DOCSLIB.ORG

C O N F I D E N T I

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
C O N F I D E N T I Personalizing the Cause: Activists Targeting the Homes and Families of Business Executives CONFIDENTIAL Personalizing the Cause: Activists Targeting the Homes and Families Of Business Executives “The Earth is not dying -- it is being killed. And the people who are killing it have names and addresses.” -- U. Utah Phillips Summary Since 1999, the animal rights group Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC) has waged a campaign of harassment, intimidation, vandalism and assault against the executives of Huntingdon Life Sciences Inc. (HLS), a medical research firm that uses lab animals. It has been a relentless campaign that also has targeted those who do business with HLS. As a result, banks, pension funds and insurance companies have abandoned HLS, which is now experiencing significant financial problems. Because the campaign has been so successful, and given the interrelationships among activist groups and their increasingly aggressive behavior, Stratfor believes other activist groups will soon adopt SHAC’s tactics and target business executives at their homes. Corporate security managers need to plan accordingly. Steps should be taken to protect the personal information of company executives and officers and to assess and upgrade their residential security, as needed. SHAC’s Campaign Against HLS In late 1999, animal rights activists in the United Kingdom formed the group Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC) for the sole purpose of driving Huntingdon Life Sciences Inc. (HLS), Europe’s largest animal testing laboratory, out of business. SHAC’s campaign has been intense, relentless and highly effective. The effectiveness of the campaign has been a result of two novel and complimentary tactics. The first was the decision to target not only HLS itself but also the company’s customers, suppliers, financial institutions and other service providers. The second tactic was to make the activism personal, literally bringing it to the doorsteps of corporate executives and employees involved with HLS. SHAC’s often-stated goal is to cause companies to question whether doing business with HLS is really worth the trouble they will incur from protesters. According to information published on SHAC’s Web sites, the group has caused more than 160 companies and organizations to stop doing business with HLS. In addition to a customer base of pharmaceutical, cosmetic and medical companies, targets of the SHAC campaign have included investment banks, insurance companies and retirement funds as well as companies such as Xerox, FedEx and UPS. Due to the loss of investors and bank loans, HLS stock decreased dramatically in value and was taken off the London Stock Exchange in 2001. In early 2002, HLS reincorporated as a new company called “Life CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL Strategic Forecasting, Inc. Page 1 4/26/2005 Science Research” and moved its financial listing and corporate headquarters to the United States. While conducting public protests and direct-action attacks against company headquarters and other facilities, SHAC activists also aimed their ire at key corporate decision-makers at their homes. The most extreme example of this “personalization” occurred in February 2001, when three masked men ambushed HLS Managing Director Brian Cass outside of his residence and brutally assaulted him with pickaxe handles. In the past, other groups such as the AIDS activist group ACT-UP! and the Committee in Solidarity with the People of El Salvador (CISPES) have occasionally protested at the homes of people they hoped to influence, sent them letters at home or made crank calls to their residential phones. SHAC differs from these other groups by its relentless execution of the tactic -- and by the considerable amount of damage it has caused to personal property. Quantifying the Campaign Since its inception, SHAC -- and the closely related Animal Liberation Front (ALF) -- have conducted thousands of acts of vandalism and harassment directed personally at HLS executives and employees and those of firms related to HLS. From Jan. 1, 2004 to March 15, 2005, SHAC publicly claimed responsibility for 205 actions of this type -- actions directed against an executive or employee at his or her home. This number does not include attacks against company offices, vehicles or property. In these 205 “personal” attacks, the group has damaged 156 cars (usually by pouring paint stripper on them and/or slashing their tires) and has committed vandalism or conducted protests at 108 homes. (The numbers do not add up to 205 because in some cases they hit the target’s home and car and in others they hit multiple cars.) Of these 205 attacks 129 occurred in the United Kingdom, 49 in the United States, nine in Italy, four in Spain, three each in Germany and Canada, two each in New Zealand, the Netherlands and Sweden and one each in Austria and Switzerland. The British government reportedly made numerous animal rights-related arrests in 2004. One British SHAC/ALF suspect, Sarah Gisborne, was recently convicted and sentenced to six and a half years in prison for a string of five attacks in July 2004 that caused more than $80,000 in damage to eight vehicles. Gisborne has nine previous convictions, including two for assaulting a police officer and one for an attack against the home of the brother of HLS Managing Director Cass. She has served two previous jail terms. The British court system also has issued injunctions to protect several companies against protester activity. However, as we see from the following item on the SHAC-USA Web site (www.shacamerica.net), injunctions and convictions have not been able to protect the targets