Can the anti-war movement learn from Animal Welfare Advocates
I certainly don't advocate violence and intimidation tactics, but I do wonder if there is something the anti-war movement could learn from the animal rights people, The New York Times, "Animal Welfare Advocates Win Victories in Britain With Violence and Intimidation"
By LIZETTE ALVAREZ:
"But the advocates working outside the law and going after anyone even tangentially linked to the research centers have garnered the most success, particularly at Huntingdon Life Sciences. Everyone associated with the lab, including cabdrivers, caterers, delivery workers and bank executives, has become a target.
Since the intimidation campaign began in 1999, the company has lost its insurers, its bank and its largest shareholders. It has moved from the British stock exchange to the NASDAQ exchange in the United States, where privacy rights are stronger.
At the company's lowest point, the British government stepped in to provide insurance and set up an account with the Bank of England to keep it afloat. Taxi drivers sometimes refuse to pick up customers there, and the drivers of fuel trucks will not deliver oil.
This year, 51 suppliers cut off business relations with Huntingdon, a number that is tallied by the animal welfare groups. The attacks can also be personal. The managing director of the lab, Brian Cass, was beaten by men with baseball bats, and the cars and homes of Huntingdon employees have been vandalized in attacks linked to animal welfare advocates. 'Sometimes they target the supplier of the supplier,' said Matthew Worrall, a spokesman for the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry, adding that its member companies spend a combined $54 million to $127 million a year for protection."
I mean, apparently they are achieving success.
Now, I am a big animal lover, and I don't particularly like what I've seen when it comes to animal testing; especially non-essentials, like cosmetics. In fact, my choice of experimental test subjects would be the wealthy teenagers who's parents can afford health care, cosmetics and elective surgery. Why not test on the people who are going to be the end users of the products/procedures?
It's not like the poor college kid who's having to sell his plasma, or subject himself to ridicules psych and bio experiments is likely to benefit from the results. Let's use the kids in the exclusive private schools as test subjects, and leave the poor, the animals, and the incarcerated prisoners in peace. Again, they can't afford the treatments that are found anyway, so the test results aren't going to be all that accurate. Surely no one believes that the poor will have the same types of genetic diseases as the inbred royalty of Europe and theequally inbred 'Blue Bloods of the US'(See Harriman/Bush family line). What better purpose for the Daughters of the American Revolution, than sacrificing themselves for their own good?
But my real point is, I wonder what would happen if the Carlyle Group could no longer get coffee and paper and toner and printing cartridges and office furniture and catered meals and....Could they be driven into bankruptcy? Is this a viable way to destroy the global merchants of death?
No. It's not. Besides whatever ethical and legal issues that would be involved, there's the fact that as soon as it was tried, these war merchants would be protected under some sort of 'SUPER National Security' laws - remember, never use "homeland", it's a fascist meme - vital to our country (though these merchants of death can sell weapons to our enemies with impugnity through shell companies), and the enforcement of the Patriot Act would look like a grade school paddling in comparison to what protections they would buy from the congress if they felt threatened.
Still, it's fun to fantasize.