Who is the Legally Defined Terrorist: HLS or SHAC?
Tim Phillips Introduction The Western scientific world view holds that animal testing is necessary and praiseworthy work that will improve human quality of life, while any activism against animal testing is misguided, anti-human, and sometimes “terroristic.”[1] However, an investigation into the campaign against Huntingdon Life Sciences (HLS) yields the opposite conclusion. Huntingdon Life Sciences,[2] an animal testing company, is guilty of international terrorism, and Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC),[3] the campaign to close HLS, is effectively responding with counter-terrorism. In this paper, these terms will be defined according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI),[4] and a short history of HLS and SHAC will be given to defend these claims. I will show that despite the dominant view of animal testing, it may be the activists who are praiseworthy individuals and the companies that are the real “terrorists.” Violence and Non-human Animals The following argument is base
Related Questions
- In Australia , death is defined (both medically and legally), as: · Irreversible cessation of all functions of the brain (otherwise known as ?brain death?); or · Irreversible cessation of circulation of the blood (otherwise know as ?cardiac death?
- Should the manner in which organisations are legally established impact on whether they are defined as community organisations?
- Legally, what is marriage? How is marriage defined?