from SHAC and ALF operatives. CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL Strategic Forecasting, Inc. Page 2 4/26/2005 March 7, 2005 (U.K.) Inspired by the actions of others and following a period of covert surveillance we carried out our first economic sabotage attacks against HLS collaborators. Target 1: Fisher Scientific employee Michael John Harpe, 283 Beacon Road, Loughborough, LE11 2RA. Two cars and a camper van parked in his driveway have their tyres slashed and one of the cars is treated to a new paint job. Target 2: Fisher Scientific director Sally Reynolds, 75 Main Street, Newton Linford, Leicestershire. Two cars parked in her garage have all their tyres slashed and black paint sprayed over them, covering the windows, lights, number plates and paint work. Slogans also sprayed on internal garage walls: “To Save Innocent Life, Direct Action Must be Taken,” “Free the Animals” and “Free Sarah Gisbourne!” ALF. In May 2004, a federal grand jury in Newark, N.J. indicted SHAC-USA and seven individual members of the group (known in the activist universe as “The SHAC 7”) on charges that included violation of the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act. The trial is scheduled for June 2005. Despite the arrests and law enforcement action, the SHAC campaign in the United States appears to be accelerating. Of the 205 SHAC incidents since Jan. 1, 2004, 49 were conducted in the United States. Forty of those were staged in the first 10 weeks of 2005. This indicates a definite upward trend in this type of activity in the United States. SHAC’s motto is: “We never give in and we always win.” The group certainly has not given in, despite the mounting legal pressure, and the damage it has done to HLS shows that it frequently does win. CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL Strategic Forecasting, Inc. Page 3 4/26/2005 Interrelationships As we can see from the number of companies that have severed their ties with HLS -- and the economic damage done to HLS and its shareholders -- SHAC has enjoyed great success with its unique combination of tactics. We must remember that SHAC does not operate in a vacuum but is part of a broad array of animal rights and environmentalist groups. And there is a great deal of interaction among these groups. We have often seen training sessions conducted by people like the Ruckus Society, where members of animal rights groups like the ALF are sitting in class next to people from Greenpeace, the Rainforest Action Network (RAN), the Black Block and other groups. During these training sessions, groups share ideas, and it is not uncommon to see groups of various persuasions using the same tactics in their protests and direct-action operations. For example, several different groups use the same design for “dragon sleeves,” devices they use to lock themselves to each other and to buildings and other structures. Activists from various groups also frequently use the same climbing techniques during banner drops and the same techniques to conduct surveillance of potential targets. (See our white paper “Raising a Ruckus,” which describes Ruckus Society surveillance training.) In addition, there are often informal agreements by which an animal rights group will support an anti-globalization group’s protest in return for the anti-globalization group’s sending members to support the animal rights group’s protest the following month. At really large protests such as the infamous “Battle in Seattle” or protests against the G8 or the World Bank, activist groups will often form affinity groups that quite frequently incorporate activists from a number of different backgrounds who are interested in a particular issue or action. The planning for these large protests begins months in advance with activists closely collaborating with one another. These large protests, which bring together activists from around the country and from around the world, are fertile ground for groups to share strategies, tactics and war stories. Because of these factors, Stratfor believes it is only a matter of time before other groups take notice of SHAC’s success and begin to emulate it. In fact, such emulation is encouraged by many of these groups, as can be seen from this quote from the Ruckus Society’s Action Planning Manual: CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL Strategic Forecasting, Inc.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • UNITED for People and Animals
    NEWS May 2020 - Issue 125 UNITED for people and animals COVID-19 Research Updates Our incredible Journey & Impacts Protect the Animal Free Future Contents CHAIR OF THE BOARD .......................................... 3 FROM OUR PATRON .............................................. 4 MESSAGE FROM CEO ............................................ 5 OUR HISTORY ........................................................ 6 CELEBRATING 50 YEARS ....................................... 8 ARC 1.0 .................................................................10 ARC 2.0 .................................................................11 CURRENT PROJECTS ..........................................12 THE COVID-19 VACCINE PARADOX ..................14 CURRENT PROJECTS: COVID-19 .......................16 REVIEW .................................................................18 MEET THE SAP .....................................................20 PARTNERSHIPS ....................................................22 YOUR IMPACT FOR ANIMALS .............................24 FABULOUS FUNDRAISERS ..................................26 HOW YOU CAN HELP ..........................................28 SHOPPING ...........................................................30 FROM OUR PATRON ............................................31 BOARD OF TRUSTEES CHAIR: Ms Laura-Jane Sheridan VICE CHAIR: Ms Natalie Barbosa TREASURER: Mr Daniel Cameron Dr Christopher (Kit) Byatt Professor Amanda Ellison Ms Julia Jones COMPANY SECRETARY: Ms Sally Luther Animal Free Research UK SCIENTIFIC
