(From previous page)

No shrinking violet, Adrienne (now Hall) was soon managing SAFE with a stridency remarkably at odds and notably incongruous with her carefully contrived mouselike policy of small and slow steps in a backward direction whilst not upsetting the vivisectors or the politicians with demonstrations of emotion, (not even from mothers of the thousands of babies being born with missing hands, feet, arms and/or legs because their mothers had taken prescribed medicines, or from those whose babies had died from SIDS resulting from the shock of DPT vaccinations which doctors say cannot work because they are erroneously "tested" on mice, which do not reveal the disastrous effects on human babies), editing its journal and striking an alliance with M.P. Garry Knapp, with and for whom, her Society drew up a Private Members Bill "to try to abolish or prevent vivisection in New Zealand", conveniently forgetting to add that if the Bill were successful it would also abolish Mr Knapps' lucrative business of raising money precisely for that purpose!

An entrepreneur Knapp was no stranger to the New Zealand public. Nicknamed the ten-percent man he was contracted to the Cancer Research Foundation to promote funds for cancer research. This he did with what he described as "great success" with his Mystery Envelope enterprise, which profitable as it must have been took him to Britain several times where he unsuccessfully endeavoured to expand the scheme to British schools. (This as a side-line whilst he was a practising M.P. in the New Zealand Parliament.) Each week school pupils, boy-scouts and other groups were out in full force pestering the public with Knapp's mystery envelopes. The bulk of the money went to cancer research, the schools got financial compensation for soliciting, and Knapp got his 10 percent. This was roughly the rationale, though the enterprise had a sorry ending when Knapp was taken to court by several disillusioned schools who claimed he hadn't come up with the goods. It was also the demise of Knapp as a politician.

"Beware of people and institutions involved in fundraising activities for "research". To raise money towards the cure of the many diseases which conveniently remain uncured. Such people are sure never to mention the fact that substantial amounts of the monies raised finance vivisection, or that they get their own percentage of the donations."
- Text of Hidden Crimes... on the Profits of Vivisection.

Adrienne Hall became Knapp's secretary in Parliament.

The Knapp/SAFE Bill, introduced to Parliament on 7 February 1987 sought the appointment of inspectors to the laboratories, experiments to be registered with MAF and figures made available to the public, the setting up of a Committee to advise the Minister of matters relating to the content of codes of ethical conduct and the prohibition of "cruel" animal experiments. All of which entrenches, promotes and expands the industry of vivisection whilst not raising a murmur about its invalidity. This omission was pointed out to Knapp by your editor in her meeting with the politician who was keen to get NZAVS support for his Bill. He didn't. NZAVS protests were many, to the point of demonstrating against the Knapp Trap at Parliament.

In 1987 "ethics committees" (to decide which experiments are more ethical than others) were set up in New Zealand laboratories. When the RSPCA which was on the Animal Ethics Advisory Committee, invited NZAVS to join in the system our Society replied that we campaigned against the institution of vivisection, not to become part of it... SAFE, true to form joined the ethics committees, once again sanctifying the vivisection method.

In the editorial of Safeguard, Spring 1986, Hall wrote of the Parliamentary Select Committee Hearing of NZAVS Petition to Abolish the LD50 Test. (An event which, though she had no part to play, either in the Petition or the ensuing Parliamentary debate, she attended, without invitation from NZAVS, and without giving our Society the courtesy of her intentions, as self-appointed observer and critic.)

"The antics at a Select Committee Hearing in parliament in May 1985 demonstrated the need for SAFE to remain unemotional, unfanatical and therefore credible in its dealings with MPs and the public. It would be nice to be able to insist on the abolition of vivisection and not bother to make contingency plans. It would be very easy to criticise the status quo and not have a replacement the majority of the population can accept... If they can, MPs will avoid the issue of animal cruelty and exploitation. Their perfect excuse is the use of what they have heard from the vivisectors... that there is not much vivisection in New Zealand and what there is is not bad for the animals."

Thus with clockwork regularity this "unemotional, credible and sensible" associate of the politicians and the vivisectors could be relied upon to oppose all NZAVS' campaigns of the era with a fervour nothing short of fanatical, which included outbursts of emotion in the media that defied all logic and reason. Carefully omitting to criticise the vivisectors and using a smokescreen of "contingency plans, animal rights philosophy, replacements and alternatives" she studiously neglected in the above editorial to inform SAFE members that:

• NZAVS Petition focussed not on cruelty to animals, but on the massive dangers vivisection represents to human health because of the wrong methodology of vivisection;
• had SAFE shared NZAVS policy of abolition a greater proportion of the public could have been shocked into demanding immediate abolition for their health's sake;
• hundreds of doctors in 28 countries had stated that the only "alternative" to vivisection is - abolition... and that SAFE should have informed their members accordingly;
• the facts, figures and medical evidence supporting total abolition lay in NZAVS Submissions.

Hall's editorial is followed on the same page, by an appeal to SAFE members to support the Knapp policy of anaesthetics, accountability, the prohibition of "cruel" experiments and of experiments where "alternatives" are available, and the setting up of "ethics" committees. In sum Hall was New Zealand's greatest and most effective bulwark against abolition, admirably defending the status quo by providing a tailor-made rebuttal on its behalf and eventually becoming part of it by accepting a seat on one of those phoney "ethics" committees.

(Continued next page)