VIENNA - A MASSIVE fire at the Austrian holiday villa of Novartis chief Daniel Vasella was criminal and the handiwork of a British animal protection group, a company spokesman said on Tuesday.
'It was a criminal act,' the Novartis spokesman told the Swiss tabloid Blick, adding there was 'no doubt' that Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC) was behind the arson.
'The situation with SHAC has completely degenerated,' he said, adding: 'We take the security of our officials very seriously.' Austrian police have said the fire was probably started purposely but have not confirmed this as yet.
The blaze at Vasella's holiday home in the small Tyrolean village of Bach was discovered around 3.30am on Monday by a German holidaymaker, who woke after hearing a muffled bang and saw the neighbouring house in flames, according to the police.
He immediately alerted the fire department and it took about 100 firefighters to douse the flames. Nobody was injured, police said.
Two sides of the villa were seriously damaged but the extent of the damage was unknown.
Swiss media reported that Mr Vasella, who was not at the villa at the time of the fire, and his company had already been the target of repeated attacks by the SHAC.
This group, which campaigns against animal testing, is believed to have been behind the desecration last week of Vasella's mother's tomb in the eastern Swiss town of Chur.
They also torched company cars and destroyed a Novartis sports facility in eastern France.
An SHAC member, Debbie Vincent, warned of more attacks in an interview to La Tribune daily. -- AFP
This article was reported in ST today. What do you think of the reporting? Do you think the activists have gone too far? Justify your answer by referring to your own experiences/observations.
15 comments:
I feel that the reporting is slightly one-sided. It does not provide adequate information from the SHAC's point of view. It also portrays the SHAC as a barbaric group that resorts to underhand means to try and achieve their objectives.
However based on the article, I do think that if the activists were really behind the fire, they have definitely crossed the line, ignoring the safety of those who could be in the villa when it was set on fire.
The reporting is bias in the omission of data. How about the point of view of the activists?
Animal activist resorts to violence-because moderate moves is proved useless,repeated cases of violence is put up but to no avail.Moreover ,no body was injured by the fire.
The reporting does not inform the readers about why Vasella was a target of the animal right activists. The business relation between Novartis and Huntingdon Life Sciences is the reason why this incident took place. The animal rights activists behave like terrorists and their cause do not justify their actions – what do they hope to achieve with violence? Judging from the cause of this incident; it is evident that the strong emotional attachment to one’s belief, when divorced from reason, can be translated into unpleasant realities.
Yes I feel that the animal activisits have gone too far in the sense that they are actually destroying public property. In my opinion, nothing much can be achieved through violence and this clearly demonstrates a barbaric act for an effort to protect the innocent animals. It is quite hypocrytical because they could have injured innocent people while trying to protect animals from the wrath of humans. In both cases, the innocent are being the target. So the question comes in; what are they really trying to protect?
I agree with Nat that this article is too one-sided as it blames SHAC for causing the fire without evident proof in their hands.
Moreover, it continuously blames SHAC for all the mishappenings that has occurred.
If the activists had really caused the fire, then yes, they have indeed gone too faras lives could have been lost.
In my opinion though, I feel that its unlikely for SHAC to do something so drastic.
I too feel that, that article is clearly biased.It simply accuses the SHAC without any concrete evidence and makes them appear desperate to have to resort to such means to achieve their aims.
That being said, if the fault lies in the SHAC, it might have been their desperation or their compulsion that may have led them to commit such babric acts. Putting myself in their shoes, the activists have not gone too far. I think that they have every right to carry out such acts for the extent of animal cruelty must have been that bad to justify such an action.I do not condone their actions, I simply think that it is their way of sending a message across to those who do serious harm to animals.In their shoes, animals have the same rights as humans. Animal cruelty is equivalent to Guantanamo Bay cruelties to terrorists suspects. They are simply activists and do not hold much power to influence the actions of those who are cruel. This must have been their last resort. Imagine if the person you loved was being tortured, would you not have done the same to those responsible for the crime?
Hence, I do not think that they have gone too far.
If SHAC is truly behind the cause of the fire as what this article claims, then it is no doubt that these activists are acting very cowardly and insidiously. Their actions seem to portray that these activists value animal life more than that of a human since they set fire to the vila without considering if there were people inside it.
However, it must be noted that this article is one-sided as it does not give a valid point of view from SHAC nor does it say why it is targeting Vasella. furthermore, if SHAC wanted to voice out its opinion, then it should have done so in a peaceful manner such as trying to write to Novartis.
For me, i feel that it is dumb. This is because, by settling a forest fire, you will only make people hate your ideas more rather than to support it. I admit that it is a VERY GOOD way of advertising but it advertises for a wrong view of the animals activists. Moreover, by causing a forest fire, the air pollution will harm the animals too. What a irony. Since they are trying to protect the animals.
From the news report, I feel that if what it has reported is true, then the SHAC is too over board. just because they are against animal testing, it doesn't give them the right to do such absurb things. they could always protest animal testing through other non- harmful ways.
However, there is no evidence to accuse the SHAC for setting the fire, and thus more has to be done to prove them before any accusation occurs.
The report doesn't seem to address the viewpoint of the SHAC, as it list down the numerous crimes that the SHAC supposedly committed.
Well, after all, it's a matter of perception.
As the saying goes "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter". Those who are of the SHAC would definitely rejoice at the glamorous act of arson while those who are not would highlight the severity of the crime itself.
However, they (SHAC) might have went too far this time round as, any resulting, accidental or intended deaths from this incident will result in a major lawsuit between both parties.
Vasella may have been the target of repeated attacks by the SHAC but this time round, there was no concrete evidence to prove that SHAC was behind the arson. Thus, it is clearly a one-sided report as it did not mention the point of view of SHAC.
However, if SHAC was really behind this whole thing, they had indeed gone too far. No matter what reasons they have, I feel that such actions are immoral. Violence doesn't solve problems, instead it leads to more problems.
the source doesnt show both sides of the story. it doesnt state wad activities SHAC is having that led to this extreme violence by the animal activist group. Despite suspicion it is not confirmed who is responsible for this. However it is not right to endanger human rights in fight for any other cause. By doing this animal activist are contradicting themself by retaliating abuse with violence which is equally evil and ruthless. =)
Jiaying
I feel that the activists have gone too far, if the arson is done on purpose by them. However as stated, it has not yet been confirmed that the fire was set on purpose by the activists and thus it may be too early to put all blame on them.
This report may further cause much unhappiness among the activists and the people whom they are against.
Like everybody said, i think this reporting is quite inappropriate to be on ST (is it Straits Times) as its heavily weighted with opinions and speculations of SHAC, which in the future might be proved to be incorrect.
Having said that, however, i feel that SHAC took the worng path in voicing out for animal rights. Such matters would be better dealt with leaglly. Violence is never a solution. Though i mus admit there are exceptions to it.
If what if reported is true, then I feel that the activists have gone over board with the arson. There are other non-violent means for them to protest animal testing besides arson.
However, it is too early to put all the blame on SHAC since it is not known whether they are really involved in the incident.
Post a Comment