One of many iconic images of ALF rescues.
.png)
I could be spending my time writing to you about all the neat tricks to making great-tasting vegan meals. I could be offering you references to some thought-provoking work of animal rights pioneers. However, due to the recent Santa Cruz Bombings, it's imperative I waste this potential for the benefit of damage control regarding the use of violent and fear-based tactics in animal rights circles.
Shortly after going vegan, I devoted 2.5 months for traveling some of the U.S. and Europe to live, protest, and speak with animal rights groups because I wanted to learn just what in the heck everyone was doing and what needs to be done to make any real progress for animals.
"So you're okay with violence?"
When I was enjoying some stories among vegan friends in Birmingham, England, an apparently non-vegan, apparently laboratory scientist friend of my host sat next to me asking about my views of animal rights. At first, I thought he was just curious about what this whole animal rights thing was all about.
Before I could even finish with "Well, I believe animal rights is..." my new friend interjected with the bizarre question, "So you think it's okay to dig up people's graves to save animals?" He was referring to an incident where a group of "activists" had dug up the remains of a family member of a researcher in protest to their experimentation on animals. The public has a preconceived notion of what an animal rights activist believes. Based on the news of terrorism and violence I've been hearing lately, I can't blame them for wrongly accusing me of animal terrorism.
Consider this: There is no copyright for the term "animal rights activist." Animal rights is not a company; no one will be sued over misrepresentation the ideology of the animal rights movement. If someone chooses to commit a violent act against a person or property in order to rescue some animals from confinement, the media will be more than happy to agree to this label. The Animal Liberation Front (ALF) is the label most often given to this branch of activist.
Animal rights activism is inherently non-violent.
I don't intend to go into detail describing why or why not fear tactics and terrorism should be used in animal rights. Rather, I want the fact to be known that all labeled animal rights activists are not the same. I will also catch up to anyone attempting to dig up dirt on me that my views have long since changed on tactics like breaking into facilities to free animals and threatening acts against supporters of animal use. For instance, the full photo of my profile picture will show me wearing a T-shirt of an organization who recommends such actions. I'm in the midst of updating that picture.
If you are interested in a more detailed objection to these practices, I recommend my friend Lee Hall's book Capers in the Churchyard: Animal Rights Advocacy in the Age of Terror.
The animal rights theory to which I subscribe, and essentially regard as the only theory which could adequately be described as animal rights, does not recognize violence as having any place in fighting for the rights of animals. This is most clearly shown my definition of an animal as any sentient being. In other words, animal rights is not an alternative nor an opponent of human rights, but an extension. To inflict the cruelty of fear upon an animal is something an AR advocate would strongly disagree.
In the case of the bombings of the car of UC Santa Cruz assistant biology Professor David Feldheim, David Feldheim is a sentient being, an animal, a human. A self-proclaimed anima rights activist may not have bombed Prof. Feldheim himself*, but intentionally meant to inflict cruelty in the form of fear and property damage accompanied by the chilling note, "We know where you work, we know where you live."
Good ol' vegan advocacy is still perfectly legal and non-threatening.
A statement of non-support
Please understand there are dedicated non-violent animal rights activists out there who have no say in who will act under the same label. I personally do not support any such act and only use tactics which are peaceful and nurturing to anyone regardless to what they eat, wear, or think. I disagree with the idea that human beings exploit animals out of pure evil. Instead, I regard animals as having the status of property in society. In the system of animal exploitation, there are largely no individuals who are simply inflicting harm to animals without production of goods or services.
In the system of exploitation there is supply and demand. Individuals and corporations supply what is demanded while sometimes using means of animal cruelty to make this supply more efficient. It is my mission to change not just the diets or purchases of consumers, but change the fundamental mindset of the public to gain awareness of our use of animals and act in accordance to what is ethically logical--abolishing the status of animals as property. The first step is going vegan.
(*Feldheim is reported to have bruised himself upon panic of the bomb)
Comments
I am so happy there are people as eloquent as you speaking up. Thank you.
