A Life Worth Living - An interview with Joan Court

Veteran animal rights campaigner Joan Court, whose extraordinary and courageous life is an inspiration, is a woman who has never feared challenging the established order or putting herself in the firing line. Now in her mid 80's, she continues to vigorously campaign against the oppression of others, be they human or non-human. She has spearheaded campaigns and undertaken numerous grueling fasts to highlight injustice, and in doing so has captured the imagination of the public.

She is shortly to undertake a 72-hour fast to add her voice to the many opposed to the much-contested construction of the new Oxford animal research laboratory in South Parks Rd, which Oxford University avow will provide scientists, researchers and academics with state of the art facilities to enrich the font of human knowledge (not forgetting: to maim, torture and kill defenceless animals in the name of an arcane scientific practice). In the following interview, she answers some pertinent questions about her beliefs and the current battle being waged on the hallowed ground of Oxford.

Q. Firstly Joan, thanks for agreeing to this interview. Can you briefly tell us what you hope to achieve by undertaking this fast? You witnessed Gandhi's very public fasts while working as a midwife in India and indeed actually met him in 1946. What parallels do you see between the struggle against the oppression of non-humans, and the struggle for human rights and can the animal rights movement learn anything from the methodology adopted by Gandhi in his fight to end oppression?

A. Gandhi's fasts and other political acts, civil disobedience etc were designed to bring about Indian Independence. I was involved in this campaign from the age of nineteen, and I read Gandhi's autobiography and became a vegetarian. I always wanted to work in India, a country imprinted on my heart. So meeting Gandhi in 1946, attending his prayer meetings and walking in the villages with him, was a fulfillment of a dream and ambition. I was still in Calcutta when India became independent. The appalling massacres, which followed Gandhi's crusade, and the Partition of India, remind us that bloodshed and violence often follow radical attempts to change society, as we witnessed in the struggles to end Apartheid and in the civil disobedience movement in America.

There are of course parallels between the struggle for human rights and animal rights. Justice demands that we treat all sentient beings with respect and give their interests equal weight - their interests may differ - i.e. human beings are entitled to education, but hippos need a mud bath!

Gandhi's methods are a model for us, but they are not written in stone, and we have to adapt them to our present situation. Basically resistance involves taking a moral stand - in our case remaining steadfast in our belief that cruelty and exploitation of non-humans is wrong, and we are outraged by vivisection, and the torment and pain it involves.

Q. Gandhi is quoted as saying: "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way in which its animals are treated." How do you think we stand up to this as a nation, and do you believe that the level of resistance by our opponents is a measure of the success we are having in making our message heard?

A. We are not required to judge nations, but I think Gandhi was referring particularly to the cruelty to cows in India.

There are other criteria, such as the poverty imposed by political structures, and the domination of the world's political agenda by a powerful elite of multi-national companies. We are appalled at other atrocities, genocide, starvation, disease, and war, which affect humans and non-humans.

But we can judge countries and their "cultures" which support bull fighting, cock fighting, hunting, shooting, etc, and support groups and individuals who make these atrocities their concern. We are often overwhelmed by anger and sorrow, but as animal advocates we are not able to remain in a state of willful ignorance.

I don't know how we "stand up as a nation", but in my view the animal rights movement is the most amazing phenomenon of this century. I have observed with wonder and joy the changes in our commitment over the last quarter of a century.

Our motivations are always complex, but animal rights activism has its roots in love for non-humans and our empathy with their suffering. We are angry and our anger is legitimate and a force to be harnessed as we are impelled into action.

Yes, I do think the resistance of our opponents is a measure of our success, it is inevitable whenever you fight for changes in attitude and beliefs. And in our fight for laboratory animals we are attacking very powerful vested interests based on greed and power.

As George Monbiot commented about the Serious Organized Crime and Police Bill - "there is no kind of protest of any efficacy whatsoever, that the police or courts will not attempt to prevent and punish if they choose."

Q. Do you think it would it be fair to say that recent draconian methods (specifically aimed at animal rights campaigners) introduced by the Government to stifle legitimate protests, which are soon to be yet further tightened - appear to be significantly propelling us closer towards a more sinister control by the state on peoples rights to protest?

