Yeah arson is non-violent. I've been a member of an organisation attacked by the ALF. They are non-violent in the same way that ducks are non-quacking.
I can see this discussion is a waste of time. I meet your criteria, you move the goal posts. I show you a lie, you say it is just misleading. You point to a site which is complete with citations for every fact they list, and all you can do is point to a picture of Goering.
"Admittedly, misleading people is antithetical to science, and therefore arguably anti-scientific. But why didn't you just make that the basis of your argument in the first place?!"
Because the case I presented was sufficient for any well informed person to follow my position. You asked for more evidence, so I gave you it. You don't get to complain when you ask for more evidence and then I provide it.
They were in no way thinking of brufen. They were almost certainly thinkig of asprin. I even think that the article I gave you lists the source of this misnomer.
You want me to do a few more? Although I rather get the impression no amount of evidence would satisfy you, lets do some more.
"Thousands of drugs passed safe in animals have been withdrawn or banned due to their effect on human health."
This is very often due to human trials (or actual usage) revealing side effects which the animal experiments did not reveal due to small statistics. They have taken an arguement for more animal testing and presented it as one for less. Both clearly misleading and intentional.
"When the producers of thalidomide were taken to court, they were aquitted after numerous experts agreed animal tests could not be relied on for human medicine."
This is a blatent lie. Animal tests have shown that thalidomide causes birth defects. This is again a problem with not enough animal testing. The drug was not tested on pregnant animals, but used on pregnant women.
"At least 450 methods exist with which we can replace animal experiments."
This is a monstrous lie. How exactly are we going to do studies on the anatomy of say the cat basal ganglia without cutting open a cats head?
"Morphine puts humans asleep but excites cats."
Morphine has the same effect in cats as it does in humans at equivilant doses.
Do I really have to keep going? I'm not writing a propaganda piece. It isn't my fault if many of the statistics they list are either completely meaningless without a citation "Less than 2% of human illnesses (1.16%) are ever seen in animals. Over 98% never are." - with no definition of illness) or meaningless without context.
The page I sent you to was not a propaganda piece. It is kind of hard to write a propaganda piece as a sequence of facts with citations, which is basically what that page is. The only real way you could do it is be selective in what facts you present, and this is a response to AR propaganda so the oposition took the topic. As for Goering, they say later down the page
"None of this is intended to imply that all AR supporters are card-carrying fascists. However, it does make it clear that support for AR is certainly not 'progressive' and in fact is confined to the political fringes. "
They in no way try a reductio ad hitlerum.
Are you really going to insist for more evidence, or are you finally convinced?
I think Jerry Vlasak might have some input on that. Given he has called for the murder of scientists. They have that tenet on their website for PR purposes. The only reason they don't kill people is because the outcry would all but guarantee a backlash against them that would destroy them.
"According to animal tests lemon juice is deadly poison, but arsenic, hemlock and botulin are safe."
You are not in the biological sciences if you don't realise this (taken from the SHAC link) is a blatent lie.
All of the above have been shown to be either poisons or fine using appropriate animal models. They are being deliberately misleading since some of these chemicals have high LD50 scores in certain animals (which are known to be inappropriate animal models for these kinds of mechanisms).
"Aspirin fails animal tests, as do digitalis (heart drug), cancer treatments, insulin (causes animal birth defects), penicillin and other safe medicines. They would be banned if results from animal experimentation were accurate."
This is simply false. Aspirin is fatal to cats only it crazy doses and would pass animal tests no problem.
This list of lies on this page is astounding. For example see.
I've picked a few at random, but really most of the statements they have made are either deliberately misleading, or just plain false. A couple of errors I could forgive, but most of their assertions are wrong or misleading, to the extent it is clear to me this represents a propaganda piece.
The first two links you provide evidence in and of themselves! I'm really rather tired trying to debate with someone who is totally incapable of reading between the lines of any statement and credits everyone with the benefit of the doubt.
Virtually every claim on (for example) SPEAKS faq page is a lie or misrepresentation. The mere fact that you refer to this perversion of science as laudable tells me you cannot be reasoned with.
