It seems like Animal Rights activists constantly regale us with their desire to do nothing more than work towards a "cruelty-free" world.
So you can imagine my interest when this story caught my eye:
Mike Robins is a man redeemed. Thanks to pioneering surgery, the debilitating effects of Parkinson's disease that were wrecking his life are now under tight control.
With the flick of a switch, he can turn off the uncontrollable tremors that stopped him holding down a job, having a social life or even getting to sleep. Not surprisingly, Robins reckons he is lucky to be fit and alive. Others are not so sure.
At a recent public meeting to discuss a proposed animal research centre in Oxford, 63-year-old Robins was jeered and ridiculed when he tried to show how surgery, perfected through animal experiments, had transformed his life.
'I was bayed at,' said Robins, a retired naval engineer from Southampton. 'Several hundred people were shouting. Some called out "Nazi!", "bastard!" and "Why don't you roll over and die!" I tried to speak, but was shouted down. It was utterly terrifying.'
. . . "utterely terrifying" . . . yes, but Mr. Robins' terror would undoubtedly be "cruelty-free."
I would imagine Mr. Robins experienced fear on a couple of levels. First, there is Mr. Robins' fear for his own person in such a hostile — albeit cruelty-free — environment. And secondly, he might have felt a more generalized fear at the cruelty-free lengths true believers will go to to have their way.
And what does this tell us of the brave new world offered us by our cruelty-free Animal Rights acolytes?
The attack has shocked even hardened observers of vivisection debates. 'I have seen many unpleasant things at these debates, but to scream at a middle-aged man with Parkinson's disease and then tell him he deserved to die is the worst I have observed,' said Simon Festing, director of the Research Defence Society, which defends the scientific use of animals for experimentation.
Mr. Festing and his RDS are staunch opponents of Animal Rights activists, so it's no real surprise that he would be shocked by such uncivilized behavior. But for AR people to browbeat, shout down and to wish death on a man suffering from Parkinson's disease certainly goes beyond the pall — way beyond it.
How could they do this? What's going on here?
It's simple. Animal Rights true-believers regard animals and humans as being equally valuable. In a previous post, I pointed out that it is this mind-set that allows Animal Rights people to liken eating meat and chicken farming to the holocaust; it is the mind-set of Dr. Jerry Vlasak, when he openly advocates the assassination of scientists (and seal hunters, or, in all likelihood, anyone else who engages in behavior he would proscribe . . .); and it is the mind-set of Professor Steven Best, he of the "Me First" ethic, when he assures us that if he could only save one — his dog or a human stranger — from a burning building, he'd save his dog. (To Professor Best, both lives are equally valuable, and his dog gives him pleasure and the stranger does not. Screw you or your roasting child, spouse or parent, unless Professor Best deems them worthy.)
The cruelty-free logic is clear: if you are an Animal Rights activist, you believe that each life — animal and human — is equally valuable, and it makes sense to liken the killing animals for meat to the holocaust, advocating assassination of a few scientists to save thousands of animals, each of which is of equal value to the value of a scientist, and to save your dog rather than a human stranger!
So it is perfectly in character for Animal Rights True Believers to berate and yell-down a middle aged man and to wish him dead in pursuit of their cruelty-free utopian fantasy.
The attack on Robins reveals the gulf now separating scientists who carry out animal experiments and opponents who believe they are immoral, an entrench ment that forms the background to the publication next week of a Nuffield Council for Bioethics report on animal experiments. Its authors, made up of supporters and opponents of the experiments, has established that both sides have legitimate ethical grounds for their beliefs. Their report will also attempt to highlight methods that might help each side understand the other's arguments. The attack on Robins demonstrates how difficult that task will be.
I love it . . . "Their report will also attempt to highlight methods that might help each side understand the other's arguments."
This is not a question of logic and understanding one another's arguments, but one of core beliefs, of assumptions, of values.
'I wanted people to see how a person can benefit from animal experiments,' said the Oxford surgeon Tipu Aziz who operated on Robins and spoke at the debate. 'That is why I asked Mike to appear at the debate. I am now very sorry I put him through that horrible ordeal. To these people, Mike's existence is a refutation of their core beliefs. They say animal experiments do no good. Then Mike stands up, switches his tremors on and off, and their arguments are blown away. That's why they shouted him down.'
And this an additional point: the Animal Rights people are not open to the possibility that they might be wrong. Their cruelty-free conscience tells them they are right, and their conscience is infallible . . .
