Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty
|
|
Monkey6.jpg
SHAC was started by British animal rights activists Greg Avery and Heather James in November 1999 after video footage that had been shot covertly inside HLS was aired on British television. The film showed HLS staff abusing animals — such as shouting and laughing at them, shaking and punching them — as well as falsifying experiments. The staff responsible were dismissed and prosecuted, and Huntingdon Life Science's Home Office licence to perform animal experiments was temporarily revoked.
Since then, several other investigations and leaked documents have revealed further abuse and incompetence, such as staff turning up for work drunk or taking drugs at work.
| Contents |
Organization
SHAC activities are based on direct action, protests and demonstrations against HLS, its employees, its employees' families and its business partners. By targeting clients, employees, suppliers, insurers and even the caterers and cleaners of the laboratory, they aim to scare away HLS' clientele and to render the laboratory work as difficult and costly as possible.
The current SHAC spokespersons are Greg Avery and his wife, Natasha Avery. Together with his first wife Heather James, they are responsible for publishing SHAC reports via mail and on their website, and providing press information and interviews. They were jailed for six months in December 2001 for criminal incitement. [1] (http://www.animalrights.net/articles/2001/000233.html).
The SHAC website and mailing list serves as a platform for supporters. "Action reports" are published on the website and mailed out to supporters. Also published are possible targets of the campaign and the companies that have severed their links with HLS.
SHAC is not a closed organization, but is an assembly of individuals and independent groups with shared goals and principles who are regarded by SHAC as responsible for their own actions. SHAC says it refrains from any action that might physically harm human or non-human animals. However, destruction of property and the intimidation of any person benefiting from a relationship with HLS is deemed acceptable. According to Greg Avery, "They've made their beds and now it's time to lie in them, and they're all whining." The Lawyer 16th August, 2004. [2] (http://www.lawson-cruttenden.co.uk/articles/076_160804thelawyer.pdf)
Direct action used by SHAC supporters has included violence [3] (http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=4022034), harassment [4] (http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=4009548), intimidation with death-threat letters and hoax bombs, arson, trespass [5] (http://w3.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/story.asp?StoryID=68116), vandalism, and destruction of property. Despite SHAC's stated policy of non-violent direct action, 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 [6] (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1494924.stm). As with other forms of animal rights terrorism, in which individuals do not act as members of a formal organisation, this crime cannot be formally attributed to SHAC. Holding SHAC responsible for establishing a 'community of sympathy' for such crimes would necessitate wide-ranging constraints on freedom of speech.
Relationship with the Animal Liberation Front
The SHAC spokespersons disclaim any connection between its campaign and attacks carried out by some activists using the name Animal Liberation Front (ALF). However, the SHAC website regularly features ALF news, and Kevin Jonas, the leader of SHAC USA who worked for SHAC UK while Greg Avery was in prison, has declared his "unequivocal support for the Animal Liberation Front" [7] (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/focus/story/0,6903,1273697,00.html). Some activists who may have been associated with SHAC have also committed crimes which were claimed on behalf of the ALF. For example, Dave Blenkinsop was jailed both for an attack on HLS managing director Brian Cass and for bombing poultry vans, with the latter being claimed on behalf of the ALF. While there is no firm indication that Blenkinsop was involved with SHAC, the open nature of the organization makes it impossible to say with certainty which actions may properly be attributed to it. [8] (http://apa.online.free.fr/RU/Infos/ALF/Blenkinsop/131202ALF.html) Similarly, the ALF is not a closed organization, but is simply a name that may be used, largely for attribution and political purposes, by activists when they engage in covert, non-violent, direct action that furthers the cause of animal liberation. Any analysis of how much overlap exists between SHAC and ALF actions is therefore highly speculative.
