Animal Rights groups protest against seminar by cruelty lobby

by Catlady Sat Sep 20, 2008 01:00

"Most people dont care wether animals must die so that they have a cleaner toilet,redder lips or what have you"

I disagree based on reactions from people in the street. I'm not sure what source you derive this statement from but feel free to enlighten me. The vast majority of people I meet are horrified and have no clue as to what goes on in labs. Indeed, even if what you say were true, it lends no weight to the argument for the testing of these products on animals. Simply because people do not show concern does not mean that any particualr practice is justifable.

As for educating, it is the right of every individual in this state to take to the streets and hold peaceful demonstrations, hand out leaflets and so on. If any of the information on said leaflets were false, I am fairly sure that the companies involved would send in their legal team. Oh, but hang on, remember the whole McLibel thing...????

Perhaps you would prefer that the average Joe had no clue as to what was going on in the world around him/her??? If so, why are you even reading this thread??? Do people not have the right to be informed of the suffering goes into the products they buy???? I certainly believe they do and were it not for pressure groups highlighting injustices i would still be shopping at Tesco, buying Body Shop make-up and so on. I damn well have the right to know the facts, and there is no way that those who profit from hiding the truth are going to willingly open up and tell me!!! Anytime I see a group protesting on the street I take an interest, purely to inform myself so that I can make a choice, be it anti-war, shell2sea or whatever. I am thankful to them that they use their valuable time to highlight issues and provide me with information which I then verify and reflect upon in my own time. Isn't that the point of Indymedia in the first place???? To allow issues and info that fail to reach the mainstream media reach the light of day???

Incidentally, chanting with megaphones does occur at some demos, and is directed a the abusers, not the general public. Education is achieved by offering leaflets, drawing attention to the issues with posters etc. and engaging with anyone who has any questions. We do not randomly attack the eardrums of members of the public. Were that the case, we would never be heard, the police would halt all demos and I would probably never have attended a protest myself.

"People make their own choices on things."
Of course they do. But please explain how anyone can make any sort of choice without first being presented with both sides of the argument???? The facts of the issue???? If one swallows all the animal abuse industries tells them, it does not amount to a choice of any kind, but a herd mentality - of believing the mainstream media and following meekly in the direction the huge corporations want to lead you. For there to be choice, there must first be information.

"I would be more of the opinion that there must have been a valid reason for testing them."
As you said yourself, "It may well be, but that is purely your opinion, not fact."
If you are going to attack someone for offering an opinion rather than fact, please oblige us all by extending the same courtesy in the other direction. If you have a problem with opinion on indymedia, say so, but refrain from doing exactly what you objected to yourself, and provide us with facts as to why already banned substances are being used to poison animals.

"with morals being subjective, I would say it is morally acceptable."
Ok, thinking logically here.... Therefore the same can be said for any practice, no??? You who accuse AR advocates of ignoring logic, please elucidate. If morals are subjective (which indeed they are) then anything can be considered moral or immoral by an individual or a society, no??? Euthanasia??? Dog fighting???? Child abuse???? The death penalty??? Indeed it is true that many things which are unacceptable here are acceptable in other cultures, including the examples I mention.

All 4 are illegal here at present, true. However, abortion is not. Divorce was not until recently. My point is that acceptable morals change with the times (thankfully). Animal Rights is an area which is fast changing. For such a very young movement to have made so much progress in such a short space of time is nothing short of amazing. You may as well get used to it. None of us within the movement expect a resolution to all the issues overnight, or even in our lifetimes. But make no mistake, we are all in this for the long haul, and new generations of activists are springing up all over the world.

"Murder is with malice forethought."
Please take a look at some of the evidence. You are clearly not very familiar with the issue.

If I have been illogical in any way, please let me know.

by Mr Man Mon Sep 15, 2008 01:06

"My point was that some people believe in a higher moral law."

Moral law is derived from religion, and as a concept is primarily derived from the Abrahamic religions, christianity/judaism/islam, all of which condone killing animals, even making it ritual.

"in my opinion testing these gasses....is pointless"

It may well be, but that is purely your opinion, not fact. I would be more of the opinion that there must have been a valid reason for testing them. If there was no point, then it is illegal, thus the onus is with the company, not the concept of animal testing.

"Yes there is a market for new cleaning products and legal issues but that doesn't make it morally acceptable to murder animals."