This is every bit as much an example of egocentricism — or narcissism (you make the call: primary or secondary narcissism?) — as is Professor Steven Best's cruelty-free decision to save his dog, rather than your child (if a stranger to him), from a burning house: "My conscience is infallible."
Before his illness, Robins, a retired businessman, admits he was suspicious of animal experiments. Then he developed a tremor in his right hand. Doctors diagnosed stress. Only months later did he find he had Parkinson's disease, a condition affecting one in 100 people over 60, that causes tremors, facial paralysis and eventually severe physical disability. His tremors worsened and his speech became slurred. Robins, who is married with four children, was given L-dopa, but found, as others have done, it had no effect.
Robins's life continued to disintegrate. 'It was difficult to walk. I couldn't go to the pub or restaurant. My right hand was bouncing all over the place. I got very depressed. Even my family found it hard to be with me.'
Then Mike heard about research in which Parkinson's had been induced in macaque monkeys and controlled by drilling into their brains to destroy their subthalamic nuclei, the brain centre responsible for the disease. Aziz transferred this knowledge to humans and learnt how to drill into patients' brains, fit electrodes to their subthalamic nuclei and switch off their tremors.
'However, you have to remain conscious during the operation to help the surgeon guide the electrode,' said Robins. 'That puts some people off.' But not Robins. He had his brain opened up and an electrode inserted into his cortex. 'Finally it touched the nucleus and my tremors stopped instantly.'
Now Robins has a panel sewn into his chest and uses a gadget like a TV remote to control his symptoms. When Robins switches the current on his incapacitating symptoms - waving right hand and shaking right leg - disappear instantly. It was this striking demonstration of medical science that Robins hoped to give last month but was blocked because the meeting had been packed by anti-vivisectionists. 'I want to show them what had been done for me but found myself in a room full of 250 people who were baying for my blood. The venom was horrific.'
Well! The venom might have been horrific, but I'll bet it was cruelty-free! Anthony R. Pratkanis is right when he wrote:
2. Set a Rationalization Trap The rationalization trap is based on the premise: Get the person committed to the cause as soon as possible. Once a commitment is made, the nature of thought changes. The committed heart is not so much interested in a careful evaluation of the merits of a course of action but in proving that he or she is right. . . .
If you haven't read the Pratkanis article, you would be well advised to do so . . .
In any event, back to the Guardian:
After trying, unsuccessfully, to show how his implant worked, Robins sat down. 'A handful of middle-aged women, the type you would meet in Sainsbury's every day, were sitting behind me. They started hissing in my ear: "You Nazi bastard. That's what they did in concentration camps".'
Women like these form the core of the animal rights campaign, says Simon Festing. 'They are often well-dressed and middle-class, but are religious in their fanaticism... Accusing opponents of being Nazis is also a common tactic.' Robins tried again to speak but was drowned out.
. . . women, well-dressed and middle class. That's the same demographic I've seen in my dealings with Animal Rights people here in the US. And they are indeed religious in their cruelty-free fanaticism — though, in truth, no more so than the Professor Steven Best and the good doctor, Jerry Vlasak MD . . .
Still, they are all cut from the same cruelty-free cloth, to all appearances . . .
'It was if there had been a signal to shout me down. It was terrifying. On the other hand, I am not going to be silenced. Previous generations have had to go into war and be terrified before going into action. So just because I am being frightened by these activists is not a good enough excuse not to speak out. I will do this again.'
Courage isn't the state of being unafraid. Quite the contrary — courage is standing up and placing yourself at risk when you are terrified to do so, and you have the option to cut and run. Mr. Robins is a courageous man.
I suspect that Mr. Robins has been recruited to the Anti Animal Rights cause in a way that would not have happened had he not been exposed to his audience's cruelty-free hate.
I'm deeply sorry that he was exposed to such shameful behavior, but it looks as if he's going to take away something positive from what must have been horrible.
But at least the horror was cruelty-free . . .
UPDATE: 9/3/05. After publishing this story, the Guardian received many complaints that the article did not accurately reflect the events at the meeting. People at the Guardian reviewed the tape of the meeting itself with Mr. Robbins, and it appears that he exaggerated the extent to which he was heckled. There seems to be no question that some in the audience were unsympathetic to him, but he seems to have been under much less pressure than he originally claimed. I some questions about how the Guardian has handled this, but I'll leave it up to you to make your own call. One thing is sure: things aren't as clear-cut as they were originally represented to be.
Thanks to Tiger Y. for the tip.
Brian