Yes, I am blind / No, I can't see the good things / Just the bad things....
The bland response from the Conservatives, via David Davis, to the condoning of, not to say incitement to, violence by Steven Morrissey in an interview (see Q13, and have a look at Q12 for some delicious irony), backing terrorism as committed by animal rights "activists" against scientists and organisations involved in medical research using animals makes for depressing reading. "Any incitement to violence is obviously wrong in a civilised society and should be investigated by the police," said Mr. Davis.
I have heard stronger condemnations of terrorist sympathisers from Sir Iqbal Sacranie....
I think there's an interesting psychology at work behind animal rights "activism" - in fact behind all terrorism, but let's stick to these particular crazies for now. In their determination to see no harm come to animals no matter what the benefits for mankind (including, of course, themselves, some day), they inflict any kind of pain or torment of which they can conceive on those they consider responsible, from the harassment of repeated phone calls and unsolicited goods ordered on the credit cards of those they consider cupable, via your straightforward acts of intimidation, assault, violence, arson and sabotage, all the way to the theft of human remains (presumably as some kind of punishment to the bereaved). This is justified by the laughably hubristic notion that "violence is the only language these people understand", which really means, of course, that having failed to get exactly what they want with words, the "activists" will go to any lengths they feel like to intimidate and brutalise people into accepting their point of view. Seems to me that violence is rather the only language the "activists" are capable of speaking. Morrissey went on to compare the "struggle" to warfare - drunk, no doubt, on the intoxicating self-image that that sort of analogy conjures: Morrissey et al heroic, unbowed freedom fighters united in the struggle against ... a few guys in white coats or wax jackets.
Clearly, then, self-importance is not in short supply among these people. Entertainingly, Morrissey characterises the ARM (the Animal Rights Militia, so named, presumably, just in case they were running low on self-aggrandising warlike sentiment) as, "usually very intelligent people who are forced to act because the law is shameful or amoral." Leaving aside the minor enjoyment value of knowing that he meant immoral, this is fun because he implicitly includes himself in that description, given his stated support for them.
This is what interests me: the blazing, blinding self-righteousness that characterises this as all forms of terrorism. The great irony is of course the explicit rejection of the old platitude, two wrongs don't make a right. By their own value system, they are legitimate targets, for if testing products on animals leaves scientists or directors open to having their wives' cars blown up, to what does blowing up blameless women's cars leave the animals rights "activists" open? The very fact that they have not been treated as their actions would suggest they be treated, if everyone were as dubiously and arrogantly certain of ourselves as they, proves that most people are civilised where they are barbarous. Fundamentalism of any stripe is essentially barbarism. The refusal to engage in civilised debate, however strongly they feel and however egregiously they feel ignored, is symptomatic only of ignorance and inarticulacy, of an inability (or, not unlikely, an unwillingness) to make their point in a sufficiently compelling fashion through non-violent means, or of a childish, petulant refusal to accept that having the debate doesn't necessarily mean you'll win the debate. Some debate it would be, after all, if the opening position were, "Well, we're prepared to engage here, but just so you know, if there's anything we don't like, we're just going to blow shit up anyway." Oh, wait. That is how debates with these dickheads go.
And the Tories' non-condemnation? Can it be that Steven Morrissey, as the former singer of The Smiths, is to a certain extent one of David Cameron's passports to legitimacy in the eyes of the all-important youth vote? The Smiths were a favourite band of Cameron's in his youth, and a strong condemnation of Morrissey now could undo all that hard work, all those slightly bashful, royalist-caveat-laden admissions that The Queen Is Dead is his favourite album. I'm certain that David Davis' true feelings on the matter are a trifle stronger than "should be invetigated by the police", which strikes me as almost a dismissal of the question, a kind of "don't ask me, I'm just the Shadow Home Secretary" evasion. (But hey: at least they're showing signs of being united, even if only united in weakness!)
I have heard stronger condemnations of terrorist sympathisers from Sir Iqbal Sacranie....
I think there's an interesting psychology at work behind animal rights "activism" - in fact behind all terrorism, but let's stick to these particular crazies for now. In their determination to see no harm come to animals no matter what the benefits for mankind (including, of course, themselves, some day), they inflict any kind of pain or torment of which they can conceive on those they consider responsible, from the harassment of repeated phone calls and unsolicited goods ordered on the credit cards of those they consider cupable, via your straightforward acts of intimidation, assault, violence, arson and sabotage, all the way to the theft of human remains (presumably as some kind of punishment to the bereaved). This is justified by the laughably hubristic notion that "violence is the only language these people understand", which really means, of course, that having failed to get exactly what they want with words, the "activists" will go to any lengths they feel like to intimidate and brutalise people into accepting their point of view. Seems to me that violence is rather the only language the "activists" are capable of speaking. Morrissey went on to compare the "struggle" to warfare - drunk, no doubt, on the intoxicating self-image that that sort of analogy conjures: Morrissey et al heroic, unbowed freedom fighters united in the struggle against ... a few guys in white coats or wax jackets.
Clearly, then, self-importance is not in short supply among these people. Entertainingly, Morrissey characterises the ARM (the Animal Rights Militia, so named, presumably, just in case they were running low on self-aggrandising warlike sentiment) as, "usually very intelligent people who are forced to act because the law is shameful or amoral." Leaving aside the minor enjoyment value of knowing that he meant immoral, this is fun because he implicitly includes himself in that description, given his stated support for them.
This is what interests me: the blazing, blinding self-righteousness that characterises this as all forms of terrorism. The great irony is of course the explicit rejection of the old platitude, two wrongs don't make a right. By their own value system, they are legitimate targets, for if testing products on animals leaves scientists or directors open to having their wives' cars blown up, to what does blowing up blameless women's cars leave the animals rights "activists" open? The very fact that they have not been treated as their actions would suggest they be treated, if everyone were as dubiously and arrogantly certain of ourselves as they, proves that most people are civilised where they are barbarous. Fundamentalism of any stripe is essentially barbarism. The refusal to engage in civilised debate, however strongly they feel and however egregiously they feel ignored, is symptomatic only of ignorance and inarticulacy, of an inability (or, not unlikely, an unwillingness) to make their point in a sufficiently compelling fashion through non-violent means, or of a childish, petulant refusal to accept that having the debate doesn't necessarily mean you'll win the debate. Some debate it would be, after all, if the opening position were, "Well, we're prepared to engage here, but just so you know, if there's anything we don't like, we're just going to blow shit up anyway." Oh, wait. That is how debates with these dickheads go.
And the Tories' non-condemnation? Can it be that Steven Morrissey, as the former singer of The Smiths, is to a certain extent one of David Cameron's passports to legitimacy in the eyes of the all-important youth vote? The Smiths were a favourite band of Cameron's in his youth, and a strong condemnation of Morrissey now could undo all that hard work, all those slightly bashful, royalist-caveat-laden admissions that The Queen Is Dead is his favourite album. I'm certain that David Davis' true feelings on the matter are a trifle stronger than "should be invetigated by the police", which strikes me as almost a dismissal of the question, a kind of "don't ask me, I'm just the Shadow Home Secretary" evasion. (But hey: at least they're showing signs of being united, even if only united in weakness!)
posted by Novus at 18:51
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home