Statement from Robert Cogswell
The 1st February 2007 will be a significant landmark for the future of protest in the UK. In a country once acclaimed for its democratic principles, individuals no longer have the right to protest against something with which they disagree. Those rights have been systematically eroded and replaced by an increasingly fundamentalist/conservative approach to problem-solving in the public and political domain, robbing the individual of their protection under the law, and bestowing that protection instead upon big business, safeguarding their interests and further empowering them.
The case against Mel and myself is typical of the trend that has developed since Labour took power nearly 10 years ago. Under this government, it seems that we could be imprisoned for committing no crime: that is to say, for the alleged ‘offence’ of not being able to hand over our subscribers’ details to Oxford University for the express purpose of providing the university with cannon fodder for intimidation.
Oxford University have claimed repeatedly to be a "bastion of free speech", yet their persistent attempts to silence protest and criticism from their anti-vivisection opponents have proved they are nothing of the sort. They have claimed that SPEAK has connections with terrorism, and that the campaign has adopted intimidatory tactics against them. The plain truth is manifestly different; our campaign has been conducted openly and within legal parameters from the outset and anyone who views the website can clearly see this to be the case. Yet such is the nature of the ‘legal’ system under Labour that we can never be sure when we wake in the morning, whether what was legal yesterday or even 5 minutes ago, is legal any longer.
Adding another important dimension to this whole situation is the fact that Oxford University is not exclusively an institute of learning: it is an institute with a well-oiled, profit-making nucleus, and the relentless drive to achieve greater profits means obstacles must be swept out of the way, preferably with as little noise as possible. SPEAK has proved to them to be one such obstacle.
Their heavy-handed approach has engendered many friends for those of us who oppose vivisection; people far more worthy of that title than Oxford University’s bedfellows, who include Merck (whose Vioxx trial was conducted by Oxford University professors, leaving 2000 human fatalities in its wake), and Aegis Security, a company accused of killing innocent civilians in Iraq.
It is important that everyone who believes in true democracy resist the unscrupulous tactics of individuals and organisations in powerful and privileged positions. If absolute power and greed go unchallenged, the noose will get tighter and tighter until none of us will be able to speak out for what we believe. Mel and I are prepared to go to prison in order to stand up for those principles. We hope that everyone who truly cares about protecting our civil liberties will join us at the High Court on 1st February.
The satirical polemicist Voltaire, a fervent animal advocate, once wrote I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it. I can add little to this succinct summing up by a man who was also passionate about civil liberties. In simple terms, this expresses my personal view about freedom of speech and the individual’s right to express an opinion. I might vehemently disagree with those that support vivisection, but I would never say that they should be imprisoned if they support it. Yet this is precisely what Oxford University want for us.
Perhaps their radical methods speak volumes about the weaknesses in their argument. At SPEAK we are confident of both our moral and scientific arguments against vivisection, and are not ashamed to publicise or act on those viewpoints. Rather than focus on the arguments, however, Oxford University’s methodology has been to misuse the law in an attempt to impede us. If they are truly as sure of their position as they allege, why do they not practise their vile art in the open? The reason seems clear: practised in the open, they would lose the argument for vivisection hands down.
Our present situation can only be seen in a positive light. For the university and their allies, desperate times have called for desperate measures, and this fiasco can only be regarded as evidence of their miserable failure to win the vivisection debate in the public arena. Ultimately, it could prove to be a very public and costly error on their part. Mel and I might be imprisoned for our beliefs, but what would the university gain from such an outcome? We cannot be ‘rehabilitated’, we will not denounce what we believe, and our temporary physical removal will not win them the debate. Such an outcome would merely increase our resolve in the struggle.
I can assure you - our supporters - that whatever the outcome on Tuesday, SPEAK will continue to grow in strength and will continue to challenge the barbaric practise of vivisection until its demise, which for the animals, cannot come soon enough. |
Statement from Mel Broughton
It was nearly three years ago that I first looked at the site of the now half built animal lab on South Parks Road in Oxford, and in that time much has happened that has come to shape my views about Oxford University and the public and private institutions that surround it.
The struggle against this very powerful institution has been a lesson in just how the system that supports animal abuse works and how the facade of academic virtue is just that...a facade. Make no mistake about it: when it comes to protecting the careers of a tiny but powerful elite of animal abusers in privileged positions, the respectable behaviour and integrity one expects from academia and a democratic government evaporate, and the rules of fair play go straight out of the window.
It is now blatantly obvious that Oxford University, backed by some very influential friends in government, are prepared to walk all over civil liberties and rights in order that their plans to create a centre of animal suffering and blinkered science can be realised. If you had any doubts about the lengths they and the government are prepared to go to, then just consider what is happening in the city of 'dreaming spires'. Masked workers scurry over the lab site and are bussed in and out in protected convoys. Masked lorry drivers in unmarked lorries ferry materials in and out of the city. Ex SAS operatives (read ‘mercenaries’) are paid to oversee the massive security operation. Literally millions of pounds of tax payers’ money is squandered in security costs, and let’s not forget the hundreds of thousands of pounds of public money being spent on a series of High Court injunctions for the express purpose of trying to muzzle a legal campaign.
All of this begs the question: Why? The answer is simple: greed. Those involved in animal research are regarded with much respect and admiration. After all, they are only doing what they do to help mankind, or so the public are led to believe. However, nothing could be further from the truth. These ‘scientists’ are greedy for the awards and accolades that feed their insatiable egos, and they have proven that they will do whatever it takes to protect their positions of respect in society, even if it means skewing data by using the right kind of animal to obtain the desired results, or sweeping the loss of 2000 lives under the carpet to ensure a drug trial gone wrong is quickly forgotten. And let’s not forget, there are also vast profits to be made in the world of vivisection, and profits equal power. The pharmaceutical industry is one of the most powerful entities in the world, and when governments are given a choice between ethics and power, ethics become nothing more than an obstacle in the road to riches.
All of this would at first glance give the impression that we have an impossible hurdle to overcome, but consider the position we could be in now. The animal abuse centre still under construction on South Parks Road should have been completed a year ago, and as I write this, thousands of animals would in all likelihood already be dead or suffering. Our small but determined grassroots struggle against some of the most powerful individuals and organisations in the world has made all the difference.
On the 1st February Robert Cogswell and myself, the co-founders of SPEAK, face the possibility of imprisonment, not for anything we’ve done, but for speaking out and standing up for what belongs to all of us, human or non-human; our rights.
I started out by saying I have learnt a lot of lessons during the fight against the Oxford animal lab. Without a doubt, the most valuable one is this: The desperation that manifests itself in a site that is surrounded by razor wire, is protected and constructed by men in masks, and is costing millions over the original budget goes to show that ALL THINGS ARE POSSIBLE IF YOU ARE PREPARED TO STAND UP AND FIGHT FOR THEM. |