Effects of campaign on HLS
When the SHAC campaign started in 1999, Greg Avery vowed to close HLS "within three years". [9] (http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:sh1-FaoBY4cJ:www.shac.net/ARCHIVES/01/010429a.html+%22greg+avery%22+%22within+three+years%22&hl=en) While this was not achieved, SHAC's efforts have had an impact on HLS's business deals, share price and profits. The SHAC website maintains a list of companies that have severed business relations with HLS [10] (http://www.shac.net/FINANCIAL/dumpedhls.html). As of December 2004, this consists of over 160 companies. The UK Department of Trade and Industry had to insure HLS, as all previous insurers abandoned HLS after they were targeted by SHAC actions.
In 2000, SHAC obtained a list of HLS shareholders. This list included the names of beneficial owners: anonymous persons and companies who bought shares using the name of a third person. Shareholders included the pension funds of the Labour Party, Rover cars and the London Borough of Camden. This list was leaked to the press and the Sunday Telegraph ran it as their lead story. Several beneficial owners disposed of their shares after publication. Two weeks later, an equity stake of 32 million shares was placed on the London Stock Exchange for one pence each. HLS quotes crashed immediately. The Royal Bank of Scotland closed HLS's bank account and the British government forced the Bank of England to give them an account. The British Banking Association said "Huntingdon Life Sciences are in a nightmare situation."
On 21 December 2000, HLS was dropped from the New York Stock Exchange because of HLS's share collapse; HLS's market capitalisation had fallen below NYSE limits and the NYSE did not accept HLS's revised business plan to restore its position. [11] (http://www.nyse.com/press/1044027439969.html) On 29 March 2001, HLS lost both of its market makers and its place on the main platform of London Stock Exchange.
Due to SHAC's use of public records in the sending of malicious threats to all investors in HLS, HLS moved its financial centre to the United States and incorporated in Maryland as Life Sciences Research, Inc., in order to take advantage of stricter U.S. securities laws, which allow greater anonymity of shareholders. HLS currently trades on the NASDAQ's OTC Bulletin Board as "LSRI". Maryland allows shareholders with less than 5% holdings to remain anonymous. Partly as a result of this experience, the British government has changed the law so that smaller investors in a company are not publicly listed.
HLS was saved from bankruptcy when the its largest shareholder, American investment bank Stephens, Inc, gave the company a 15-million-dollar loan. SHAC supporters reacted by targeting Stephens, Inc. [12] (http://archives.lists.indymedia.org/boston-print/2001-February/000036.html).
HLS's position remains unstable, however, as is shown by their $87.5 Million debt [13] (http://www.huntingdon.com/www/show_press_release_3345.html) and recently leaked documents (25th Jan 2005) [14] (http://www.shac.net/MISC/quantum/). This does not provide a promising outlook for the company; investors have not returned to the company as the share price is still unstable.
SHAC targets anyone who is linked to HLS ranging from suppliers, customers, investors (although this has reduced since many were able to remain anonymous) and workers. SHAC states that it is attempting to show that support for the actions of HLS is unacceptable in a modern society.
Direct Action
SHAC direct action tactics range from passive civil disobedience to active law-breaking. SHAC supporters have also infiltrated Huntingdon Life Sciences several times and were able to shoot video footage and photos from inside the laboratories.
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%. [15] (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3650057.stm), 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.
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. [16] (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1494924.stm).
SHAC claim that they do not condone illegal activities and only publish names and addresses so that people can peacefully and legally protest [17] (http://www.shac.net/disclaimer/disclaimer.html). However, 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. [18] (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmhansrd/vo030319/halltext/30319h01.htm)
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 are essentially democratic activities, in that 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 accepting full legal responsibility for their actions. The ultimate goal is to place political pressure on the legislature for a change in the law. '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, targetting individuals engaged in lawful activities. For example, 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." [19] (http://www.animalrights.net/archives/year/2004/000387.html)
Legal action against SHAC
Many companies targeted by SHAC have obtained High Court injunctions against SHAC, under the Protection From Harassment Act. This list includes HLS itself, Chiron UK, Phytopharm, Daiichi UK, Asahi Glass, Eisai, Yamanouchi Pharma, Sankyo Pharma and BOC. The injunctions compel SHAC to print the injunction on their website, so that SHAC's action targets are juxtaposed with a legal notification that there is a 50-yard exclusion zone around the homes of employees and places of business. Protest outside HLS itself may only occur one day a week with police presence.