If your only response is a combination of comparing me to the ALF and liberal arts graduates we aren't going to make progress here. You basically agreed with me in the last line of your post, I just assume you haven't done the necessary reading to check up on your opinions, so I will provide you with references. If you want an example of attitudes comparable to antisemitism directed towards scientists conducting research look at
I'm a professional scientist, you don't have to lecture me about the scientific method. The obvious logical flaw in your reasoning is to assume that a person can be anti science and not anti other things as well, you presented a false dichotomy.
Your experiment is ill conceived because it only tests if these terrorists are also prepared to attack other targets in addition to scientists. I did not in any way state that these people were not motivated by other factors.
Let me designed a better experiment for you. Examine their rhetoric to see how the characterise the scientists conducting these experiments. If they do not conform to standard stereotyping of scientists I'm wrong.
Here is another one. Examine if they are prepared to tell bold face lies about the values of animals in research, perverting the results of science for propaganda purposes. Someone who was interested in protecting those who conduct science and the value of it's results wouldn't pervert it for their own ends.
Here is why your experiment is flaws. Say a group bombs synagogue, but also bombs mosques and churches. Then you look on their website and find language describing how they are completing "the final solution to the Jewish question" and describe Jews as "evil" and "money grubbing". You can safely conclude that while this group is clearly anti religion in general, it is not their motivation for harming Jews.
Wait, your assertion is that a group that attacks companies and Universities engaged in scientific research precisely because they are engaged in scientific research is not anti science. I really have no idea how I'm supposed to answer that.
I'm fairly certain that someone who bombs synagogues is antisemitic.
The American public didn't have a sweet clue what it was doing when it gave money to Sinn Fein. That some American's had sympathy for terrorists doesn't change a thing.
Nor does the fact that the current government is prepared to say Sinn Fein and the IRA are distinct alter the matter.
Incidentally I'm not completely unsympathetic to the Republican cause in Northern Ireland. My country repeatedly abused the Irish for hundreds of years. And the original settlement with Dublin was unfair. Thats why I support the peace process. I'm also appalled at some of the police antics (including bugging Sinn Feins). As long as Sinn Fein/IRA have put their guns down they get a seat at the negotiating table. Doesn't change the fact that the distinction between the two organisations is beyond questionable.
If the group you protested with were engaged in terrorist actions then you are. You want to go join a BUAV rally thats fine. And I wouldn't dream of calling you anti science. Nor would I accuse you of being anti science for protesting at a Greenpeace or Friends of the Earth rally. SHAC/ALF are a terror group. Attending a SHAC rally, giving money to SHAC, etc. is funding terrorism.
Protecting the identity of a member of SHAC is supporting terrorism. The ALF and the ELF share many members and are populated by people who engage at attacks on scientists. If you support the ELF or ALF you are anti science. I'm not equating attending a Greenpeace or BUAV protest with being a member of the ALF.
I live in the UK, and attend a university that has been targetted for attacks. I don't know how familiar you are with groups like SPEAC, SPEAK, SHAC and the ALF but I can only presume you missed the big list of things other than just issuing death threats these people do.
I think that the family of Pim Fortuyn might have an opinion on this matter, since they made good on their threat to kill him.
I have no desire to get into this discussion here. That is why I stated my opinion without supporting evidence, just like you did. I wanted to acknowledge your perspective while clearly stating my own, so we wouldn't have that discussion.
I'm more interested in why you attended a rally of a known terrorist group. One quick look at their website tells you they are propaganda obsessed. A quick look at their leadership tells you they are a front for the ALF.
The ALF - Animal Liberation Front, a terrorist group that uses everything from arson to blackmail to murder nominally to end animal cruelty. Actually they are just a bunch of idiots who hate business people and scientists for their sucesses.
SHAC - Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty, high ranking members of SHAC have ties to the ALF.
SPEAK - A derivative of SPEAC, Stop Primate Experimentation at Cambridge. Another front for the ALF dedicated to attacking the University of Oxford and preventing vital research.
PETA - People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. A group whose leader has ties to the ALF and which has funnelled funds to known ALF members.
BUAV - British Union for the Abolition of Visection. An actual animal rights group. Engages in non-violent protest, often aids companies that want to ensure that their products are not the result of animal cruelty. A legitimate protest group
I happen to disagree with. The first four are all basically the same group, with PETA, SPEAK and SHAC acting as funding fronts for the ALF. The latter are by and large good people I disagree with.