Well, with morals being subjective, I would say it is morally acceptable. Ant they aren't murdering them, they are killing them. Murder is with malice forethought. Calling it murder is attempting to play to peoples emotions, demagogue esque. Which is exactly why people think AR protesters (in general) are biased and stretch the truth.

"one thing AR activists do at protests is to inform the public that pups and other innocent animals are dying a horrific death for their cleaning products, perfum, cosmetics etc."

Well, the original starting point of this discussion is that AR protesters misinform people/are biased/appeal to emotions rather than logic.

by WTF Fri Sep 12, 2008 16:58

Your morality,and your belif that you must "educate" or possibly corece people into your way of thinking.Morality is subjective as has been pointed out here many times.Most people dont care wether animals must die so that they have a cleaner toilet,redder lips or what have you.
Nor will they be receptive to people "telling" them facts,by yelling and screaming at them if they want to wear a fur coat,go to the circus,eat meat or whatever.People make their own choices on things.Somone pushing them because they belive they have the moral right on their side,usually doesnt work.

by catlover Fri Sep 12, 2008 12:41

HLS was mentioned by me in the first place in response to wtf saying that some AR people participate in illegal activities. My point was that some people believe in a higher moral law. Like the STEALING of pups from HLS. The CFC gasses point was that these gasses are banned and in my opinion testing these gasses by murdering more innocent animals is pointless as I cannot see these gasses ever being allowed on the market again and another fine example of useless experiments carried out inside HLS. HLS is another vivisection lab 'targeted' by AR activists and indeed one of the places where a lot of the illegal activity mentioned by wtf took place at or because of. Yes there is a market for new cleaning products and legal issues but that doesn't make it morally acceptable to murder animals. That was my point. While many things were tested on animals at one time (including water) it does not mean more animals will be murdered, the animals being murdered now are being murdered to flood the market with more harmful, toxic cleaning products that we could all live without. Yes I know there is a demand for them and one thing AR activists do at protests is to inform the public that pups and other innocent animals are dying a horrific death for their cleaning products, perfum, cosmetics etc. Some people change their buying habits when they know this. Most people would have enough conscience and compassion to stop buying such products if only they knew...... Exactly what protesters set out to teach them.

by Mr Man Tue Sep 09, 2008 19:07

"And we need more brands of bleach why, exactly? With all the versions currently available, some of which are NOT tested on animals???"
Why do we need more brands of anything? And some brands that are 'not tested on animals' use constituents that were ALREADY tested by OTHER companies.

"totally unnecessary products, such as new brands of bleach, air freshener and what not, all of which we already know to be harmful if ingested already,... They want to be able to make claims that their product is revolutionary in order to market it. It is perfectly possible to keep a clean home without using products which are tested on animals."

According to you though, which brings us back to the impartiality point. Each new 'revolutionary' chemical HAS to be tested, because they would be sued if they didn't for being negligent. If they didn't think there is any point in testing, they wouldn't waste their money. And you think this is their fault? I'm certain it is possible to keep a clean home without using products which are tested on animals but the reality of the situation is that the common schmo wants convenient/strong/nice smelling etc. and as such, the market is driven by a desire for these chemicals. Just as there is a market for non-animal tested products.

"There are loads of brands out there which disinfect, clean and leave a pleasant smell without having to poison puppies, so Mr. Man, your claim that bleach would be tested on the vulnerable were it not tested on dogs is false."

I'm sure there is, but the brands are just brands, ie repackaging of stuff that has ALREADY been established as safe/known toxicity levels. Once you do something new, ie new constituents it has to be tested.

"So they are basically establishing how much of said prodict it takes to kill 50% of dogs - not children. Useful to know if your DOG drinks bleach I suppose...."
They infer from the median lethal dose for dogs to what the median lethal dose would be for humans. It's not 100% reliable, but it does give an indication. Much better indication than cell cultures or computer models could give.

"HLS will test anything on any animal for a fee. Incidentally, they have been exposed on.....to suffer in order to create a new type of toilet cleaner or whatever."
But this is a completely different issue. This is abusing animals for no gain/pleasure. There is already laws against this.

"One more thing, CFC gasses are BANNED their use is BANNED they have been blamed for putting the hole in the ozone layer. Testing them is pointless,....."
Agreed, pointless. Ok, maybe i'm missing something? So were HLS illegally doing this research? If so, then again, different kettle of fish.