    [Show full text]
  • Disaggregating the Scare from the Greens
    DISAGGREGATING THE SCARE FROM THE GREENS Lee Hall*† INTRODUCTION When the Vermont Law Review graciously asked me to contribute to this Symposium focusing on the tension between national security and fundamental values, specifically for a segment on ecological and animal- related activism as “the threat of unpopular ideas,” it seemed apt to ask a basic question about the title: Why should we come to think of reverence for life or serious concern for the Earth that sustains us as “unpopular ideas”? What we really appear to be saying is that the methods used, condoned, or promoted by certain people are unpopular. So before we proceed further, intimidation should be disaggregated from respect for the environment and its living inhabitants. Two recent and high-profile law-enforcement initiatives have viewed environmental and animal-advocacy groups as threats in the United States. These initiatives are the Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC) prosecution and Operation Backfire. The former prosecution targeted SHAC—a campaign to close one animal-testing firm—and referred also to the underground Animal Liberation Front (ALF).1 The latter prosecution *. Legal director of Friends of Animals, an international animal-rights organization founded in 1957. †. Lee Hall, who can be reached at [email protected], thanks Lydia Fiedler, the Vermont Law School, and Friends of Animals for making it possible to participate in the 2008 Symposium and prepare this Article for publication. 1. See Indictment at 14–16, United States v. Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty USA, Inc., No. 3:04-cr-00373-AET-2 (D.N.J. May 27, 2004), available at http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/nj/press/files/ pdffiles/shacind.pdf (last visited Apr.
    [Show full text]
  • United States V. Fullmer and the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act: "True Threats" to Advocacy Michael Hill
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Case Western Reserve University School of Law Case Western Reserve Law Review Volume 61 | Issue 3 2011 United States v. Fullmer and the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act: "True Threats" to Advocacy Michael Hill Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/caselrev Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Michael Hill, United States v. Fullmer and the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act: "True Threats" to Advocacy, 61 Case W. Res. L. Rev. 981 (2011) Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/caselrev/vol61/iss3/8 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Journals at Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Case Western Reserve Law Review by an authorized administrator of Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. UNITED STATES V. FULLMER AND THE ANIMAL ENTERPRISE TERRORISM ACT: “TRUE THREATS” TO ADVOCACY INTRODUCTION The past three decades witnessed the emergence of animal law and a diffusion of animal welfare beliefs and practices throughout society.1 An increasing number of Americans adhere to vegetarianism and veganism, oppose the use of animals in research, and believe that animals have the right to an existence free from suffering.2 This increased acceptance, like most change, is directly attributable to the efforts of advocates and the robust and uninhibited protection of speech that the First Amendment affords them, but recent 1 The Animal Legal Defense Fund was founded in 1979.
    [Show full text]
  • Physiology-2021-Abstract-Book.Pdf (Physoc.Org)
    Physiology 2021 Our Annual Conference 12 – 16 July 2021 Online | Worldwide #Physiology2021 Contents Prize Lectures 1 Symposia 7 Oral Communications 63 Poster Communications 195 Abstracts Experiments on animals and animal tissues It is a requirement of The Society that all vertebrates (and Octopus vulgaris) used in experiments are humanely treated and, where relevant, humanely killed. To this end authors must tick the appropriate box to confirm that: For work conducted in the UK, all procedures accorded with current UK legislation. For work conducted elsewhere, all procedures accorded with current national legislation/guidelines or, in their absence, with current local guidelines. Experiments on humans or human tissue Authors must tick the appropriate box to confirm that: All procedures accorded with the ethical standards of the relevant national, institutional or other body responsible for human research and experimentation, and with the principles of the World Medical Association’s Declaration of Helsinki. Guidelines on the Submission and Presentation of Abstracts Please note, to constitute an acceptable abstract, The Society requires the following ethical criteria to be met. To be acceptable for publication, experiments on living vertebrates and Octopus vulgaris must conform with the ethical requirements of The Society regarding relevant authorisation, as indicated in Step 2 of submission. Abstracts of Communications or Demonstrations must state the type of animal used (common name or genus, including man. Where applicable, abstracts must specify the anaesthetics used, and their doses and route of administration, for all experimental procedures (including preparative surgery, e.g. ovariectomy, decerebration, etc.). For experiments involving neuromuscular blockade, the abstract must give the type and dose, plus the methods used to monitor the adequacy of anaesthesia during blockade (or refer to a paper with these details).