Read up on animal rights in the UK. Trust me these people are terrorists. They are using terror to further their political aims. They aren't as violent as say Hamas or the IRA but they are terrorists.
Their actions include but are not limited to, bomb threats, smear campaigned branding people paedophiles, destruction of property, grave robbing, assault, death threats, death threats against people children, blackmail, actual bombings, theft and murder.
Like you I'm real tired of people labelling every antisocial Tom, Dick and Harry a terrorist, but it is what these people are. The IRA were terrorists, even if they were less violent and in discriminant than Hamas are. Likewise these people are terrorists.
Yes, yes I do. SHAC/ALF have target people only tangentially related HLS. They target vivisection while ignoring appalling conditions in slaughter houses. They have a history of indiscriminate violence and intimidation targetting skilled people.
Either they are being disingenuous and targeting research because they know that their wider agenda of banning meat products would cause the general public to go into a frenzy against them, or they are targeting research because they truly hate scientists.
I am well aware of who the luddites were and what they did. The English language evolves and everyone knows what I mean by my previous statements.
These terrorists want to commit acts of violence. They couldn't care less who they commit them against. They consciously rationalise their decision by proclaiming the issue to be animal rights. The truth is that scientists just form a soft target, one which they happen to dispise. In the context of a slashdot post that is what really matters. These barsteds hate people like you and I and would revel in slowing killing us if they had the chance.
You are wrong about there being good scientific arguments against vivisection (moral perhaps, but maybe we should start with slaughter and farming rather than going after soft targets like research), but that isn't the topic of discussion here. You are entitled to your opinion.
I think it was a little foolish of you to attend a terrorist rally without checking up on them first, but foolishness is hardly a crime.
We completely agree on what is best for the animal rights movement however. The violence, intimidation and extremism has to stop if any progress is going to be made.
This is a pointless discussion. You and I have no idea what transpired here with reguards to indymedia co-operating with the police. We don't know if the police said "let us send over one of our experts to check your server and make sure you are telling us the truth". We haven't a sweet clue.
When it comes to anti science terrorism I'm prepared to give the police the benefit of the doubt until I hear evidence otherwise.
It isn't like I'm being intractable here. You go find me evidence that the police didn't seek the co-operation of indymedia first (and had no grounds for believing that indymedia might tamper with evidence) and I will happily call the polices actions heavy handed.
Yeah and Sinn Fein wasn't just the IRA with a pretty logo.
PETA, SHAC, SPEAK. These are just fund raising groups for the ALF. I believe the GP is not refering to the indymedia, but to the conviction of SHAC members for conspiracy to blackmail that set these events in motion.
The GP seems to be upset because SHAC/ALF terrorists were convicted after a violent and malicious campaigned of intimidation, the only purpose of which is to attack scientists and engineers.
Someone commits a crime on your premises. You stop that crime. The police come by to investigate. You refuse to help them potentially concealing the identity of the criminal. They then go get a warrant to compel you to hand over evidence. Thats how it works.
Indymedia's servers were not seized because of the comment, but because they wouldn't reveal the posters identity. They claim (and incidentally I believe them, that kind of information certainly is not going to be on a mirror) that they don't have that persons identity. This is fine, they shouldn't be required to keep that persons identity.
But if the police asked for access to their servers and they refused then I'm not surprised the police went and got a warrant.
I don't have all the facts, and I doubt you do either. If indymedia refused the police any access to their servers there was no way for the police to confirm what you are saying.
I agree with you that it is highly unlikely that the police would have got anything from the indymedia servers, but I also don't know to what extent indymedia co-operated with this investigation. The releases by indymedia have in no way convinced me they were fully co-operative with the police.
The bottom line is that we simply don't have the facts. And when it comes to investigating the intimidation of a judge by anti-science terrorists I'm prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt.
Assuming that indymedia were uncooperative with the investigation, I have to concur completely.
SHAC, PETA, and SPEAK are all basically different wings of the ALF. None of these groups are 'pro animal rights' and are all just anti science. I get annoyed as the next person when the WI (or some other harmless group) gets put on the list of terror organisations, but these people are sick barsteds hell bent on sending us back to the dark ages and sacrificing (literally) scientists who conduct vital research on the altar of 'animal rights'.