This is an absurd article built upon the lies and propaganda of speciesist oppressors.
I refuse to feel sorry for vivisector David Feldheim or any other guilty human who profits through torturing and murdering innocent sentient beings.
If it were humans who were the victims, would we be condemning the "violence" of destroying inanimate property to stop the atrocities and win their liberation? I think not.
First of all, you're comparing violence to force. When most people think of violence it is inflicted on another being, not an inanimate object (i.e. property).
Secondly, how does digging up a body make people afraid? "Ahh I'm dead, and people are digging me up! I can't sense anything but this frightens me to no end!" Dead people are DEAD! They don't have interests! Unlike the animals you seem to oppose people digging out of THEIR early graves!
WWII wasn't ended by pacifism. Being pacifistic in the face of persistent violence accomplishes nothing and essentially only sides you with the people perpetrating the violence.
"I regard animals as having the status of property in society"
It's amazing that anyone who says they care about Animal Rights can say this! Non human animals should no more be enslaved than human animals should for a start.
The digging up of the bones (that's what they would've been) of the lady from the vivisection family (NGF) has NEVER been attributed to ANYONE in Animal Rights, no doubt it was a police set up! Anyway how can a set of bones equate at all with the plight the animals face daily??!
Sounds like Adam Kochanowicz is another one of the sheeple out there that believes everything the media tell him... oh dear!
Thanks Adam for this post. It's not easy to write about this issue and you are bound to offend many or be easily misinterpreted, and judging from the comments both have happened.
I would suggest follow up posts if you find it useful.
There is violence against humans, 'violence' or force against property, rescue - open or not, fear tactics, direct-action, defense against violence, general law breaking - being against one does not mean being against them all. The differences are not always obvious, or are some as obviously always wrong, it at all, as others. Different groups may advocate for different tactics - ALF, ARM, Sea Shephard etc. Individuals like Steven Best might forcefully argue for one position while others like Gary Francione for a completely different one - references to both might help your readers.
Thx again - thought provoking as always.
In reply to comments from a others, I don't empathize with vivisectors nor do I sympathize with those in England who terrorized a family by digging up a relative's remains. The upshot of that offensive gesture
was the replacement of breeding guinea pigs with a dairy farm. The ALF requires its followers to drop meat, but not dairy.
Discussing conduct within a movement is long overdue, and Capers in the Churchyard, which Adam recommends, sets the stage for that important dialogue. As Lee Hall writes in Capers... "When violence and destruction has, for century after century, been the tedious norm, non-violence is revolutionary."
Also, non-violence shouldn't be confused with passivity. "Animal rights is the development of respect for the interests of conscious beings in living on their terms rather than under human dominion." -- Lee Hall, page 61
of Capers in the Churchyard
There are always many sides to any revolution and people are free to choose which path they take or join and that is right. The people who choose to use direct methods choose them for various reasons not the least of which is no desire to work within the same rules that protect the abusers.
It is clear that our societies and its laws are becoming more and more about profits and corporations and not about morals or ethics or protecting the weaker humans or species.
There are people who enjoy the glory of standing on their podiums and talking the talk and they do a great job of converting a few and then there are those who see injustice and take it upon themselves to physically do something about it where words fall on deaf ears. They receive no glory or recognition but to me (and many others not least the animals they save) they are the true heroes.
We need to stop squabbling amongst ourselves about the rights and wrongs of methods and legalities and just get on with changing the wor
Wow, Priscilla! I had no idea ALF wasn't a completely vegan organization!
Adam, I think much of what you wrote here (excellent, thought-provoking as always)was misinterpreted by your readers. Another commenter suggested follow-up posts; sadly, don't know if it would help. Anyway, thanks for another great article!
Vivisection is greed, not a simple case of supply and demand. Vegan outreach is not going to stop the likes of David Feldheim from committing real acts of violence. Activists who risk their freedom to save the lives of nonhuman animals deserve our support. If you don't agree with their tactics, don't condone them, but don't condemn them either. I think you need to ask yourself who the real terrorists are and why you are siding with them.