"Maybe you should read up on HLS. They murder 500 animals every day and falsify drug data (this has been documented in an undercover investigation), as you do not appear (to me) to care about the animals lives, perhaps you will care about the human lives endangered by these drugs."
Again, this is a different issue. I have no qualms about bringing down a company for acting illegaly.

"Not to mention Wickham labs testing botox...."
Thats because botox isn't strictly for cosmetic uses

"new flavour lipgloss testing banned, but new "flavour" air freshener testing perfectly fine?"
If you can't see the difference...................Brick wall comes to mind

by Catlady Tue Sep 09, 2008 02:08

Not to mention Wickham labs testing botox.... in the UK..... where cosmetic testing on animals is formally BANNED.

I mean even for the sick and twisted, this makes no sense..... new flavour lipgloss testing banned, but new "flavour" air freshener testing perfectly fine???????????

by catlover Thu Sep 04, 2008 23:14

Mr Man

You are now missing the point. I was certainly NOT indignant at the comment in the press release that AR Literature is biased. In fact, I made the same point that YOU did (if you would bother to go back and read it from the start). I was repeating this point (perhaps a little indignant there) due to WTF seeming to imply I said things I did not. I merely questioned the validity of the whole Biased bit based on the fact that both sides can be called biased. The hunt side saying AR literature is biased and me saying they would say that as they too could be called biased. So your point was my point to begin with, just that WTF kept missing it Mr Man.

Your other points are silly as far as I am concerned. To ask me if I think these products should be tested on the elderly and if I agree with torturing human beings is quite frankly insulting (and yes I am very offended) and I do not feel any need to answer such rubbish as anybody who thinks like you do in the first place, to even mention it, is quite frankly not worth answering.

As for animals not having rights (according to law), that is why Animal Rights groups exist and campaign. The fact that these rights are not recognised by law (or most people) does not mean some people do not believe it should be so, which was the point I was making in the 'Food for thought' comment and that the same people WTF was talking about do believe such things and are led by their conscience (whether you agree with them or not). Again you need to go back and read. As I said some people believe...and they do. I did not imply animals HAVE rights in the eyes of the law..ergo.. the need to campaign for them.

As for the rest of your nonsense I think Catlady said it perfectly.

WTF these tests wont save any childs' life, they prevent the manufacturers from being sued (so they can say that they conducted safety tests and put warnings on the bottle) in the event of a person drinking the bleach, also doctors use data from when other people consumed bleach, not the data from the unfortunate pups. As consuming bleach will affect everybody differently, even more so a different species.

Again, do we not have enough toxic chemicals on the market for cleaning as it is?

One more thing, CFC gasses are BANNED their use is BANNED they have been blamed for putting the hole in the ozone layer. Testing them is pointless, they are banned and will remain banned, for the sake of our environment. HLS do not care as they will murder any animal to test any rubbish for profit. Maybe you should read up on HLS. They murder 500 animals every day and falsify drug data (this has been documented in an undercover investigation), as you do not appear (to me) to care about the animals lives, perhaps you will care about the human lives endangered by these drugs. Also perhaps you will look up the Animal Aid report, they are calling on the British government to crack down on drug industry practices that put profits before all else. In a major new report, entitled Making a Killing: How drug company greed harms people and animals.

by Catlady Thu Sep 04, 2008 10:51

And we need more brands of bleach why, exactly? With all the versions currently available, some of which are NOT tested on animals???

As for why they spend so much money, perhaps you are not aware of how exactly HLS operates. They are a commercial testing company, and are paid by manufacturers to test new products. They do not spend a penny, but are rather paid to carry out horrific experiments on totally unnecessary products, such as new brands of bleach, air freshener and what not, all of which we already know to be harmful if ingested already, and of which there is a multitude already on the market. They are not in the business of saving lives, but of taking them unnecessarily.

As for why companies pay them to do such experiments, it is simple. They are constantly trying to bring out new products, and don't give a damn what happens so long as their profits increase. They want to be able to make claims that their product is revolutionary in order to market it. It is perfectly possible to keep a clean home without using products which are tested on animals. There are loads of brands out there which disinfect, clean and leave a pleasant smell without having to poison puppies, so Mr. Man, your claim that bleach would be tested on the vulnerable were it not tested on dogs is false.