    [Show full text]
  • Animals Liberation Philosophy and Policy Journal Volume 5, Issue 2
    AAnniimmaallss LLiibbeerraattiioonn PPhhiilloossoopphhyy aanndd PPoolliiccyy JJoouurrnnaall VVoolluummee 55,, IIssssuuee 22 -- 22000077 Animal Liberation Philosophy and Policy Journal Volume 5, Issue 2 2007 Edited By: Steven Best, Chief Editor ____________________________________________________________ TABLE OF CONTENTS Lev Tolstoy and the Freedom to Choose One’s Own Path Andrea Rossing McDowell Pg. 2-28 Jewish Ethics and Nonhuman Animals Lisa Kemmerer Pg. 29-47 Deliberative Democracy, Direct Action, and Animal Advocacy Stephen D’Arcy Pg. 48-63 Should Anti-Vivisectionists Boycott Animal-Tested Medicines? Katherine Perlo Pg. 64-78 A Note on Pedagogy: Humane Education Making a Difference Piers Bierne and Meena Alagappan Pg. 79-94 BOOK REVIEWS _________________ Fast Food Nation: The Dark Side of the All-American Meal, by Eric Schlosser (2005) Reviewed by Lisa Kemmerer Pg. 95-101 Eternal Treblinka: Our Treatment of Animals and the Holocaust, by Charles Patterson (2002) Reviewed by Steven Best Pg. 102-118 The Longest Struggle: Animal Advocacy from Pythagoras to PETA, by Norm Phelps (2007) Reviewed by Steven Best Pg. 119-130 Journal for Critical Animal Studies, Volume V, Issue 2, 2007 Lev Tolstoy and the Freedom to Choose One’s Own Path Andrea Rossing McDowell, PhD It is difficult to be sat on all day, every day, by some other creature, without forming an opinion about them. On the other hand, it is perfectly possible to sit all day every day, on top of another creature and not have the slightest thought about them whatsoever. -- Douglas Adams, Dirk Gently’s Holistic Detective Agency (1988) Committed to the idea that the lives of humans and animals are inextricably linked, Lev Nikolayevich Tolstoy (1828–1910) promoted—through literature, essays, and letters—the animal world as another venue in which to practice concern and kindness, consequently leading to more peaceful, consonant human relations.
    [Show full text]
  • The Use of Non-Human Primates in Research in Primates Non-Human of Use The
    The use of non-human primates in research The use of non-human primates in research A working group report chaired by Sir David Weatherall FRS FMedSci Report sponsored by: Academy of Medical Sciences Medical Research Council The Royal Society Wellcome Trust 10 Carlton House Terrace 20 Park Crescent 6-9 Carlton House Terrace 215 Euston Road London, SW1Y 5AH London, W1B 1AL London, SW1Y 5AG London, NW1 2BE December 2006 December Tel: +44(0)20 7969 5288 Tel: +44(0)20 7636 5422 Tel: +44(0)20 7451 2590 Tel: +44(0)20 7611 8888 Fax: +44(0)20 7969 5298 Fax: +44(0)20 7436 6179 Fax: +44(0)20 7451 2692 Fax: +44(0)20 7611 8545 Email: E-mail: E-mail: E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Web: www.acmedsci.ac.uk Web: www.mrc.ac.uk Web: www.royalsoc.ac.uk Web: www.wellcome.ac.uk December 2006 The use of non-human primates in research A working group report chaired by Sir David Weatheall FRS FMedSci December 2006 Sponsors’ statement The use of non-human primates continues to be one the most contentious areas of biological and medical research. The publication of this independent report into the scientific basis for the past, current and future role of non-human primates in research is both a necessary and timely contribution to the debate. We emphasise that members of the working group have worked independently of the four sponsoring organisations. Our organisations did not provide input into the report’s content, conclusions or recommendations.
