World Day for Animals in Laboratories 2015

Today is world day for animals in laboratories, a day we think of all those who are being tortured in laboratories in the name of science. In the UK we also use this day to bring together all animal rights activists in one location and take over the chosen town for a day.

Today we met in the town where I do most of my activist work, Europe's vivisection capital, Cambridge. Cambridge University houses numerous laboratories with many different species including primates and sheep who are tortured every second of their lives. Just recentlyAstra Zeneca was granted building permission for their new headquarters which will also imprisons animals. Behind most walls in this town there is a screaming soul that needs rescuing.

If you know the UK animal rights scene, you will know that the Cambridge AR chapter is probably the most (in)famous one. We are the longest-standing AR group, running since the 70s. But recently we have been struggling to identify our own politics, this being the reason for me almost not participating in this wonderful day. I am glad I did, and only because of my amazing Anti-Speciesist Women's Group. 

And because I feel that today, as during most days in animal rights, we celebrate the wrong people and create the wrong heroes, I want to use this space to honour the people who did not get acknowledged today, be it through applause, laughter, words of gratitude or encouragement. 

This is for all the women and non-binary folk (not just in Cambridge, but everywhere), who were present today. Who baked cakes. Who volunteered at stalls. Who marched along in a crowd of people they didn't know or didn't like. Who introduced themselves. Who made themselves vulnerable. Who screamed their lungs out to let everybody know that 'there's no excuse for animal abuse'. For those who held a megaphone and those who messed up the easiest chant on the planet time and time again. For those who exposed their bare faces to the police. And especially for those who held the most thoughtful and intelligent speeches and did not receive the time and recognition their male comrades did.

This is for Sophie Hill, who if I had heroines, would be one of them. A woman who singlehandedly took on Cambridge University and the vivisection industry as a student, and a veterinarian who knows the true value of science.

Watch and spread her speech here (it contains the most poignant last sentence).

I am so proud to have been able to march and scream along with some of the strongest women on this planet, to listen to their speeches and to bear witness to the atrocities hidden behind Cambridge's walls together with them.

We won't let the kyriarchs of this world feed off our solidarity!

Until all are free.

The epitomisation of everything that is wrong with the world - And the Story of Marie Françoise Bernard.

***Trigger Warning: Portrayal of animal cruelty***

Claude Bernard was amongst the most prominent proponents of vivisection in 19th century Europe. He was celebrated as 'one of the greatest of all men of science' by science historian I. Bernard Cohen. Claude Bernard was a physiologist, a scientist who opens up the body to learn about its inner workings. It even seems as if in Bernard's work there was no greater purpose, such as for example helping those who want help. Rather, it looks as if he was doing science for science's sake, so to speak. His writing reflects this sentiment:

The physiologist is no ordinary man. He is a learned man, a man possessed and absorbed by a scientific idea. He does not hear the animals' cries of pain. He is blind to the blood that flows. He sees nothing but his idea, and organisms which conceal from him the secrets he is resolved to discover.(Thanks Wiki)

I don't think I have ever encountered all principles of patriarchy, perfectly exemplified in five short sentences. But there we go, that's exactly what this quote is, the epitomisation of the patriarchal mode of expression - or Phallogocentrism, a horribly bloated word which basically means that everyone who has/is a massive dick is seen as the best (people without penises can also be dicks). 

Phal - from the phallic, the masculine, potent, able-bodied, knowledgable

  |

logo -  from logos, the systematic, logical, rational, not emotional nor intuitive

  |

centr - from the centre, in the middle, surrounded by everything else, the main and only point of attention

  |

ism -    indicating an ideological conviction, a constructed -not natural- truth to subscribe to

All patriarchal ideologies operate under the phallogical principle. Patriarchy implies that there is someone - a patriarch- hierarchically above you, who you must please so as to justify your existence. This can be a god, a king, a lord, a master, a judge, a father, brother or son...any figure to look up to. If we subscribe to patriarchy we communicate through phallogocentism (the mode of expression or language of patriarchy) and we make it our purpose in life to become more like that figure, so as to please him. The more we are opposed to becoming like our patriarchs, the more we suffer, as our existence will not be validated and legitimised because we don't speak a language that is understood by him.

This painting of Claude Bernard -who, following his teacher, often operated on dogs without anaesthetic - portrays the reality of this systematic production of privilege (and by extension oppression). The painting shows a room filled with 13 humans who are portrayed as male, mostly wearing dark attire. We gaze directly upon the centre where we find a man - Bernard - wearing a white shirt and yellow vest, covered by a white apron (the mostly white outfit resonates very much with contemporary perceptions of the lab coat as a symbol of knowledge and understanding). He is pointing towards a bloody opening in a dog's chest/stomach (the dog is lying in front of him) whilst most men around him are looking intrigued towards him and the dog. The dog Is lying on their back, shackled by chains attached to their neck and paws, seemingly screaming in agony with their mouth wide open. Their right paw seems to be dislocated or broken by force as it is portrayed in a way that dog's paws don't bend. In the left corner of the painting we find another dog with a chain around their neck, bearing their teeth towards Bernard and tensing their body as if moving rapidly. This dog is ignored by the humans, none of which show any emotional expression, except perhaps attentiveness and contemplative curiosity. Behind the group of men we find a shelf with two skeletons, presumably from previous experiments, allowing us to imagine the upcoming death of the two dogs in the painting. The right bottom side of the image bears a book, behind which we see a curtain, that has been moved aside, thus no longer concealing much. The book in combination with this curtain might indicate to us that the scientist here is revealing knowledge to his spectators. He is unveiling a secret, a mystical, previously unexplored truth that he penetrated and can now expose to other. The top left side of the painting shows the only window in this room, which is placed at an angle and thus indicates the men's location in an attic, above other rooms of the house (that perhaps are attended to by women - if there are any in the building). The attic is also closest to heaven and god.

So there we go, two small examples of Claude Bernard's legacy (the quote and the painting) show us everything that is wrong with the world. There is one very exciting aspect in Claude Bernard's life however. The fact that his scientific career was only made possible through his arranged marriage to Marie Françoise Bernard (née Martin). This gave him the space - metaphorically, physically and financially - to validate his torture chambers and build his career upon vivisection.

Marie Françoise Martin - One Awesome Lady

For catholics divorce is seen as a sin, and imagine the gravity of the sin when a woman wants to divorce a man in their marriage - today this still poses a huge moral dilemma for many women in abusive relationships so imagine this situation in the 19th century! Nevertheless Marie Françoise Martin separated from her husband and established an anti-vivisection society (thanks wiki). She had two daughters (and a son who died in infancy) with him. Wikipedia states that not only Marie Françoise, but also the older daughter Jeanne-Henriette actively campaigned against vivisection. They took a stand against the patriarch(y) and broke out of social convention. They spoke their own language and refused to give Claude and everything he stood for any platform to voice his ideas from. Of course, Marie Françoise came from a position of privilege with her wealthy upbringing but that also meant that she might have had a lot to lose when refusing to use phallological language. In this context she surely is one awesome lady!

 

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.