WTF, they do NOT develop ways of treating a child who has accidentally ingested bleach. They forcefeed such products to dogs and other animals, until 50% of them die, in an experiment known as the Lethal Dose 50 test. So they are basically establishing how much of said prodict it takes to kill 50% of dogs - not children. Useful to know if your DOG drinks bleach I suppose.... you'd have a better idea of whether to start digging him/her a grave out the back or not. But other than that, utterly pointless I'm afraid.

HLS will test anything on any animal for a fee. Incidentally, they have been exposed on many occassions for falsifying data and results. In one investigation, an employee is recorded as laughingly stating "You can wipe your ass with that data". In another, employees are filmed punching puppies in the face when they try to wriggle free to avoid the pain they know they are about to suffer in order to create a new type of toilet cleaner or whatever. This is the noble work done by HLS. Is it any wonder they have people all over the world so up in arms thet they are slowly but surely going into financial ruin???

by Mr Man Wed Sep 03, 2008 23:24

"What purpose does forcefeeding bleach to ANYONE....serve?"

I would assume primarily to determine toxicity levels. Some bleach literally burns your skin on contact, others are completely safe to use on the skin. Different bleaches have different active components complimenting the bleach, which need to be tested to see if they undergo volitile reactions, and if so, the severity. If your child drinks some bleach by accident, would you not like some tests done to see if there is any way of mitigating the damage caused to internal organs? The point is, the tests need to be done, in order to do them involves a lot of paperwork to show why it is necessary (done it myself) and if we don't do them on animals, it is the poor and vulnerable who will be persuaded to be in the line of fire.

It's not like they spend thousands/millions on research just for kicks.

by WTF Wed Sep 03, 2008 22:05

True,maybe very nasty.But maybe it is worth it if it saves just one childs life????

by Catlady Wed Sep 03, 2008 11:09

Mr. Man you are just being daft now....

Why on earth would catlover want bleach to be force fed to anyone??? Where did that question even come from??? What purpose does forcefeeding bleach to ANYONE, puppy, human, old, young, rich, poor etc .serve???

We already know it's not a good idea to drink the stuff, don't we??? I'd certainly not have it on my cereal, and wouldn't feed it to the dog either... Even if I thought it was good for me, the taste would kinda put me off!!!!

Like the rest of the horrific pseudo-scientific experiments carried out at HLS, it is utterly pointless.

But why suggest that catlover would want such horrors inflicted on her Granny, simply because he/she objects to the same being inflicted on puppies???

Having said that, I wouldn't mind force-feeding bleach to Brian Cass myself! But I speak only for myself on that one ;-)

by Mr Man Sun Aug 31, 2008 13:48

Catlover - you seem to be indignant that someone who you think is biased is calling you biased. Of course both parties are going to be biased. A pro-hunt group isn't going to take neutral ground, it's only natural to be biased. Just as animal rights groups won't take neutral ground. You are getting annoyed because you assume moral superiority so that justifies your admitted bias.

Morals are subjective. To assert your moral superiority absolutely and to dismiss anothers absolutely is arrogant, almost ignorant.

"the most fundamental rights of one species to fulfill some whimsical...."
Animals do not have fundamental rights. Maybe you do not know what it means.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_right

"a moral law which allows all living beings the right to a life"
You don't seem to know what a law means either. Either that or what a moral law is. And in any case, many would not agree that all beings have a right to life. Does the bacteria in your toilet have a right to life? What criteria does one use to draw the line? Could this line be subjective to different peoples beliefs? Would it be silly for someone who draws the line at fleas to be morally horrified at someone who draws the line at spiders?

"To help pups who are being force fed bleach "
Would you prefer they force fed elderly/poor people bleach?

"try to save pups who are being used to test banned CFC gasses"
Were HLS banned from using it? Or were they given a permit?
Again, would you prefer they tested them on the elderly/poor people?

"again some people would seem to deem such an action justified to save the lives of said pups"
Some people would also deem torturing enemy soldiers to be justified. Would you agree? Does it make it right?

by Animal magic Fri Aug 29, 2008 15:13

Not so long ago it was the law that a black old women had to give up their seat on a bus to a white man!! , So don't go spouting the usual bull about breaking some sorry ass law to justify your own agenda WTF

by catlover Fri Aug 29, 2008 14:23

Again WTF I didnt accuse anybody of telling lies or being biased I was, for about the third time now, merely pointing out some holes in their argument when they said AR literature is biased and my point was they would say it is biased as they have a personal interest and personal gain in abusing animals and would say AR literature is biased to try to make people believe their side. My point was Can they not also be accused of biased??? A question not an accusation.... The use of the word lies was mentioned by them in the first place.