    [Show full text]
  • Inside Huntingdon Life Sciences
    Inside Huntingdon Life Sciences A shocking report into what goes on behind the razor wire at Huntingdon Life Sciences written by two people who worked there in 2005 Huntingdon Life Sciences: A History of Abuse Huntingdon Life Sciences are no strangers to controversy. In 1989 they were first exposed by Sarah Kite working for the BUAV. She worked there for 6 months. This first undercover job saw international press coverage of Huntingdon LIfe Sciences for the first time. In 1997 Zoe Broughton worked undercover inside HLS in the UK for 9 weeks. She filmed, with a hidden camera, workers punching, shaking and terrifying 4 month old beagle pups. The resulting footage screened on national TV saw the suspension of Huntingdon’s licence. Also in 1997 and entirely separately, Michelle Rokke worked inside Huntingdon’s US lab in New Jersey. She filmed monkeys being cut open whilst they were still conscious, something reported here in 2005. In 2001 we received documents from inside Huntingdon’s lab in Occold, Suffolk. These showed that a worker was frequently on drugs and was dealing drugs on site. Another worker turned up drunk but was only disciplined for turning up late. Also in 2001 we recived a massive leak of documents relating to 5 years of experiments. These were xenotransplantation experiments on wild caught baboons for the Swiss pharmaceutical giant Novartis. Hunting- don were frequently criticised by Novartis for sloppy procedures and they broke GLP (Good Laboratory Practice) 520 times during the course of these experiments. “ The dog was laid on its back and the bone marrow taken from the chest bone.
    [Show full text]
  • ECVAM Statement on the Scientific Validity of the EPISKIN Test
    European Commission ECVAM, TP 580 JRC Environment Institute 21020 Ispra (VA) Italy ECVAM European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods STATEMENT ON THE SCIENTIFIC VALIDITY OF THE EPISKINTM TEST (AN IN VITRO TEST FOR SKIN CORROSIVITY) At its 10th meeting, held on 31 March 1998 at the European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods (ECVAM), Ispra, Italy, the ECVAM Scientific Advisory Committee (ESAC)1 unanimously endorsed the following statement: The results obtained with the EPISKINTM test (involving the use of a reconstructed human skin model) in the ECVAM international validation study on in vitro tests for skin corrosivity were reproducible, both within and between the three laboratories that performed the test. The EPISKIN test proved applicable to testing a diverse group of chemicals of different physical forms, including organic acids, organic bases, neutral organics, inorganic acids, inorganic bases, inorganic salts, electrophiles, phenols and soaps/ surfactants. The concordances between the skin corrosivity classifications derived from the in vitro data and from the in vivo data were very good. The test was able to distinguish between corrosive and non­ corrosive chemicals for all of the chemical types studied; it was also able to distinguish between known R35 (UN2 packing group I) and R34 (UN packing groups II & III) chemicals. The Committee therefore agrees with the conclusion from this formal validation study that the EPISKIN test is scientifically validated for use as a replacement for the animal test,
    [Show full text]
  • Christians Against All Animal Abuse
    Christians Against All Animal Abuse Pastor James & Doreen Thompson, Peace Haven, Fron Park Rd. Holywell. Clwyd CH8 7UY Spring Edition: 2004 Great Cause To Rejoice! What brilliant news we read concerning Girton College extension in Cambridge' Obviously, the whole animal rights brigade is winning. Just as Shamrock Farm had to close, followed later by the notorious Hillgrove Farm run by Farmer Brown, so Cambridge University has had to capitulate. Well, what is the next animal Belsen we need to approach? Undoubtedly Huntingdon, and not forgetting Newchurch! Yes, and an Oxford before it begins! No single group can claim victory for what has happened at Cambridge. Nor would they wish to! Larger organisations, which are well financed, had certainly contributed; But, for myself, I think of militant and highly respectable individuals who have tirelessly worked behind the scenes. And if any single individual deserves adulation and yet would be the very last to admit it then I would single out Miss Joan Court - a true veteran campaigner with a heart of gold for both animals and humans. And, have you heard the latest? This most sprightly octogenarian hopes to ride the high seas. Yes, as a member of the crew of Sea Shepherd's 'Farley Mowett'; a modern day ark for the protection of seals from despicable and inhumane carnage. Yes, congratulations and bon voyage to our beloved Joan of Ark. One to whom I was honoured to be linked, while she led the demo below through Cambridge: 1 Militancy Discarded For Shallower Worship Well, our task is not to sit back with the knowledge that we've all contributed towards a finished work well done! Rather let such a recent victory as that at Cambridge gladden our hearts and give us extra impetus to 'fight the good fight'.