"A self-proclaimed animal rights activist may not have bombed Prof. Feldheim himself"
And what evidence are you willing to offer that it was an animal rights activist at all? There is no communique, nothing. Just the FBI's word and the word of an animal abuser. Perhaps you're ignorant of history and have forgotten the role of the FBI in liberation struggles. Here's a few names as reminder of what they're capable of: Fred Hampton. Mark Clark. Bunchy Carter. Judi Bari.
Ah, let me get this straight first.
Adam, you're an animal rights activist? Hmm. You have friends in Birmingham, one having a vivisector friend? Ri-ght. Hmm.
This vivisector, who is an activists friend, then queries your possible ALF activities?
I know of another story, very similar to yours... at around 00:00 hours on the twenty fourth of December each year would you believe, an old obese man in Coca Cola red flies across the top of my house, laden down with toys, then squeezes his engorged frame into my chimney....
Hey, are you friends with Ben Goldacre a similar guy to you, a 'quack buster' in the UK.
No? Howsabout a friend of Tom Holder who has a similar job to yourself? He's the main mouth piece for Pro-Test Animal Research Supporters.
Just wondering.
Good guys ~ google these two and you'll see exactly what i'm talking about.
Nearly all those who've commented have come down on the side of the use of militant direct action as ONE of many tactics that we need to employ, depending upon context, in this war against holocausting of 50 billion nonhuman animals each year. Very good to see!
For more on a total liberationist and all-encompassing (in that it welcomes both violent and non-violent actions) perspective, visit Thomas Paine's Corner and click on the total liberation button on the bar below the banner.
The essays linked under Total Liberation along with "Who’s Afraid of Jerry Vlasak?"; "You Don’t Support the ALF Because Why?"; and "In the face of unspeakable evil, is it even possible for me to go too far?" present a powerful and convincing argument that we need to use any means necessary to snap the spine of speciesist capitalism.
(Use the Thomas Paine's Corner site search feature in the top left column to find the essays I mentioned or you can Google the titles on the Internet)
It is clear from this piece that not all animal right activists are violent, and I applaud Adam for taking the step to open the debate on why exactly people like him should let extremists like Jason Miller take over the direction of the movement.
Yet, it seems clear that Adam's non-violent position, while held by many, is not advocated forcefully enough. If one were to read the comments to this article, the resulting impression is that the majority view is that the ALF are heroes.
Either the sane among you will retake control of the movement or the terrorist will erase any incremental gains you have made in the last few decades. In the process, you might even save some animal lives (humans are animals too).
If you want to help the movement follow Adam's recommendation first: go vegan first -- then help society put the animal right terrorists behind bars.
Thanks for a good-faith attempt to shed light not heat on this issue. Keep trying.
Denis,
Are you vegan? Because in your other posts on this website you've seemed like someone with an interest in exploiting other animals. Maybe you understand that a focus solely on consumers, one which refuses to implicate corporations that indoctrinate the masses and convince the public that they need to consume flesh and secretions to be healthy and happy or that vivisection must continue if we are to have safe products and find cures to disease, takes the blame off those most responsible for perpetuating the system. Activists working to directly challenge the structure of speciesist oppression, such as those who take nonviolent direct action to cause economic damage to corporate animal-exploiters and rescue/liberate victims of speciesism, are seen as threats in the here and now to further profitability.
Don’t get me wrong, nearly all of my activist time is spent promoting veganism to the masses. At the same time, I work to expose the immoral (they aren’t amoral) corporations
[continued from below]
that lobby for deregulation and repressive laws, receive massive taxpayer subsidies, and saturate the media with speciesist propaganda. Finally, I refuse to condemn activists who break the law to facilitate the liberation of other animals.
Brandon - i don't think 'breaking the law' is as much of a concern as 'compromising our message', when utilizing violence.
