JUSTICE FOR MICKEY THE MOUSE

You may remember that before Christmas I started a campaign to get justice for a mouse called Mickey.

A vivisector had gone home for his tea, leaving Mickey with his head in a clamp. Mickey, now dead, suffered terribly.

Home Secretary Jack Straw knew the name of the vivisector responsible for this breach of the Protection of Animals Act 1911 (or, at the very least, had access to the name). But he wouldn’t reveal any details and he wouldn’t tell the police the vivisector’s name so that a prosecution could be considered.

The Home Office claims that it was decided ‘not to report this infringement to the police but instead to revoke the licence holder’s personal licence and admonish the project licence holder responsible for his work.’ The Home Office claim that: ‘This decision was based on exceptional mitigating circumstances relevant to the commission of the infringement.’

What on earth are those circumstances? And what right has the Home Office to decide that the circumstances excuse the crime?

I don’t care why the vivisector rushed away leaving Mickey with his head in a clamp. I don’t care if it was because he wanted to have his tea or because he had tickets for a football match. I’m not interested in whether there was a favourite programme he wanted to watch on the television or whether her young son had a birthday party. (Straw won’t even tell us whether the careless vivisector – one of 20,000 people in the UK who are licensed to torture and kill – is male or female.)

I’m not interested in the vivisector’s excuse.

Nothing makes any difference.

It doesn’t matter a damn if he was depressed because he had lost all his money betting on a three legged horse or if he was preoccupied because his wife was having an affair or if he was feeling low because he had just been told that his entire family had suddenly been killed by the black death.

None of this is relevant.

If the mouse murdering vivisector had a good excuse for his behaviour he would be able to present his defence in court and hope for a lenient sentence.
If the court accepted his evidence then so be it.

***

If I murder someone while the balance of my mind is disturbed I am entitled to ask the court to take my mental state into consideration when preparing a sentence. If I am preoccupied because of some major family crisis then I can put that forward as part of my defence and, if I’m really lucky, I might get a lighter sentence.
But if I have murdered someone I don’t automatically get a 'Get Out Of Jail Free' card just because I have got a good excuse.

If I’ve been caught speeding I don’t automatically get let off just because I was trying to rush a bleeding patient to hospital. Indeed, I was once taken to court, and fined, because I was seen driving quickly to the home of a patient who had had a suspected heart attack. (Since it was Straw who made the decision not to prosecute this vivisector it is perhaps relevant to point out that the authorities decided not to prosecute the Home Secretary’s driver when he was stopped for speeding at over 100 mph on a motorway.)

And yet it seems that the law is different for vivisectors.

This case seems significant to me because it opens up a number of crucial and hugely important, and fundamental issues.

The issue of Mickey the mouse seems to me to be far more important than individual campaigns against individual laboratories or campaigns for better facilities because it strikes at the very root of the whole problem. Instead of dealing with one small part of the problem it deals with the problem as a whole.

It is much easier to understand a campaign against a specific laboratory but what good will that do in the long run? Even if the laboratory (or breeding centre or whatever) is forced to close down another one will open up somewhere else. Unless there are fundamental changes to the system nothing significant will change. Battling against individual laboratories is exciting. And the target is easy to define. There is, I suppose, a certain thrill to be obtained from demonstrating in a field, surrounded by massed ranks of heavily equipped policemen, standing amidst a group of like minded individuals all blowing whistles or waving banners. It provides an entirely spurious feeling that something is being done. But, in the long run, such activities will change nothing. Animal lovers have been standing in fields blowing whistles for over a century. And animals are today treated worse than ever before.
Closing down companies such as Huntingdon Life Sciences would be ‘a good thing’, of course, (and I have campaigned on many occasions to help shut it down) but it would in truth be little more than a minor irritation to the animal abusers. It would do nothing whatsoever to reduce the amount of torture endured by animals. The vivisectors would move somewhere else. The drug companies would take their business elsewhere. The sort of experiments conducted at Huntingdon would take place somewhere else.

