Young Greens invite Tom Holder to speak about Vivisection

Yesterday saw a historic moment in our little town of Cambridge, a town that houses a university which prides itself on the crimes that are committed within the walls of its laboratories. Torture in the form of starvation, forced drug addiction as well as sensory and social deprivation are just some of the examples that come to mind when I think of the science emerging from Cambridge University.

Why we won't support debates on vivisection

Yesterday the Young Greens (the young branch of the Green Party) hosted a debate between the pro-and anti-vivisection camps. Although it makes sense to fill the audience of these sort of events with animal rights people, we decided not to attend. We have a few problems with debates in general. This tradition of debating is held up by many elite universities, but more often than not is it a mere spectacle, where everything is practiced and staged to the last detail so that it can be crammed into a very rigid frame. Most people get a kick out of the controversy that these events live off or they attend because they think they can show up or humiliate the opposing party with their questions. These debates don't invite conversation or dialogue and most people have made up their mind about the subject before attending. I don't see real change being implemented through debating.

Giving a platform to speciesist hate speech is not politically correct

Another reason we didn't attend is perhaps a form of protest. We decided not to give our time and attention to someone who actively advocates for crimes against animals. We don't believe that these people should be given a platform.

Most of us, who are social justice advocates, would agree immediately that it would be absurd to have a debate between any other oppressive group and a representative of those they oppress. So why are animal liberation activists still so concerned about giving animal abusers a voice? To show that we are the bigger person, that we have nothing to hide, that we are open to debate? I don't get it. All it does is validate the voice of the oppressor.

A friend of ours suggested it would make much more sense to have a debate between representatives of a range of scientific models that do not use animals for research. Which -if we advocate dismantling the system from within and with its own tools-  is the only option that actually helps the animals.