We are NOT talking about organisations like the BUAV here. These are not legitimate protest groups exercising their right to free speech. They are terrorist groups who undermine our democracy by taking the right to make decisions away from the people by intimidating our elected officials and civil servants.
If indymedia did offer to co-operate with the police, or the police didn't seek thier co-operation first before getting a warrant then this was heavy handed and the police are in the wrong. If the reverse is the case and indymedia just refused to help the police then the police have done exactly what they are supposed to do. Get a warrant!
While the strategy you describe should certainly be our primary means of reducing energy consumption, it is in effect a sales tax on energy. Sales taxes are a form of regressive taxation because they take proportionally more from the poor.
So there are a number of options. We could adjust tax rates to compensate. Increase gas taxes while lowering income tax to try to retain the status quo. This will work for people who are actually taxed, but it will do nothing for people on fixed incomes, or who do not earn enough to pay tax anyway.
One could adjust the tax rate so that there was a negative tax rate below a certain threshold, just make darn sure it is not anywhere near enough to live off, otherwise the number of people on welfare will sky rocket (heck, it will increase anyway).
Of course the problem then becomes if the measure works. Now you have effectively lowered the tax burden because people are using less gas, reducing government revenue. This probably means you will have to find money elsewhere.
The above is not a bad idea, but doing too much of it will be highly detrimental. The economy is not some simple machine with a button labelled "leave more to the market" which you can just hit over and over again to solve any problem.
What the EU is doing is in addition to the above (we already have relatively progressive tax rates in Europe and high gas taxes). The added transparency that results from labelling TV will aid consumer choice, while requiring a minimum standard of energy efficiency removes the worst offending TVs from the market. By doing this in addition to changing tax rates the EU is reducing the impact on people who are less well off.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah arson is non-violent. I've been a member of an organisation attacked by the ALF. They are non-violent in the same way that ducks are non-quacking.
I can see this discussion is a waste of time. I meet your criteria, you move the goal posts. I show you a lie, you say it is just misleading. You point to a site which is complete with citations for every fact they list, and all you can do is point to a picture of Goering.
"Admittedly, misleading people is antithetical to science, and therefore arguably anti-scientific. But why didn't you just make that the basis of your argument in the first place?!"
Because the case I presented was sufficient for any well informed person to follow my position. You asked for more evidence, so I gave you it. You don't get to complain when you ask for more evidence and then I provide it.
They were in no way thinking of brufen. They were almost certainly thinkig of asprin. I even think that the article I gave you lists the source of this misnomer.
You want me to do a few more? Although I rather get the impression no amount of evidence would satisfy you, lets do some more.
"Thousands of drugs passed safe in animals have been withdrawn or banned due to their effect on human health."
This is very often due to human trials (or actual usage) revealing side effects which the animal experiments did not reveal due to small statistics. They have taken an arguement for more animal testing and presented it as one for less. Both clearly misleading and intentional.
"When the producers of thalidomide were taken to court, they were aquitted after numerous experts agreed animal tests could not be relied on for human medicine."
This is a blatent lie. Animal tests have shown that thalidomide causes birth defects. This is again a problem with not enough animal testing. The drug was not tested on pregnant animals, but used on pregnant women.
"At least 450 methods exist with which we can replace animal experiments."
This is a monstrous lie. How exactly are we going to do studies on the anatomy of say the cat basal ganglia without cutting open a cats head?
"Morphine puts humans asleep but excites cats."
Morphine has the same effect in cats as it does in humans at equivilant doses.
Do I really have to keep going? I'm not writing a propaganda piece. It isn't my fault if many of the statistics they list are either completely meaningless without a citation "Less than 2% of human illnesses (1.16%) are ever seen in animals. Over 98% never are." - with no definition of illness) or meaningless without context.
The page I sent you to was not a propaganda piece. It is kind of hard to write a propaganda piece as a sequence of facts with citations, which is basically what that page is. The only real way you could do it is be selective in what facts you present, and this is a response to AR propaganda so the oposition took the topic. As for Goering, they say later down the page
"None of this is intended to imply that all AR supporters are card-carrying fascists. However, it does make it clear that support for AR is certainly not 'progressive' and in fact is confined to the political fringes. "
They in no way try a reductio ad hitlerum.