***

Two incidents, which occurred in the week when I tried to get people interested in the Justice for Mickey campaign, brought home to me the hypocritical and cruel way that our legal system responds to animal issues.

The first incident involved a tomato and the Prime Minister.

Demonstrators threw ripe tomatoes at Prime Minister Tony Blair when he turned up to attend some sort of official function. I don’t know why the demonstrators wanted to throw tomatoes at him. I can think of a thousand reasons why someone might feel the need to lob a piece of rotten fruit in his direction. (In fact it is much easier to think of reasons why people might want to throw tomatoes at the New Labour Prime Minister than to think of reasons why they might not).

One of the tomatoes, tossed with especially good aim, landed on the Prime Ministerial suit. The thrower was immediately arrested and charged with criminal damage.

Throw a tomato onto Mr Blair’s suit and you get arrested.
Leave a mouse with his head in a clamp all night (in clear breach of the law) and you will be given immunity from prosecution by the Home Secretary.

The second incident involved a racehorse, a motor car and a motorist.

The racehorse was being exercised on a public road when it was hit by a car. I believe its leg was broken. The horse was killed afterwards. (Why do they do this? I’ve never understood why it is necessary to kill a horse which has a broken leg. I realise that a horse which has had a broken leg may never be quite as good at running around a track. But why cannot a horse’s leg be set and put in plaster?)
The man who had driven the car was arrested.

Now, I have absolutely no doubt that the racehorse was, in crude commercial terms, far more valuable than the mouse who had been left with his head in a clamp.

But what has that got to do with anything?

If an expensive horse is more important than a mouse then, presumably, rich people are worth more than poor people.

Why was the man who drove into the horse arrested while the vivisector who left the mouse to suffer was let off without even a police investigation?

***

I now have some bad news and some good news about the campaign.

I asked the police to demand that Straw give them the information he has.

But they refused.

James Rea, Senior Force Legal Advisor for Devon and Cornwall Constabulary says that not notifying the police of a crime is not an offence – unless there is treason or a conspiracy.

I am astonished.

Am I being cynical in suspecting that if a group of animal rights supporters had knowledge of an offence – and hid it from the police – they might be accused of being part of a conspiracy?

But Jack ‘103mph’ Straw (a man whose government sees no absurdity in the statement that fox hunting ‘seriously compromises the welfare of the fox’) seems safe from the law.

Believing that the Justice for Mickey campaign promised to help animals far more than any other campaign that was being run in Britain I wrote to a dozen major animal charities asking for their help in getting Justice for Mickey. I didn’t ask for money – just for support. I hoped that they might encourage their members to join the Justice for Mickey campaign. Contrary to popular opinion politicians are greatly influenced by the number of letters they receive. Indeed, many important policy decisions are made because there is (or seems to be) clear evidence that a large section of the population wants to see the government follow a particular course of action.

In the late twentieth century the New Labour government reversed its pre-election policy on hunting because the pro-hunting lobby managed to organise an impressive display of support for a demonstration in London. Politicians who had won power partly through their strong pro-animal policies and their commitment to abolish hunting back-pedalled furiously. This victory was a tribute to the ability of the pro-hunting lobby to get people out onto the streets in support of their cause.
With continuing innocence I hoped that I could persuade some of the biggest, most powerful (and in some cases extremely wealthy) pro-animal groups to join together in the Justice for Mickey campaign. I knew that if they would help by encouraging their members to write letters to their MPs we could probably force Jack Straw to remove his protection from the anonymous vivisector who had been allowed to get away with such a brutal act. Most of the big animal rights groups produce regular newsletters. A note asking supporters to join the Justice for Mickey campaign would not take up much space.

I knew that if the vivisector was allowed to get away with what he (or she) had done then animal lovers would be giving the vivisectors (and the government) carte blanche to treat animals in any way they wanted.

