Ban on Animal Experiments

To ban animal experimentation involving hurt or cruelty.

It is time for the UK to be the first state since 1945 to prevent this form of cruelty and to institute a new era in human-animal relations in the contemporary world.

Why is this idea important?

To ban animal experimentation involving hurt or cruelty.

It is time for the UK to be the first state since 1945 to prevent this form of cruelty and to institute a new era in human-animal relations in the contemporary world.

Animal Rights Activists – let the punishment fit the crime!

I would like to see animal rights activists treated in the same way  as the rest of society.  There are 3 prisoners who pleaded guilty to harrassment who are currently serving 12 years for conducting a 3 year harrassment campaign.  A previous tory parliamentary candidate (Ian Oakley) also conducted a very similar harrassment campaign over a similar period of time against a prospective lib dem candidate.  He was given 16 weeks suspended.  The discrepancy in these punishments for very similar crimes with very different motives is very disturbing in a democratic society.

There are other animal rights prisoners who have been found guilty of "conspiracy to blackmail" serving 11  and 9 years.  They were responsible for running a  (legal) campaign to protest against a major vivisection laboratory.   This kind of sentencing is on a par with those given to murderers and rapists.  It is outrageous that in this day and age sentecing is so out of touch with the action to which it is related.

I would also like to see the repeal of sections 145 – 149 of the SOCPA act. 

Why is this idea important?

I would like to see animal rights activists treated in the same way  as the rest of society.  There are 3 prisoners who pleaded guilty to harrassment who are currently serving 12 years for conducting a 3 year harrassment campaign.  A previous tory parliamentary candidate (Ian Oakley) also conducted a very similar harrassment campaign over a similar period of time against a prospective lib dem candidate.  He was given 16 weeks suspended.  The discrepancy in these punishments for very similar crimes with very different motives is very disturbing in a democratic society.

There are other animal rights prisoners who have been found guilty of "conspiracy to blackmail" serving 11  and 9 years.  They were responsible for running a  (legal) campaign to protest against a major vivisection laboratory.   This kind of sentencing is on a par with those given to murderers and rapists.  It is outrageous that in this day and age sentecing is so out of touch with the action to which it is related.

I would also like to see the repeal of sections 145 – 149 of the SOCPA act. 

s.145-146 SOCPA

S.145 & S.146 SOCPA makes it an offence to interfere with a contractual relationship of an animal research organisation.

These are the core reasons I propose these sections be scrapped and for animal research organisations to remain protected under existing laws:

1. The law singles out one class of victim as deserving special protection over another. It singles out a class of protester as deserving particular penalties over others and wrongly politicizes the criminal justice system.

EG: If a person trespasses on company X due to it's links to animal research they can be sent to prison for up to five years. If hours later another person trespasses at the same company for it's links to climate change they would not go to prison or have broken this law.

2. Part of this law makes it an offence to committ actions which are already unlawful.

EG: A person committing a serious act of criminal damage can be charged with s.145 SOCPA and face up to five years in prison, instead of up to ten years if prosecuted for criminal damage. However for a less serious crime such as a public order offence a person can face prison instead of facing a financial penalty.

3. This law turns civil and tortious acts in to criminal offences.

EG: Torts are normally civil wrongs and what is and is not a tort is much less clearly defined than what is a crime – it is not easy to assess whether a statement is defamatory or not. This means that it will be much harder for members of the public protesting to gauge in advance what conduct will or will not be a criminal offence.

4. This law allows the Secretary of State to extend the class of protected organisations, and so create new criminal offences, without any Parliamentary debate.

EG: This law at a moments notice could be extended to cover environmental, anti war, anti poverty, anti GM, human rights campaigners and there would be nothing anyone could do to challenge it or open up a debate on the issue. 

Why is this idea important?

S.145 & S.146 SOCPA makes it an offence to interfere with a contractual relationship of an animal research organisation.

These are the core reasons I propose these sections be scrapped and for animal research organisations to remain protected under existing laws:

1. The law singles out one class of victim as deserving special protection over another. It singles out a class of protester as deserving particular penalties over others and wrongly politicizes the criminal justice system.

EG: If a person trespasses on company X due to it's links to animal research they can be sent to prison for up to five years. If hours later another person trespasses at the same company for it's links to climate change they would not go to prison or have broken this law.

2. Part of this law makes it an offence to committ actions which are already unlawful.

EG: A person committing a serious act of criminal damage can be charged with s.145 SOCPA and face up to five years in prison, instead of up to ten years if prosecuted for criminal damage. However for a less serious crime such as a public order offence a person can face prison instead of facing a financial penalty.

3. This law turns civil and tortious acts in to criminal offences.

EG: Torts are normally civil wrongs and what is and is not a tort is much less clearly defined than what is a crime – it is not easy to assess whether a statement is defamatory or not. This means that it will be much harder for members of the public protesting to gauge in advance what conduct will or will not be a criminal offence.

4. This law allows the Secretary of State to extend the class of protected organisations, and so create new criminal offences, without any Parliamentary debate.

EG: This law at a moments notice could be extended to cover environmental, anti war, anti poverty, anti GM, human rights campaigners and there would be nothing anyone could do to challenge it or open up a debate on the issue.