Are you really going to insist for more evidence, or are you finally convinced?
I think Jerry Vlasak might have some input on that. Given he has called for the murder of scientists. They have that tenet on their website for PR purposes. The only reason they don't kill people is because the outcry would all but guarantee a backlash against them that would destroy them.
"According to animal tests lemon juice is deadly poison, but arsenic, hemlock and botulin are safe."
You are not in the biological sciences if you don't realise this (taken from the SHAC link) is a blatent lie.
All of the above have been shown to be either poisons or fine using appropriate animal models. They are being deliberately misleading since some of these chemicals have high LD50 scores in certain animals (which are known to be inappropriate animal models for these kinds of mechanisms).
"Aspirin fails animal tests, as do digitalis (heart drug), cancer treatments, insulin (causes animal birth defects), penicillin and other safe medicines. They would be banned if results from animal experimentation were accurate."
This is simply false. Aspirin is fatal to cats only it crazy doses and would pass animal tests no problem.
This list of lies on this page is astounding. For example see.
http://www.armyths.org/
I've picked a few at random, but really most of the statements they have made are either deliberately misleading, or just plain false. A couple of errors I could forgive, but most of their assertions are wrong or misleading, to the extent it is clear to me this represents a propaganda piece.
The first two links you provide evidence in and of themselves! I'm really rather tired trying to debate with someone who is totally incapable of reading between the lines of any statement and credits everyone with the benefit of the doubt.
Virtually every claim on (for example) SPEAKS faq page is a lie or misrepresentation. The mere fact that you refer to this perversion of science as laudable tells me you cannot be reasoned with.
If your only response is a combination of comparing me to the ALF and liberal arts graduates we aren't going to make progress here. You basically agreed with me in the last line of your post, I just assume you haven't done the necessary reading to check up on your opinions, so I will provide you with references. If you want an example of attitudes comparable to antisemitism directed towards scientists conducting research look at
http://www.speakcampaigns.org/
http://www.animalliberationfront.com/
http://www.shac.net/
I'm a professional scientist, you don't have to lecture me about the scientific method. The obvious logical flaw in your reasoning is to assume that a person can be anti science and not anti other things as well, you presented a false dichotomy.
Your experiment is ill conceived because it only tests if these terrorists are also prepared to attack other targets in addition to scientists. I did not in any way state that these people were not motivated by other factors.
Let me designed a better experiment for you. Examine their rhetoric to see how the characterise the scientists conducting these experiments. If they do not conform to standard stereotyping of scientists I'm wrong.
Here is another one. Examine if they are prepared to tell bold face lies about the values of animals in research, perverting the results of science for propaganda purposes. Someone who was interested in protecting those who conduct science and the value of it's results wouldn't pervert it for their own ends.
Here is why your experiment is flaws. Say a group bombs synagogue, but also bombs mosques and churches. Then you look on their website and find language describing how they are completing "the final solution to the Jewish question" and describe Jews as "evil" and "money grubbing". You can safely conclude that while this group is clearly anti religion in general, it is not their motivation for harming Jews.
Wait, your assertion is that a group that attacks companies and Universities engaged in scientific research precisely because they are engaged in scientific research is not anti science. I really have no idea how I'm supposed to answer that.
I'm fairly certain that someone who bombs synagogues is antisemitic.
The American public didn't have a sweet clue what it was doing when it gave money to Sinn Fein. That some American's had sympathy for terrorists doesn't change a thing.
Nor does the fact that the current government is prepared to say Sinn Fein and the IRA are distinct alter the matter.
Incidentally I'm not completely unsympathetic to the Republican cause in Northern Ireland. My country repeatedly abused the Irish for hundreds of years. And the original settlement with Dublin was unfair. Thats why I support the peace process. I'm also appalled at some of the police antics (including bugging Sinn Feins). As long as Sinn Fein/IRA have put their guns down they get a seat at the negotiating table. Doesn't change the fact that the distinction between the two organisations is beyond questionable.
If the group you protested with were engaged in terrorist actions then you are. You want to go join a BUAV rally thats fine. And I wouldn't dream of calling you anti science. Nor would I accuse you of being anti science for protesting at a Greenpeace or Friends of the Earth rally. SHAC/ALF are a terror group. Attending a SHAC rally, giving money to SHAC, etc. is funding terrorism.