You seem to be missing the original point I made and you seem to me to have implied I said or meant things I did not, go back and read the first post as this is the one you replied to in the first place.

The rest of your comments are still detracting from my original point and I am not going to argue with you about things I Did Not Say.

I don't consider myself an 'anti' but if you do that's fine by me and people who abuse animals for profit or fun or any other reason and those who support them or agree with them have no credibility in my book anyway.

The demonstration in question was the original topic not illegal activities that mostly happened in other countries but if you want to bring legality into it here's a little food for thought.

Some people believe in a moral higher law that would not tolerate violating the most fundamental rights of one species to fulfill some whimsical (hunting for example) desires of another species and as a result some people believe some man made laws are not as important as a moral law which allows all living beings the right to a life. This obviously is just some people thoughts (philosophically speaking) and perhaps that is what drives people to risk their freedom to help those who are forced to endure a horrendous death and a horrible life behind closed doors.

An example of some illegal actions I have read about.... Again some food for thought.
To help pups who are being force fed bleach (huntington life sciences), or to try to save pups who are being used to test banned CFC gasses also HLS. HLS was raided and a number of beautiful little innocent pups were STOLEN (according to Mans Law) again some people would seem to deem such an action justified to save the lives of said pups.

by WTF Fri Aug 29, 2008 13:07

An Anti cet lover as you support these people who are not exactly paragons of virtue and legality either..I mean it is highly unlikely you will say hold on these people might have a right to an opinion and be able to dissiminate it, without a dozen noisey people bothering them?
But for your side to claim that the pro side litature is biased is hugely disengenious as your litature is just as biased to your side.IOW I have morally superior stance as my litature is is telling the factsand the other side isnt,and are accusing my side of telling lies...What nonsense of doublespeak is that???Every single opposing faction of humanity does this.Muslims claim they have the true religion as do Christians and Jews as does every other gyp religion.Communists claim they have the right way and everyone else is wrong,etc etc.So what makes your arguement anymore superior or sucessful than any others??All you are doing is stating a fact that you dont like the opposite side and their litature is saying nasty things about yours,but are trying to make a mountain of it by dressing it up in pseudo intellectual claptrap.

Reasonable and compassionate people dont generally go out and burn down,beat up or aquire explosives and incendiary devices or illegal firearms for their causes.Nor do they support convicted criminals imprisioned for breaking the law,or use the above to further their cause.Funnily enough all of the above does equal the defination of terrorism,numerous animal rights terrorists have been convicted in courts of law around the world for these offences and unfortuneatly the pro side does have the higher moral ground on that issue.That is a fact!
Going on about the old chestnut of sweatshops ,slavery and what not as being unjustified and using violent means to stop said really destroys any "higher moral superiority" arguement you might have or think you might have!!

by cat lover Fri Aug 29, 2008 11:43

Go back and read it again WTF will you for Gods sake? Nor did I say I am an "anti" I was simply pointing out that people who say the literature is biased are people who could also be accused of biased as they benefit in some way from exploiting animals, therefor their argument isn't very strong is it? Not to mention the other rubbish in their press release which, you really should read. Thats without the fact the these people are guilty of cruelty to animals no matter how you look at it. Chasing foxes around with a pack of hounds and people on horses in the name of 'sport' I think is most reasonable and compassionate peoples' idea of cruelty. People who are cruel to animals do not have any credibility in my book and those who speak up for innocent animals who cannot speak up for themselves are in my opinion those with the higher moral ground after all if a person goes out to speak out against sweat shops who will people listen to the person speaking out for human rights or the person profiting from the exploitation? Needless to say those who profit from any kind of exploitation will always try to say the "anti" side who are trying to speak up for the exploited are lying and indeed biased and again who is really biased if not the one making some sort of personal gain?? That is a fact.

by WTF Wed Aug 27, 2008 13:34

So how Cet lover can you say your arguement is justified?You say they are lying about your lies which could be the truth.Which would be embarrassing for your anti side.And the pro side can claim that you are lying with the truth?

by cet lover Tue Aug 26, 2008 12:34

WTF

The mention of Lies in my comment is part of a quote and the point I made in the comment was that there was a claim in the press release by the organisers that our literature contains lies. I said that was not necessarily true because they said it and that they would say it contained lies as they are animal abusers who do not want the antis (as you put it) to say anything against their activities in a leaflet. They said we are biased and I made the point that if we can be called biased can they not also be called biased. Maybe you should go back and read it from the start WTF I accused NOBODY of telling lies I questioned THEIR press release which contained an accusation of telling lies.

