(From previous page)

And so we return to the Singer/Ruesch court-case, which, resulting from the latter's revelations, illuminates the incongruity between the fearless policy of medical doctors for total and immediate abolition and the fearful policy of non-medical leaders of animal welfare/animal rights organisations who want abolition of "cruel" experiments meanwhile whilst they debate with the vivisectors on their ethics committees. The following being relevant examples: Peter Singer, whose objective of bigger cages, special breeding centres, labelling of cosmetics, and anaesthetics, anaesthetized with its archaic stupidity, the readers of his long-winded Recommendations to the Australian Government; RSPCA's Hampson, who, in stating before millions of t.v. viewers that those poor crazed monkeys are the perfect model for man publicly contradicting the doctors who warn that there is no animal model for man; and "anti-vivisectionist spokesperson" Hall, who, with perfervid and perverse antagonism conducted on major scale a calculated attack on the New Zealand organisers of a Petition to Abolish Vivisection, with a stridency suspiciously and peculiarly at odds with her weak and watery creepy-mouse policy of compromise with the vivisectors and politicians, who, along with the public, must wait patiently for "replacements" and "alternatives" to their deadly ongoing lethal drip-feed of vivisection-based medicine regardless of the ongoing carnage of victims which is reported with such boring regularity and volume in the media that NZAVS no longer keeps a record.

Looking back for a moment to the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection founded so bravely as we have learned in 1875, it is perhaps as well that its remarkable Foundress was not alive to witness over a hundred years later the destruction of her Society by the following guardians of her trust:

"We have softened our line over the past few years. We now accept that animal research in the past may have done some good... The organisation remains implacably opposed to any experiments, even if they were the only way to find a cure for cancer."
- Steve McIvor, National Campaigns Organiser for the BUAV in an interview with the British Independent, Tuesday 12 June 1990.

"As the dominant research methodology of the twentieth century it is undeniable that animal research has been part of many medical advances."
- Gill Langley, Scientific Advisor to BUAV and Animal Aid, in the Independent, Summer 1990.

And perhaps a glimpse at the British Animal Aid:

"I do not believe that it is true to say that no animal experiment has contributed anything worthwhile to science or medicine... if anyone should prove conclusively that animal research has not contributed to medical progress, then the campaign against animal experiments would collapse in the public's eyes."
- Gill Langley, Scientific Adviser to Animal Aid - in a letter to Norman Giffard dated 12 March 1987.

NOTE: Ex-vivisector of eight years, Langley is wife of ex-vivisector Chris Langley, member from 1979 to 1982 of the Medical Research Council. Since 1982 employed at the London's CIBA Foundation - of the notorious drugs/chemical empire.

And a snippet from the RSPCA (perhaps in defence of its corrupt and immoral investments).

"Medical science has gained a great deal from experiments on animals and will continue to do so. So what can be achieved demanding abolition of animal experiments, or even of all painful experiments? In my view, very little. I believe that we have to accept that some painful experiments will continue."
- Judith Hampson (colleague of Peter Singer, brought by AFAS to speak for the animals(!) at the Australian Senate Select Committee of investigation into animal experimentation) writing in the Fall 1981 issue of the RSPCA Journal.

By now, even the slow learner will be aware that Petitions and other moves to abolish vivisection if they embrace the abolitionist principles, are defeated, not by the vivisectors or the politicians, who, with friends like Singer, Hampson, Hall and the like, have no need to raise a voice on their own behalf, the case being put so adequately for them by these clever leaders of organisations whose policies and motives go unquestioned by their members, but by a tiny minority, which, sharing the common denominator of access to such organisations and the authority and ability to influence their members, the media and the public, are easily identifiable by their universal message, method of manoeuvre and modus operandi. Predictably and coincidentally, when NZAVS Petition collapsed because it was constantly, blatantly and violently opposed in the media by the spokesperson of a supposed anti-vivisection outfit (though it was supported by the various leagues of doctors against vivisection), like her predecessor, Hall took one of the slow, sensible and credible steps she repeatedly advocated. It did not however head in the direction of abolition but into oblivion, as mission accomplished she disappeared from the scene, a step which was unsurprisingly followed within the week by the receipt by NZAVS of a letter (dated 17 August 1991) from the society she had represented suggesting that with Hall's resignation NZAVS work more closely with SAFE for the "common cause"!

(Continued next page)