Protecting the identity of a member of SHAC is supporting terrorism. The ALF and the ELF share many members and are populated by people who engage at attacks on scientists. If you support the ELF or ALF you are anti science. I'm not equating attending a Greenpeace or BUAV protest with being a member of the ALF.
I live in the UK, and attend a university that has been targetted for attacks. I don't know how familiar you are with groups like SPEAC, SPEAK, SHAC and the ALF but I can only presume you missed the big list of things other than just issuing death threats these people do.
I think that the family of Pim Fortuyn might have an opinion on this matter, since they made good on their threat to kill him.
Then why did you say they weren't terrorists?
Sounds to me like you are a victim of anti science terrorism.
I have no desire to get into this discussion here. That is why I stated my opinion without supporting evidence, just like you did. I wanted to acknowledge your perspective while clearly stating my own, so we wouldn't have that discussion.
I'm more interested in why you attended a rally of a known terrorist group. One quick look at their website tells you they are propaganda obsessed. A quick look at their leadership tells you they are a front for the ALF.
The ALF - Animal Liberation Front, a terrorist group that uses everything from arson to blackmail to murder nominally to end animal cruelty. Actually they are just a bunch of idiots who hate business people and scientists for their sucesses.
SHAC - Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty, high ranking members of SHAC have ties to the ALF.
SPEAK - A derivative of SPEAC, Stop Primate Experimentation at Cambridge. Another front for the ALF dedicated to attacking the University of Oxford and preventing vital research.
PETA - People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. A group whose leader has ties to the ALF and which has funnelled funds to known ALF members.
BUAV - British Union for the Abolition of Visection. An actual animal rights group. Engages in non-violent protest, often aids companies that want to ensure that their products are not the result of animal cruelty. A legitimate protest group
I happen to disagree with. The first four are all basically the same group, with PETA, SPEAK and SHAC acting as funding fronts for the ALF. The latter are by and large good people I disagree with.
Read up on animal rights in the UK. Trust me these people are terrorists. They are using terror to further their political aims. They aren't as violent as say Hamas or the IRA but they are terrorists.
Their actions include but are not limited to, bomb threats, smear campaigned branding people paedophiles, destruction of property, grave robbing, assault, death threats, death threats against people children, blackmail, actual bombings, theft and murder.
Like you I'm real tired of people labelling every antisocial Tom, Dick and Harry a terrorist, but it is what these people are. The IRA were terrorists, even if they were less violent and in discriminant than Hamas are. Likewise these people are terrorists.
And UK GRID just handed over the servers?!
Well I know who I wont be doing business with any time soon.
Yes, yes I do. SHAC/ALF have target people only tangentially related HLS. They target vivisection while ignoring appalling conditions in slaughter houses. They have a history of indiscriminate violence and intimidation targetting skilled people.
Either they are being disingenuous and targeting research because they know that their wider agenda of banning meat products would cause the general public to go into a frenzy against them, or they are targeting research because they truly hate scientists.
I am well aware of who the luddites were and what they did. The English language evolves and everyone knows what I mean by my previous statements.
These terrorists want to commit acts of violence. They couldn't care less who they commit them against. They consciously rationalise their decision by proclaiming the issue to be animal rights. The truth is that scientists just form a soft target, one which they happen to dispise. In the context of a slashdot post that is what really matters. These barsteds hate people like you and I and would revel in slowing killing us if they had the chance.
You are wrong about there being good scientific arguments against vivisection (moral perhaps, but maybe we should start with slaughter and farming rather than going after soft targets like research), but that isn't the topic of discussion here. You are entitled to your opinion.
I think it was a little foolish of you to attend a terrorist rally without checking up on them first, but foolishness is hardly a crime.
We completely agree on what is best for the animal rights movement however. The violence, intimidation and extremism has to stop if any progress is going to be made.
This is a pointless discussion. You and I have no idea what transpired here with reguards to indymedia co-operating with the police. We don't know if the police said "let us send over one of our experts to check your server and make sure you are telling us the truth". We haven't a sweet clue.
When it comes to anti science terrorism I'm prepared to give the police the benefit of the doubt until I hear evidence otherwise.