A. Yes, as above. I have talked to a number of people who perceive that we are becoming a police state, "I never thought to see this happen in England" a German Jewess remarked.

And in Cambridge bemused residents remark "Is there a riot or something" as they see the overreaction of police at our recent peaceful demonstrations.

I find the police repression ominous, reflecting as it does governments attempts to bring our movement into disrepute. Many of the tactics used remind me of wartime propaganda based on lies and distortions.

I have no doubt we can hold our ground where ever and whenever we oppose cruelty to non-humans, and I rejoice at the contribution to the cause of animal rights by national organizations and particularly by doctors and scientists who increasingly expose the dangers of using data from animal experiments in the field of human health.

And my deepest admiration to those who go under cover to expose what goes on in laboratories and other institutions where animals are tortured and humiliated and to brave "whistle blowers". It is not easy for people in subservient jobs such as technicians, office staff, cleaners, etc to give information when those in authority over them are usually privileged and powerful elite, with status and authority and intellectual arrogance. All credit to those who do dare to speak up. But those who put their heads above the parapet are in danger of getting them blown off! As well we know from the fate of those who have lost their homes and careers etc by exposing cruelty to children, prisoners, the elderly, the mentally ill etc. Whenever humans and non- humans are powerless they are likely to be abused.

It is a matter of grief to me - having seen and taken part in many successful protest groups - to accept that non-human animals can never organize themselves to protest - at least not directly, though our cruelty to them may result in pan-epidemics and poisoning throughout the food chain.

Q. Tony Blair and the Labour Party came to power in 1997 partly because they had promised in their pre-election document 'New Labour, New Life for Animals' to significantly reduce the number of animals used in vivisection. What do you think about all their broken promises, and more importantly, of their alliance with the Pharmaceutical Industry, which has seen an increase by 150,000 in the number of animals killed annually in vivisection laboratories since Blair came to power?

A. The power-hungry Tony Blair manipulated his electorate in order to get into power in 1997 and has continued to manipulate and deceive his public in the interim years to date. I had until recently been a Labour Party supporter but now wouldn't dream of voting for them. Blair's ambition has seen him and his party not only break pre-election promises but has seen him actively encourage the expansion of the vivisection industry in this country, with more animals now being used in research than prior to his election. Today's Labour Party is unrecognizable from the party that was set it up in the early 20th Century, bordering largely as it does on the decidedly right-wing. Blair led his country under false pretences into a war against Iraq, and then tried to cover his tracks. He is introducing ever more draconian laws that seek to render illegal the act of peaceful protest. He is responsible for imprisoning people without trial and forcing house arrest on others - and let's not forget that house arrest is commonly practiced in countries under the thrall of a dictatorship. These are worrying times for advocates of the democratic process and it is vital that we fight to put a stop to this trend before our civil liberties are eroded even further.

Tony Blair is putting greed before ethics and morality. His alliance with the pharmaceutical companies is evidence of this. It can never be right in a democracy that big business has so much influence over a government elected by the people. After all a democratically elected government should be looking after the welfare of the people not increasing the profits of big multinationals. Tony Blair has failed to grasp that concept and is not fit to fill the office to which he was elected.

Q. The Government are the chief protagonists not only behind the failed attempt to build the largest primate research centre in Europe on a site in Cambridge (the successfu1 campaign against which you played a significant role), but have now promised to underwrite the cost of building the new Oxford lab. Taxpayers will be the eventual victims of that legacy, yet appear to be blissfully unaware that in this they are the instruments of the Government as much as they are the unwitting victims of the Pharmaceutical companies who promise them health and longevity, whilst lining their proverbial pockets at the expense of real progress. How do you feel we can encourage and empower people to question the dissemination of misinformation and just as importantly how do we prevent politicians from abusing their position of power.

A. Educating the public is one of our tasks and we are certainly having success in for example, exposing the damage done to human health from taking many prescribed medicines, and the poisoning of the skies, earth and seas so that we are all exposed to living in a toxic world. But "ordinary" people often life in a state of denial, as find it difficult to question the position of those in authority in whom they may have been brought up to trust - the police, government, consultants etc. Fortunately in schools now young people are debating ethical issues and challenging the status quo.

