrong.

but, on the other hand, i have also seen things that demonstrate how
animal experimentation can be useful in expanding knowledge and helping
improve lives (of humans _and_ of animals, it should be noted). i guess
this may be at odds with what some other people think. because of these
things that i have seen, i am, therefore, not convinced that indymedia
should provide an advertising platform for SHAC or others who have more
extreme views.

this viewpoint is particularly re-inforced by the recent irresponsible
manner in which certain people who claim to be animal rights activists
have treated indymedia uk. i hope you can appreciate this.

solidarity,

	--gdm

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 835 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-uk-features/attachments/20090205/31ecc824/attachment.pgp