Animal Rights “Activists” or “Terrorists”?

Posted on October 26, 2010

The BBC does generally try hard to be balanced – but their leanings often leak through onto the screen regardless, due the the impossibility of any human truly leaving their bias at the door. There’s a great example in the media at the moment, reporting the jailing of five members of the odious group Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC).

Nicole Vosper, Sarah Whitehead, Thomas Harris, Nicola Tapping and Jason Mullan have been sentenced to up to six years in jail for a sustained international campaign against people and businesses involved in animal testing at Huntingdon Life Sciences. They attacked houses, destroyed property, posted blood and semen purporting to be infected with HIV to people and sent hoax bombs to their offices and homes. This is par for the course as far as SHAC are concerned – they’ve been ruining people’s lives for several years now.

I can think of a good word to describe them: terrorists. They sought to force people to change their way of life by inspiring terror.

Strangely, the BBC doesn’t use that term – they are “animal rights activists”. If an Islamist or White Supremacist group did this they would rightly be given their proper name – not “religious activists” or “racial activists”. So why do SHAC not get the same treatment – does terror in the name of fluffy bunnies get you off the hook?