Q. It has been suggested by opponents that we are a bunch of crazed, anti- establishment, anti-academia anarchists. As a noteworthy academic yourself, and indeed one of many who have chosen to stand on the side of animal liberation, what would be your response to this accusation, given that learning can be and is a powerful weapon in the war of words between pro and anti-liberationists? In your autobiography "In The Shadow of Mahatma Gandhi" (published by Selene Press, 2002), you refer to yourself as an "enemy of the state". What do you mean by this statement?

A. I am not a "noteworthy academic" though because I left school when I was twelve I have always had an insatiable hunger for education. I have managed late in life to get degrees, including one from the University of Cambridge when I was sixty. These have come in useful when I want to appear "respectable". But I consciously rejected an academic career, because I wanted to use by qualifications in the fight for child protection and in many other therapeutic activities.

I only became fully involved in animal rights 27 years ago, when Animal Aid organised the first anti-vivisection march in Cambridge. And so it all began, the demonstrations against HLS from 1978 etc.

I am an "enemy of the state" in so far as we live in a toxic culture, dominated by Frankenstein science in laboratories etc. I believe we have the right and duty to oppose and subvert unjust laws which harm non-human animals. I support all actions that are morally legitimate - even if illegal because the laws we challenge are fundamentally unjust and unjustifiable.

Q. It is often stated by our detractors that animal rights campaigners fight for the rights of non- humans more because they dislike the human race and less because they believe in the rights of non-human animals. Given that you have devoted much of your life to caring for and fighting for the rights of humans and have spent the last 25 years fighting for the rights of non-humans, how would you answer critics of what we stand for?

A. I can understand people becoming cynical about the human race - our species are the greatest predators on earth, and our beautiful plant is being ruthlessly destroyed by greed. I am aware that many people in the AR movement are or have been in the "caring professions" and that all share a compassionate attitude of mind.

Q. You refer with deep affection, gratitude and respect in your writings to the non-humans you have lived with and encountered in your life, but without anthropomorphic sentimentality. The "fluffy bunny syndrome" label often applied to animal rights campaigners would appear to be rather the domain of those who regard non-human animals as "lesser" than ourselves. If we do indeed love them, we love them for what they are, as individuals with the ability to think and feel, with the capacity to experience joy and pain just as we do. Yet the larger majority cannot get to grips with the idea that life - whatever form it takes - should be valued, not treated as an expendable commodity. In closing, what progress do you believe we have made in educating people as to this fact since the animal rights movement began to come into its own in the latter part of the 20th Century, and what are your predictions for the future status of non- humans in the 21st century?

A. I don't mind at all being described as a "bunny hugger", do you? Though my rescued rabbits prefer to live an independent rabbit life in the garden to being hugged. And I have observed with joy over the years how individual animal rights campaigners care for their own companion animals and all living non-humans. "Save a worm today" as John Curtin once said.

I think that many people not involved in our movement are aware that non- humans suffer, grieve, remember their friends and have complicated social lives, but they need help to become involved in the movement. Their observations are usually based on living with companion animals only. But we know the suffering of animals who are not in a domestic situation.

Non-human animals may suffer more than humans in captivity, because they have less cognitive, imaginative and speculative powers. They cannot flee from pain and fear.

The future? I hope we can involve more of the animal loving public and I also hope, and plan to, have the support of Asian communities, Hindu, Buddhists, Muslim, Jains etc whose cultural and spiritual beliefs include respect for sentient beings. Fasting and hunger strikes in such communities is in their traditions and of course Asians could be a political force for change.

In summary, to harm sentient beings is morally wrong and we are moral beings and we will not give up hope even though in the midst of battle we may not always appreciate how much progress we have made.

YOU can play an active part in supporting Joan's hunger strike by helping raise much-needed funds; in doing so, you will be fighting alongside Joan and the SPEAK campaign and most importantly joining us in saving animals' lives. Download the sponsor form and get as many signatures as possible.

Disclaimer: The information on this website is for the purpose of legal protest and information only. It should not be used to commit any criminal acts or harassment.