    [Show full text]
  • “But It's Just a Fish”: Understanding the Challenges of Applying the 3Rs
    animals Article “But It’s Just a Fish”: Understanding the Challenges of Applying the 3Rs in Laboratory Aquariums in the UK Reuben Message * and Beth Greenhough School of Geography and the Environment, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 2JD, UK; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] Received: 29 October 2019; Accepted: 28 November 2019; Published: 3 December 2019 Simple Summary: Fish are widely used in research and some species have become important model organisms in the biosciences. Despite their importance, their welfare has usually been less of a focus of public interest or regulatory attention than the welfare of more familiar terrestrial and mammalian laboratory animals; indeed, the use of fish in experiments has often been viewed as ethically preferable or even neutral. Adopting a social science perspective and qualitative methodology to address stakeholder understandings of the problem of laboratory fish welfare, this paper examines the underlying social factors and drivers that influence thinking, priorities and implementation of fish welfare initiatives and the 3Rs (Replacement, Reduction and Refinement) for fish. Illustrating the case with original stakeholder interviews and experience of participant observation in zebrafish facilities, this paper explores some key social factors influencing the take up of the 3Rs in this context. Our findings suggest the relevance of factors including ambient cultural perceptions of fish, disagreements about the evidence on fish pain and suffering, the language of regulators, and the experiences of scientists and technologists who develop and put the 3Rs into practice. The discussion is focused on the UK context, although the main themes will be pertinent around the world.
    [Show full text]
  • How Food Not Bombs Challenged Capitalism, Militarism, and Speciesism in Cambridge, MA Alessandra Seiter Vassar College, [email protected]
    Vassar College Digital Window @ Vassar Senior Capstone Projects 2016 Veganism of a different nature: how food not bombs challenged capitalism, militarism, and speciesism in Cambridge, MA Alessandra Seiter Vassar College, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalwindow.vassar.edu/senior_capstone Recommended Citation Seiter, Alessandra, "Veganism of a different nature: how food not bombs challenged capitalism, militarism, and speciesism in Cambridge, MA" (2016). Senior Capstone Projects. Paper 534. This Open Access is brought to you for free and open access by Digital Window @ Vassar. It has been accepted for inclusion in Senior Capstone Projects by an authorized administrator of Digital Window @ Vassar. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Veganism of a Different Nature How Food Not Bombs Challenged Capitalism, Militarism, and Speciesism in Cambridge, MA Alessandra Seiter May 2016 Senior Thesis Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Bachelor of Arts degree in Geography _______________________________________________ Adviser, Professor Yu Zhou Table of Contents Acknowledgements .............................................................................................................................. 2 Chapter 1: FNB’s Ideology of Anti-Militarism, Anti-Capitalism, and Anti-Speciesism ............ 3 Chapter 2: A Theoretical Framework for FNB’s Ideology .......................................................... 19 Chapter 3: Hypothesizing FNB’s Development
    [Show full text]
  • Animals in Science Regulation Unit Annual Report 2015
    Animals in Science Regulation Unit Annual Report 2017 © Crown copyright 2018 This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit http://nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government- licence/version/3/ or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: [email protected]. Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned. ISBN: 978-1-78655-740-7 © Crown copyright 2018 This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit http://nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government- licence/version/3/ or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: [email protected]. Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned. ISBN: 978-1-78655-757-5 Contents Ministerial foreword 4 Section 6: Inspection 19 Inspection 19 Foreword 5 Baseline setting 19 Risk management 20 Section 1: What the Animals in Science Regulation Inspector training and continuous professional Unit does 7 development 20 The Policy and Administration Group 7 Inspection reporting 21 Investigating allegations made to the Animals in Science Regulation Unit 21 Section 2: The regulatory framework 9 Judicial Reviews 9 Section 7: Compliance 22
    [Show full text]