Letters were sent to: Animal Aid, Advocates for Animals, Respect for Animals, National Anti Vivisection Society, British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection, VIVA!, Naturewatch, The Humane Research Trust, UNCAGED, Animal Defenders, PETA and the RSPCA.

I received a brief note of acknowledgement from UNCAGED.

That was it.

But now for the good news.

British MPs are as furious about this as I am. And they ARE helping.
Here are quotes from just a few of the many letters I’ve received from MPs who are offering support for my Justice for Mickey campaign:

'I was concerned by what you say and have made appropriate representations to the Home Secretary.’ – Dr John Marek MP

'I am fully supportive...in total solidarity.’ – G.E. Bermingham MP

'I have already been in touch with the Government...I will certainly follow up the important issues you have raised with the Home Secretary. As you rightly say it is an important issue.’ – Sir Teddy Taylor MP

'I quite agree that human beings should treat all animals with respect and that vivisectors who break the law should be punished for their cruelty.’ – Dr Rudi Vis MP

'I have written to the Home Secretary...I fully agree that animals deserve to be treated with respect and vivisectors should obey the law.’ – Bill Olner MP

'I certainly agree with you totally in that animals do deserve to be treated with respect and that such incidents as you describe which inflict such suffering must not be allowed to continue. You can be assured of my support on this issue.’ – Nick Harvey MP

'I made representations on your behalf to Rt Hon Jack Straw MP, Secretary of State for the Home Department.’ – Bill Etherington MP

'I agree with your sentiments that animals have the right to be treated with respect and I will contact the Home Secretary regarding this matter.’ – Stephen Hepburn MP

'...vivisectors must obey the law in all their dealings with animals.’ Dr Norman A. Godman MP

'I wish you every success with your campaign for justice for Mickey and hope that it will result in more stringent checks on these facilities.’ – Bob Russell MP

(You)...‘are right to pursue this issue with the Home Secretary...By allowing the vivisector to infringe Acts of Parliament if this is the case with Mickey, the Home Secretary encourages others to ignore the plight of animals used for experimentation in medical programmes. This is wrong.’ –Michael Fabricant MP

'I have written to Jack Straw...asking him for a full explanation. As the dominant species on this planet we have a duty to avoid any unnecessary suffering to other species...Many animal species, including mice, have nervous systems similar to those that we have and feel pain as we do. To disregard the effects of suffering in other creatures is to demean us as a human species and can lead to a coarsening of our sensitivities in treating humans and animals.’ – Paul Flynn MP

'The very thought of animals being mistreated upsets me and, consequently, I actively support all the animal charities. Anybody who inflicts cruelty on animals, regardless of whether it is in the name of science, deserves no sympathy whatsoever and should feel the full force of the law.’ – Gerry Steinberg MP

'I was concerned by the case you highlighted. If the facts are as you outlined in your letter (they are – VC) then clearly justice needs to be done. On this basis, I believe that anyone who breaks the law should be tried. As a result of your letter I have written to the Home Secretary to seek an explanation of his actions.’ – Edward Davey MP

'I was horrified to hear of the plight of Mickey and believe strongly that those responsible should be brought to justice. I would wholeheartedly condemn any failure to treat animals as humanely and painlessly as possible.’ – Jonathan Shaw MP

Harry Cohen MP sent me a copy of the letter he had sent to Jack Straw.
Here it is:

'Dear Minister

I enclose a self explanatory letter I have received from Dr Vernon Coleman...

I am concerned at the contents.

If you do know the identity of this cruel vivisector who apparently broke the law in regard to the mouse he was experimenting upon, then you should surely disclose it to the Police for possible prosecution.

Please explain why you apparently have not done so.

From this example, are the public now to choose which crimes/criminals and evidence they report to the Police, and which not?’

 

Other MPs wrote to me in similarly strong terms.