No doublespeak WTF.

by indent Sat Aug 16, 2008 14:18

Whether you're an Orwell fan or not, it would be hard to think of people who chase animals for fun as having any sort of moral authority.

When I was kid there were teenaagers who used to attach fireworks to cats and set them off for some sort of sick thrill- we all knew it was wrong but we were afraid of them.

The hunt groups are doing the same sort of thing, but because they are middle aged men in suits and have money, ordinary people think they have to let them away with it.

Cruelty is cruelty, whoever is doing it.

by WTF Sat Aug 16, 2008 13:34

of Catlover because the Antis lie they have the moral right to protest and are right?While the pro fieldsports are lying,have no moral rights and no right to meet without expecting protests???

George Orwell just got the year wrong going by that doublespeak.!!!

by cat lover Fri Aug 15, 2008 00:28

"Animal Rights groups were tipped off that the Hunting Association of Ireland was going to be hosting a breakfast seminar this morning to unite groups and companies which have been the subject of protest for their treatment of animals."

Groups and companies who have been the subject of protests (as they said) is exactly trying to combat the people who speak up for animals, they speak up by protesting and the press release issued by the hunting association mentioned protests outside various premises. All where people were speaking up for animals.

"attempting to counter the percieved bias and lies in AR literature. " Percieved lies, they would say the literature contains lies, this does not mean it is true and if animal rights activists are biased in their literature can the animal abusers who profit from abusing and murdering animals not also be accused of bias?? So they would say that the literature contained lies and was biased wouldn't they?? Again this does not mean it is true.

by miss behave Wed Aug 13, 2008 17:16

"A good friend of mine had abuse hurled at him in the streets recently for declining a leaflet on fois gras because he quite liked it."

What was the abuse? What did the scary person with the leaflet say to your "good friend"?

Caption: Video Id: 8IWN8UGDyC0 Type: Youtube Video
Embedded video Youtube Video

by ciara Wed Aug 13, 2008 00:18 ciarams1 at hotmail dot com

Keep up the good work guys. Sorry I couldn't be there. Its great that cruelty is not accepted by everyone.

by Mr Man Tue Aug 12, 2008 14:40

"and then to try to 'combat' those who speak up for their defencless victims."

According to the article the main purpouse of the talk was to combat animal rights terrorists, not people who speak up for animal rights. Further to this was attempting to counter the percieved bias and lies in AR literature. Which they are free to do, just as AR protesters are free to do the same.

And Laura Broxon (NARA (not the angling association)) gets it wrong when she states "Everything we do is a legitimate protest and if they think we are being intimidating well then that’s a mark of our success.” . Missing the point a bit there. It wasn't claimed that they were illegitimate things, rather that there was increasing amounts of intimidating protests occuring, militant literature being distributed (in US) and reliance on emotive techniques rather than logical and open debate. But personally, I believe that some protests are intimidatory, not only to businesses but to consumers aswell.
A good friend of mine had abuse hurled at him in the streets recently for declining a leaflet on fois gras because he quite liked it.

Of course, NARA's support of convicted terrorists and criminals(as shown on their website) doesn't show them in a good light.

by cat lover Sun Aug 10, 2008 23:43

Excellent, a great result for compassion in Ireland. The people who attended and organised this seminar are truly sick to do what they do first of all and then to try to 'combat' those who speak up for their defencless victims. The protest outside being better attended than the seminar is wonderful news and shows that peoples right to protest will be exercised.

by black Sat Aug 09, 2008 15:09

Great job, fair play to all involved keep the pressure on!

by Michelle Sat Aug 09, 2008 12:49 animalrightsNI at gmail dot com

This is fabulous guys! The fact that the animal abusers need to get together to strategize against the few who protest show that you are having a huge impact. Keep up the great work you are doing in Dublin!!

by vegan agenda Fri Aug 08, 2008 17:42

three minutes of video + an excerpt from this morning's radio item on rté

Caption: Video Id: tz9b9rmhavI Type: Youtube Video
Embedded video Youtube Video