Q. When is a crime not a crime?

  Click on the image above to download this leaflet.
  Adobe Reader required
  Don't have Adobe Reader? Click here to download it free.The answer is: when the victim is inside Oxford University. It would appear that the anti vivisectionists have already won the scientific arguments against vivisection. We argue with facts and figures: the ‘scientists’ argue with emotive language and anecdotal evidence. We want an independent scientific evaluation, whilst the pro vivisectionists are actively trying to sabotage an independent evaluation process which could finally come up with the definite answer as to whether vivisection actually works, as the vivisectors have been telling us for the past 100 years or so. However, despite the carefully groomed façade of the confident, knowledgeable, and respectable academic figures they present to the public, one thing is clear: their adamant determination to prevent a proper evaluation process stems from the fact that they don’t believe the evidence they can produce will the win the argument.

It is obvious that the vivisectors and their supporters are scared of facing us in any other arena apart from the one where they can reel off a few nebulous sound bites and one where they aren’t required to back up their more outrageous statements. Therefore, since the vivisectors are running from the scientific arguments let’s try another tact - how about the moral and ethical arguments in favour of abusing animals?

Experimenting on animals means having to abuse them. Of course, the vivisectors like to package it as something different. For obvious reasons, they don’t want what they do to animals to be viewed as abuse so they call it medical research, but technically it constitutes vivisection. The word vivisection is derived from the Latin word ‘Vivum’, which means living, and ‘section’, which is to cut. Vivisection, therefore, literally means living dissection - that is dissecting a live animal!

Of course, the vivisectors try and couch it in flowery language or excuse the abuse by justifying it on medical grounds, but that is little solace to the animals undergoing painful procedures because it’s for - as the vivisectors would have us believe - the greater good! How abusing animals for medical reasons somehow lessens the pain of the animal is an argument that the vivisectors haven’t quite worked out yet.

At the end of the day it’s all semantics, and when we get down to basic arguments, what the law actually states is: if you abuse an animal outside the laboratory, you’re a criminal, but if you do it inside Oxford University's laboratories, you’re an academic. The animal abuser outside the lab will be called a monster, whilst the vivisectors will be given hefty grants. Make sense? Of course it doesn’t. However, neither does vivisection, no matter whether moral or scientific arguments are used to try and justify it.

Now it’s time to bring reality into the debate. SPEAK has produced a leaflet highlighting the hypocrisy of the law's differentiation between an animal called “test subject” and one called “pet.” Click on the image to get a PDF version of the leaflet. Those wishing to order leaflets should contact us. We undoubtedly have the vivisectors on the run, now let’s get out onto every High Street up and down the country and get the real truth out there.

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.