'You have my fullest support in what you are trying to do. I have been a long time opponent of vivisection and the way in which animals are mistreated, and the way in which many of the experiments are simply duplications...I believe that many of the experiments and examinations are no longer warranted. In my opinion the overwhelming majority of the British people would not consider them to be carried out in their interest. I would support any campaign that you mount which supports this view.’ – Councillor Mike Hancock CBE MP

'This is a matter of concern to me as the animal welfare spokesman for the Liberal Democrat party and many of my colleagues. Liberal Democrat policy states that the use of non-animal alternatives for experiments should be actively encouraged. I have campaigned against animal experiments for a long time now and it can be very disheartening hearing about more and more alleged abuses of the system.’

'Animals do deserve to be treated with respect, after all if we do not treat animals with respect how can we be expected to treat humans with respect. It makes no difference to me whether Mickey was a mouse or a chimpanzee he is entitled to the respect and dignity that every living creature deserves.’

'In my view leaving him in a clamp over a weekend amounts to causing him unnecessary suffering and this must surely contravene the Protection of Animals Act 1911 as well as contravening the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986.’

‘I will write to Rt Hon Jack Straw MP myself and ask him to explain why he proposes to take no further action on this matter. To aid this I would be most appreciative if you send me further information on this matter so that I can detail the exact events.’

'You have my full support in this campaign and I will endeavour to do what I can to help further this campaign.’ – Norman Baker MP (Liberal Democrat Animal Welfare Spokesman)

'...the principle you represent has to be the right one...I think we agree on this subject.’ – Andrew George MP

'I believe vivisection is inhumane and should not be allowed to continue.’ – Elfyn Llwyd MP

Paul Tyler CBE, MP, a Liberal Democrat MP, wrote to tell me that his party wanted to strengthen the Protection of Animals Act 1911 and review the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. And many other MPs have already written to me expressing their concern and confirming that they too have written to Jack Straw.
Several MPs wrote to say that they had already raised the issue with Jack Straw because of letters they had received from their constituents – who had written in response to the piece in last month’s VCHL. A good many MPs offered to do more. For example Win Griffiths MP wrote asking me to get in touch if there were issues I wanted him to take further with the Minister.

Of course not everyone is so supportive.

'What on earth are you making so much fuss about?’ demanded a vivisectionist (not an MP) who wrote to complain about the Justice for Mickey campaign. ‘The animal who died was just a mouse. I agree it was a pity that the mouse was left with his head in a clamp but I don’t understand why you are causing all this trouble? If it had been a cat or a dog I could have perhaps understood it. But is a dead mouse worth all this fuss?’

This vivisectionist simply doesn’t understand that it really doesn’t matter whether the animal who suffered was a rat, a kitten, a puppy, an elephant, a horse, a traffic warden, a lion or a mouse.

The principle is the same.

Cruelty to animals is wrong and should be punished.

When vivisectors say 'it’s only a mouse,' they are showing their ignorance, their brutality and their heartlessness. Mice (and rats) suffer just as much as any other creatures. When tortured in laboratories they moan, cry and whimper just as much as any other creature. Next time you see a mouse in your house watch carefully. You will see that mice show just as much fear as any other creature. The vivisectors say that animals do not 'cry out'. They claim that animals merely vocalise; that the sounds they make are reflex sounds and that they mean nothing. This is crude nonsense. There is no more evidence for this convenient claim than there was for the equally convenient (and once, equally popular) claim that black people do not suffer pain and are not sentient creatures.

Just twenty years ago doctors did not bother giving anaesthetics to human infants undergoing surgery on the grounds (completely unsubstantiated and based solely on myth) that babies do not suffer from pain. Doctors believed that human infants had immature nervous systems and, therefore, could not suffer pain and so although they used paralytic agents to stop the babies moving around while under the knife they used no anaesthetic. It was only when studies showed that babies who receive no pain medication take longer to recover from surgery that anaesthetists started giving babies an anaesthetic. All this, may I remind you, was happening less than twenty years ago in hospitals in Europe and America and was being authorised by doctors who must surely have seen their own infants crying during teething or because of the colic. The stupidity and barbarism of scientists is sometimes quite mind boggling.

