A stone through a windscreen, a car splattered
with paint, the wall of a building covered in slogans, animal rights
activists seem more and more frequently to be using a tough,
intimidating way of highlighting their demands, and this has thrown the
spotlight on them, particularly so as far as the Dutch parliament and
police and judicial authorities are concerned. The current minister of
justice would even like to see legislative changes made so that
hardline animal rights campaigning can be dealt with more effectively.
|
|
At the end of June this year, a new report on animal rights
campaigning in the Netherlands was published. In the report, the Dutch
AIVD intelligence and security service endeavours to provide an
overview of the Dutch activists who are campaigning against industrial
farming of animals, the fur trade and testing on animals.
Rise
The service notes in the report that there has been a rise in the
number of incidents involving animal rights activists, and the number
of what are known as 'home visits' are causing the organisation
particular concern. These visits involve activists visiting the home of
their intended victim, often in disguise, in order to make threats
against the person or persons in question or to cause actual damage to
their property.
The intelligence and security service steers clear of describing the
actions of these activists as terrorism, but it's reported that they
are close to qualifying for just such a label.
Commotion
The report caused quite some commotion in the Dutch parliament's lower
house, with calls going up for tough measures to be taken. One of the
current three government parties, the Christian Democrat CDA, has even
described animal rights activism as a creeping form of terrorism. This
has led the current minister of justice, Ernst Hirsch Ballin, to say he
wants to investigate whether the law can be amended to tackle the
problem better. A section of the lower house would appear to be in
favour of a change that would render making preparations for the overt
use of violence a criminal offence.
No change
Sociologist Hein-Anton van der Heiden of the University of
Amsterdam has been watching the commotion in political circles with
mounting astonishment. He's been following animal rights organisations
for many years and sees no difference whatsoever between what's
happening now and what happened in the past. "I regard the current
level of attention as rather exaggerated."
He goes on to explain: "What's
involved here is, in fact, a relatively small group of perhaps as few
as a couple of dozen people. The comparison with terrorism is also
inaccurate. Terrorists don't have any respect for the lives of innocent
civilians. That's not the case at all with animal activists."
"Furthermore, their acts certainly haven't
got any tougher in recent times. Animal activists have always
campaigned in a fairly tough way. In the past, even lorries have been
set fire to, fences destroyed or test animals set free. These acts are
highly similar to those taking place today."
International
Yet Van der Heiden does note some changes. Animal rights
activism has, for example, become more international. In the past,
Dutch activists were inspired, in some cases even led, by English
counterparts. Nowadays, as the Dutch intelligence services also
concludes, Dutch activists themselves appear to play an important role
in campaigns throughout Europe. The organisation known as Respect voor dieren
(Respect for animals) is said to play a central role in this respect,
and is mentioned specifically in the intelligence service report.
Respect voor dieren is not at all concerned about this,
although they don't really want to get involved in a discussion about
the report and the row in parliament. This is because, as they say
themselves, this won't help the animals in any way. The organisation
says the discussion should address the question of how society treats
animals and now about a report from the Dutch intelligence service.
Nothing to hide
Of course, Respect voor dieren challenges the
conclusions reached by Dutch intelligence. Spokeswoman Nina Kroos says
her organisation has nothing to hide, and that's it's very clear about
the limits for its acts. "No one may injure a human or an animal,
that's where the limit lies," she explains. However, the throwing of a
stone or pouring paint over a car are things which, according to
Respect voor dieren, are acceptable.
"If you see how a small ape's head is cut open," she says, "or
see how many cows are killed each day, or a circus where the animals
are driven totally mad, then you can't compare that with a stone thrown
through a window pane. I think that's then justified. Look at what's
being done to those animals, then make the comparison."