These injunctions are not permanent. On 26 June 2004, HLS attempted but failed to obtain a permanent injunction against SHAC. SHAC's legal argument against the enforceability of such injunctions is that, despite having hundreds of supporters, a website, mailing address, telephone information hotline, mailing list and bank account, it does not exist as a single, corporate or charitable body, and therefore its supporters cannot be legally prevented from taking action against HLS. [20] (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2004/06/24/cnhunt24.xml)
Tim Lawson-Cruttenden, lawyer for HLS, has explored a novel legal avenue to hold SHAC financially accountable. HLS sought reparation for the costs incurred in its harassment suit from the owner of a property SHAC used as a mailing address, or the forfeit of the property in lieu. [21] (http://www.vivisection.info/save6boatlane/boatlane.html)
British government response
On July 30 2004, the British Government released "Animal Welfare - Human Rights: protecting people from animal rights extremists" (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/docs3/humanrights.pdf) (PDF). The paper outlines:
- the alleged benefits of medical research which, the paper says, would not be possible without animal studies;
- the alleged commercial value of the bio-medical industry in the UK;
- that the government is concerned for the welfare of animals and that all steps to replace the use of animals have and will continue to be taken;
- that animal rights extremists are interested in harassment and intimidation, not in changing the law or seeking civil discourse;
- that the government listens to law-abiding animal rights and welfare groups and enacts legislation where appropriate — for example, RSPCA officers now have the power to investigate animal abuse claims on the spot, and the LD50 test was permanently banned in the UK after peaceful, lawful lobbying by the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection;
- the existing laws used to prosecute animal rights activists;
- new laws, and the proposed amendments to existing legislation.
The paper specifically mentions HLS, though it does not mention SHAC. It further states: "Animal rights extremists are highly organized and fully prepared to resort to a wide range of illegal tactics to intimidate and harass people engaged in lawful activity. This goes far beyond the legitimate boundaries of peaceful protest and freedom of expression. To provide an effective response, our law enforcement and criminal justice system needs to be every bit as concerted and determined in response. The Government is therefore following a clear strategy to crack down on this activity. We shall systematically enforce the law, with the police and criminal justice system working together to target extremism and extremists. We shall ensure that campaigns of intimidation and violence for extremist ends are presented to the courts as aggravating factors when sentencing those convicted of existing offences."
See also
- Animal Liberation Front Animal Liberation Front Supporters Group
- Animal rights
- Animal testing
- Barry Horne
- GANDALF trial
- Vivisection
External Links
- Official SHAC website (http://www.shac.net)
- Video footage (http://www.shac.net/movies/crueltyfootage.mov) of cruelty shot inside HLS by SHAC members.
- Inside HLS (http://www.insidehls.com/)*
- Huntingdon Life Sciences official website (http://www.huntingdon.com/)
- Video and photo gallery of animal abuse (http://www.huntingdonsucks.com/gallery.html), a website set up by SHAC
- Huntingdon Life Sciences (http://www.buav.org/undercover/hls.html) an article by the British Union for the Abolition of Vivesection (BUAV)
SHAC-critical sites
- Dossier on SHAC (http://www.activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm/oid/408) from the Center for Consumer Freedom
- Victims of Animal Rights Extremism (http://www.vare.org.uk/)
- Scientists demand law against animal rights extremism (http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994913), New Scientist, April 22, 2004
- direct-action.info (http://www.direct-action.info)
- Seriously Ill for Medical Research (SIMR) (http://www.simr.org.uk)
- Andrew Blake, director of SIMR, speaks out about SHAC. (http://www.simr.org.uk/pages/news/07-2000/index.html#1)