Cruelty is cruelty is cruelty. And Mickey, who died in agony, deserves justice.

Let’s make sure he gets it.

The fact is that a vivisector who had a licence to torture animals but who went way beyond the legally ‘acceptable’ limits is being protected by Jack Straw – who knows, or has access to, his or her identity but won’t tell the police so that they can prosecute.

If this vivisector gets away with this then all vivisectors will know that they can get away with anything. They will know that animals don’t matter and that however cruel they may be they can count upon the Home Secretary to protect them.
We live in a supposedly civilised society.

But what is civilised about allowing a vivisector to break the law in this way? Jack Straw is effectively telling vivisectors that they can do what they like and get away with it. He is showing utter contempt for animals and for the law he is supposed to represent. He is showing contempt for the millions of people who care about animals. And he is saying that it is all right for a vivisector to do something which would result in an ordinary citizen in court.

Jack Straw’s position seems to support those who believe that vivisectors are above the law and that animals don’t matter a damn.
In the darkest days of the Middle Ages no one would have dreamt of destroying a life and then claiming that in doing so they were trying to understand life.
There is a philosophy which argues that after death we all have to suffer the pain we have inflicted on others. If this is so then vivisectors and vivisectionists will suffer indeed and their hollow claims that they were doing it ‘for science’ will not help them.

(As an aside I should perhaps remind readers that no scientist worth his salt could possibly argue that vivisection is of value to anyone other than a drug company executive searching for greater profits. The evidence proving that vivisection is utterly worthless is incontrovertible. Much vivisection is performed on the basis that animal experiments help doctors treat patients. This is patently untrue. There is convincing evidence to show that doctors now do more harm than good. The medical establishment now accepts that one in six hospital beds are occupied by patients who have been made ill by doctors. Doctor induced disease is up there alongside cancer and heart disease as one of the three biggest killers of our time. Whenever doctors go on strike mortality rates go down!

There is no doubt that stopping drug companies and scientists relying on animal experiments when testing new products and techniques would make a dramatic difference to human health. Animal experiments are the main reason why doctors now kill and maim so many people. Doctors rely on misleading animal experiments and thousands of innocent people have died as a result. Stopping vivisection is the best way to reduce the number of people being killed or made ill by doctors.)
But this isn’t about whether or not vivisection is justified. It is simply a matter of what is right and wrong; what is acceptable and what is not acceptable in a supposedly civilised society.

The laws protecting animals from human cruelty are mild enough but in this case the vivisector who abandoned Mickey with his head in a clamp broke the law.
The British Home Secretary does not dispute that the vivisector broke the law. But, because only an animal is involved, he is prepared to turn a blind eye and ignore the law.

Charities who are supposed to protect animals in Britain don’t seem much interested in this case. Just one of the charities I wrote to acknowledged my letter asking for support for Mickey. I think their silence is utterly contemptible and could explain why nothing has happened in the battle against vivisection – even though the battle has been going on for over a century.

Ensuring that animals are treated with respect is crucial and fundamental.

If we allow Mickey to die without justice then no animal is safe in Britain.

If you care about animals then you must do something.

If you are British and haven’t yet written to your MP – write today! Ask him to demand that Jack Straw give the police the name of the vivisector who left Mickey to die in agony. Politicians do respond to letters from their constituents – especially with an election just a few months away.

Write to your local paper. Write to TV and radio shows.

Ask them why they are allowing Jack Straw to protect a vivisector who has broken the law.

Non UK citizens should write to the nearest British Ambassador to demand that Britain respond to the Justice for Mickey campaign. (Britons are always quick enough to pass judgement on the citizens of other countries on animal issues. It would do the British government good if they felt that it was their turn to be criticised.)

Remember: if you aren’t part of the solution then you are part of the problem.

Vernon Coleman, 2001

Home