I also believe there could be a case that 'force' acted upon property can be considered violent. Especially based on the intent.
An opponent of yours could take a baseball bat and hammer away at the car you're in...surely all would agree that it's a violent act. Yet no one was 'hurt'. Which brings up another point: pain isn't only physical. Certainly one would *feel* threatened in the above scenario.
Is it meaningless if someone feels threatened and attacked, so long as they aren't physically compromised? Is that how we want people to feel?
Sounds like some serious logistical acrobatics to me. The threat of violence has no small meaning, imo...and it seems ridiculous to oppose violent behavior with yet more violence.
Brandon -- what about if your mother's grave were stolen? Would that be Ok? Of course nobody would have been hurt! Well, today the press is filled with the story that Novartis' CEO had her mom stolen... Yup, her ashes were stolen by SHAC. Oh, and as an additional present, his weekend home was firebombed.
ALF will celebrate this... The rest of the animal rights community will remain silent for fear of becoming targets themselves.
Denis,
First of all, you didn't answer my question - are you vegan? I think it's safe to assume not.
Regardless of the actions others take, whether they are nonhuman animal advocates or government/corporate agents working to discredit the movement, this fact remains: other animals have fundamental interests in liberty and life. As long as nonhuman animals continue to have their rights violated - labeled as property under the law and unjustly deprived of their liberty and their lives - activists will continue using various means to secure justice, from the conventional to unconventional. All social movements utilize a variety of tactics, with some factions taking actions that other factions disapprove of. No one should have to answer for anyone else.
May we all continue to struggle onwards toward liberation!
Well Adam... There you go. You have met your colleagues in the movement. Now what?
Here's some good timing, check out the latest release from animalliberationpressoffice.org; they have also torched Daniel Vasella's 'Austrian hunting lodge'.
Can you torch a building an ensure no animals will be injured?
Further, they conclude the press release with:
"We personally can only regret that Mr. Vasella was not present in the home when it burned."
This is not animal rights. This is not vegan. This is a bunch of thugs and bullies hijacking our cause to live out their sick, violent fantasies.
Dave, congratulations on thinking beyond the immediate actions to consider collateral effects. Now, if you aren't exhausted from the baby step you have already taken, consider the effects of everyday actions on whole herds, or even species. Imagine all your dreams have come true and everyone eats nothing but vegetation. To feed everyone, grazing lands and forests are turned to cultivation. No one raises cattle, sheep, goats, pigs, horses, or llamas because they no longer have a market value. Thus, they die out, except the pigs, as omnivores can live off the land and propagate. You can read about the damage feral pigs already do to sensitive ecosystems and endangered plant species. So, whole species die out to make room for your food. You may have to pay huge fees to photograph wild animals in National Parks. Either that or those species largely die out too, because there is no money to manage them, no one is paying the bill to keep the population viable. Now polluting Corp.s will rule!
Richard - you're obviously oblivious to the fact that significantly more land is used for animal agriculture. In North America, 70-90% of corn, soy and wheat are fed to livestock. Were we all to go vegan, vast tracts of land would be allowed to return to a pre-exploited state and allow free-living animals to flourish.
The rest of your posting is mostly uninformed (and downright bizarre at the end).
At what point does patience become complicity? How much can "rights" activists (passively) tolerate until non-action aligns us with the oppressors?When is being a vocal vegan just not enough?
We are supposed to educate and persuade market demand.How is this possible when the market is shielded from failure by the government?How can we sway economics when the meat/dairy industries have contracts with the USDA? Our military and other government institutions consume a huge portion of animal products.Attempting to reduce consumer demand would be a wonderful idea in a free market...But with school lunch programs, VA hospitals, senior centers and other food programs-"fighting" for the animals via "economics" just isn't going to work.Nor will it work against the majority of corrupt government officials that line their pockets with payoffs from meat and dairy lobbies.
Not advocating violence/physical harm to humans-just saying there has to be more in our stratedgy than decreasing demand
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!