The battle for abolition in New Zealand took place not as anticipated in the hallowed chambers of Parliament but in the columns of the daily papers. The enemy was not the vivisector or his political associate, but the RNZSPCA and the A/V group Save Animals From Exploitation, the latter, from the vantage point of the daily papers, in full glare of the public, conducting its barrage of attacks on NZAVS' policy of abolition. Utilising publicity engendered by our Society's Petition SAFE took the opportunity of propagandising its policy of:

"more sensible small steps, albeit slowly"

The RNZSPCA, more fearful for its image, conducted a more subtle campaign. On 26 April 1991 on behalf of its members and the members of 53 branches of local SPCAs it lodged a Submission to Parliament opposing the Petition in which it stated it requires no change to the law. Ironically some members of the RNZSPCA and the local branches of the SPCAs had not only signed, but had expended time and expense in promoting the Petition. A fact which didn't stop their betrayal by the RNZSPCA.

The vivisectors had no need to prepare their defence. The politicians no commitment to hear the evidence. The RNZSPCA and SAFE fought against NZAVS Petition for the Abolition of Vivisection in NZ on their behalf.

ALF torches meat trucks

On a different subject the writer has a searing memory of SAFE's slug below the belt in a letter to the Evening Post of 5 January 1987. SAFE wrote to agree with an E.P. editorial of 16 December 1986 which viciously condemned the writer, who, when interviewed by E.P. reporters had upheld ALF's action in which meat trucks were torched (with no damage to human or animal life) at Lower Hutt. (Major front-page article, Evening Post 4 December 1986.) SAFE's letter was signed "Adrienne Hall, Spokesperson, Save Animals From Experiments (Inc.)" and it agreed with this disgraceful editorial thus:

"Your editorial holds a number of truths:

• The nonsense of [the writer] condoning the torching of meat trucks.
• The gutless condoning [by the writer] of ALF's action.
• The label 'blind fanaticism' [put by the editorial] to the execution of such vandalism."

Those in the inner circle of NZAVS' affairs at this period would unhesitantly pin the label of "blind fanatic" on the chest of Adrienne Hall, as they remember the public attacks on NZAVS and ALF which was Hall's method of obtaining publicity for an organisation, which, repeatedly smashed its way into the spotlight by besmirching the actions of others - whilst appealing for common sense and reason in anti-vivisectionists' dealings with those routinely engaged in animal torture.

Ansett Airlines

Recently an irresponsible buffoon in SAFE's publicity department made yet another in a long line of contemptible interferences in the affairs of NZAVS. In 1994 NZAVS supported an international appeal to persuade all world airlines to implement a policy of not transporting primates destined for biomedical research. To this end, in conjunction with Guardians in Australia NZAVS targetted Ansett, the only uncooperative airline in Australasia (Qantas and Air New Zealand had long since established suitable policy). Though BUAV's dramatic and harrowing article portraying the carnage involved in primate transports was reproduced in Safeguard, conversely when SAFE was handed the opportunity to bear weight on Ansett its spokesperson, unsurprisingly in light of past betrayals, told the firm she was:

"satisfied the situation wasn't an issue"!

The incident happened when Ansett, which had been unable to contact the writer had telephoned SAFE. Omitting to respect the time-honoured unwritten established rule of not commenting, discussing or giving opinions on another Society's affairs, in another typical diplomatic howler, which demonstrated not only considerable lack of common sense but abysmal ignorance of the issue at stake, SAFE spokesperson told Ansett she was "satisfied the situation wasn't an issue"! As the BUAV article was aimed precisely at effecting world policy for all airlines it must be concluded, if SAFE considered it wasn't an issue, it reproduced the article solely for its sensational value.

Despite the speed with which Ansett attempted to beat NZAVS with the stick provided by SAFE, in a breakthrough success the firm eventually, through NZAVS' persistence, came into line with other airlines and implemented the policy shown in this Mobilise! (http://www.nzavs.org.nz/mobilise/43/3.html)

"Join SAFE and encourage others to help end animal experiments"...

...urges SAFE in 1995. To this end it recommends the works of Peter Singer, Bernard E. Rollin (friend of ANZCCART) and the BUAV. As has been revealed neither Singer nor Rollin condemn vivisection which they both uphold. As for the BUAV, in an interview with the British Independent, Tuesday 12 June 1990, Steve McIvor, then BUAV National Campaigns Organiser said:

"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."

Obviously McIvor would have been flooded with letters from abolitionists protesting this eulogy to vivisection, asking why he forgot to mention the fundamental fact that most cancer is caused by the products of vivisection! In the same article Gill Langley, ex-vivisector, then scientific adviser to BUAV and Animal Aid said:

"As the dominant research methodology of the twentieth century it is undeniable that animal research has been part of many medical advances."

She did not however say what those advances are! Undoubtedly those who support groups that propagandise the works of Singer, Rollin and the BUAV might just as well send their subscriptions, donations and legacies direct to the local cancer society.

"Ignorance is bliss... help end the suffering... join SAFE"...

reads the July 1995 SAFE Campaign Report.

• How many SAFE supporters are in 'blissful ignorance' of the fact that when SAFE had the easy opportunity to "help end the suffering" by promoting NZAVS Petition to Abolish the LD50 Test in 1984, that society openly opposed the Petition and publicised the Knapp Trap, masterminded between SAFE and a wheeler and dealer who made a business of getting his ten percent from vivisection?
• How many SAFE supporters are in 'blissful ignorance' of the fact that when SAFE had the easy opportunity to "help end the suffering" by promoting NZAVS Petition to Abolish Vivisection 1987, that society vehemently opposed the Petition and conducted a campaign slandering it on the grounds that to ask for vivisection to be abolished is "unreasonable and unrealistic"?

NZAVS was the only group in New Zealand to concentrate on the issue of abolition on scientific and medical grounds. With evidence provided by Hans Ruesch the writer very quickly learned that moral and philosophical arguments have nothing to do with abolition . Fortunately an increasing number of people are beginning to recognise the grave damage caused to the abolitionist movement by the "animal rights" slogan and the well-meaning "animal rights activists". The enthusiastic campaigners handing out their "rats have rights" balloons, as shown in the latest edition of Animal Info , will have to come to terms with the fact that such actions are the greatest threat to abolition because they pose not the slightest tremor of concern, but actually assist the vivisectors by providing a springboard for promoting publicity for the biomedical empire.