It isn't like I'm being intractable here. You go find me evidence that the police didn't seek the co-operation of indymedia first (and had no grounds for believing that indymedia might tamper with evidence) and I will happily call the polices actions heavy handed.
Yeah and Sinn Fein wasn't just the IRA with a pretty logo.
PETA, SHAC, SPEAK. These are just fund raising groups for the ALF. I believe the GP is not refering to the indymedia, but to the conviction of SHAC members for conspiracy to blackmail that set these events in motion.
The GP seems to be upset because SHAC/ALF terrorists were convicted after a violent and malicious campaigned of intimidation, the only purpose of which is to attack scientists and engineers.
Someone commits a crime on your premises. You stop that crime. The police come by to investigate. You refuse to help them potentially concealing the identity of the criminal. They then go get a warrant to compel you to hand over evidence. Thats how it works.
Indymedia's servers were not seized because of the comment, but because they wouldn't reveal the posters identity. They claim (and incidentally I believe them, that kind of information certainly is not going to be on a mirror) that they don't have that persons identity. This is fine, they shouldn't be required to keep that persons identity.
But if the police asked for access to their servers and they refused then I'm not surprised the police went and got a warrant.
I don't have all the facts, and I doubt you do either. If indymedia refused the police any access to their servers there was no way for the police to confirm what you are saying.
I agree with you that it is highly unlikely that the police would have got anything from the indymedia servers, but I also don't know to what extent indymedia co-operated with this investigation. The releases by indymedia have in no way convinced me they were fully co-operative with the police.
The bottom line is that we simply don't have the facts. And when it comes to investigating the intimidation of a judge by anti-science terrorists I'm prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt.
"You updated a website protesting animal cruelty vs drug companies. Now we're gonna smack you with a conspiracy charge for 4.5 years in prison."
Try, "you were basically CIO of a terrorist organisation."
SHAC/ALF are not a group protesting animal cruelty. They are a bunch of anti science luddites hell bent on hurting scientists and engineers.
Assuming that indymedia were uncooperative with the investigation, I have to concur completely.
SHAC, PETA, and SPEAK are all basically different wings of the ALF. None of these groups are 'pro animal rights' and are all just anti science. I get annoyed as the next person when the WI (or some other harmless group) gets put on the list of terror organisations, but these people are sick barsteds hell bent on sending us back to the dark ages and sacrificing (literally) scientists who conduct vital research on the altar of 'animal rights'.
We are NOT talking about organisations like the BUAV here. These are not legitimate protest groups exercising their right to free speech. They are terrorist groups who undermine our democracy by taking the right to make decisions away from the people by intimidating our elected officials and civil servants.
If indymedia did offer to co-operate with the police, or the police didn't seek thier co-operation first before getting a warrant then this was heavy handed and the police are in the wrong. If the reverse is the case and indymedia just refused to help the police then the police have done exactly what they are supposed to do. Get a warrant!
There are other problems with this though.
While the strategy you describe should certainly be our primary means of reducing energy consumption, it is in effect a sales tax on energy. Sales taxes are a form of regressive taxation because they take proportionally more from the poor.
So there are a number of options. We could adjust tax rates to compensate. Increase gas taxes while lowering income tax to try to retain the status quo. This will work for people who are actually taxed, but it will do nothing for people on fixed incomes, or who do not earn enough to pay tax anyway.
One could adjust the tax rate so that there was a negative tax rate below a certain threshold, just make darn sure it is not anywhere near enough to live off, otherwise the number of people on welfare will sky rocket (heck, it will increase anyway).
Of course the problem then becomes if the measure works. Now you have effectively lowered the tax burden because people are using less gas, reducing government revenue. This probably means you will have to find money elsewhere.
The above is not a bad idea, but doing too much of it will be highly detrimental. The economy is not some simple machine with a button labelled "leave more to the market" which you can just hit over and over again to solve any problem.
What the EU is doing is in addition to the above (we already have relatively progressive tax rates in Europe and high gas taxes). The added transparency that results from labelling TV will aid consumer choice, while requiring a minimum standard of energy efficiency removes the worst offending TVs from the market. By doing this in addition to changing tax rates the EU is reducing the impact on people who are less well off.