Cowardice asks the question, Is it safe? Expediency asks the question, Is it politic? Vanity asks the question, Is it popular? But conscience asks the question, Is it right? And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular, but he must take it because his conscience tells him that it is right.—Martin Luther King, Jr.
It is not the oppressed who determine the means of resistance, but the oppressor.—Nelson Mandela
The '60s are over and the animals don't have time for their hippy dreams.—Bite Back magazine
How to Justify Violence
TOM REGAN, PHD
Mahatma Gandhi has had a profound influence on my life. I think it is fair to say that I would never have become an animal rights advocate if I had not read his autobiography.1 Learning about his life changed mine. Gandhi helped me see that cows and pigs, not just cats and dogs, are unique somebodies, not disposable somethings. Voiceless somebodies. Vulnerable somebodies. Innocent somebodies. Gandhi made me feel deeply responsible for how we humans treat other creatures. If I did not assert their rights, if I remained neutral, who would speak for them? For the past 30 years and more, speaking for them has been a large part of my being in the world.
Pacifism is one place Gandhi went where I never have been able to go. He teaches that the use of violence is always wrong, even in defense of those who have done no wrong, those who are innocent. I think I understand this way of thinking. It is at least as old as Jesus' injunction to “turn the other cheek” if someone smites thee.
Maybe it's my blue-collar background, but I have always believed that anyone who smites me (or my wife or our children, for example) is looking for trouble. Depending on the circumstances (the attacker is not carrying a gun, for example) I hope I would have the courage to do some serious smiting back.
If my experience has taught me anything, it is that I am not the exception. I am the rule. Throughout my life I have met very few people (I could count them all with the fingers on one hand) who think differently. Sometimes, in some circumstances, violence is justified. That's what the rest of us believe. Where we sometimes part company is over the question, “In what circumstances?”
My answer sets forth three conditions.2 First, the violence employed is used to defend the innocent. Second, nonviolent alternatives have been exhausted, as time and circumstances permit. Third, the violence used is not excessive; in other words, the amount or kind of violence employed is not more than is needed to achieve the desired objective: the defense of the innocent. Here is an example that illustrates how things can go wrong.
Suppose an estranged father kidnaps his children and threatens to kill them if the police try to rescue them. Clearly, the children are innocent, so one of the conditions is satisfied. However, if the police shoot the father before negotiating with him, their use of violence would be unjustified in my view. In their haste, they did not take the time to exhaust nonviolent alternatives. Further, if the police used lethal force when another method would have sufficed (tear gas, say), that would be wrong, too. The amount of violence used was excessive.
My judgment is different, given different circumstances. If the police have every reason to believe that the father intends to kill his children, if they patiently negotiated in good faith, and if no less violent means would succeed in rescuing the children, then, in my view, the police would be justified in using lethal force.
Is my view “crazy,” “weird,” “irrational,” “extreme”? I don't think so. Except for Gandhian pacifists, I think the rest of humanity is on my side. None of us endorses the use of violence for frivolous reasons. Or a policy of shooting first and asking questions later. Or using more violence when less will do. We all understand that we can justify using violence some of the time without believing that its use is justified all of the time.
My view (our view, I dare say) is directly relevant to the central question at the heart of some forms of animal rights advocacy. This question asks, “Is the use of violence in defense of animals ever justified?”
Some animal rights advocates (ARAs) dismiss this question because of how they understand the meaning of “violence.” In their perspective, violence is restricted to causing physical harm to a sentient being, human or otherwise. Given this usage, the police used violence when they shot the estranged father. The same is true when rapists assault their victims or when bombs are dropped on people during a war. But if no harm is caused to anyone, then, no matter what people do, no violence is done.3
I personally disagree with ARAs who think this way, and I am not alone. Ask any member of the general public whether firebombing an empty synagogue involves violence. Ask any lawyer whether arson is a violent crime (whether or not anyone is hurt). The response is over-whelmingly likely to be, “Am I missing something? Of course these acts are violent.” The plain fact is, our language is not tortured or stretched when we speak of the “violent destruction of property.” The plain fact is, we do not need to hurt someone in order to do violence to some thing.
Gandhi agrees. “Sabotage [destroying property for political purposes, without hurting anyone in the process] is a form of violence,” he writes, adding, “People have realized the futility of physical violence but some people apparently think it [that is, violence] may be successfully practiced in its modified form as sabotage.”4 Gandhi does not count himself among those who think this way.
Martin Luther King, Jr. sees things the same way. Among the many relevant examples: In March of 1968, shortly before his death, King was leading a march in Memphis on behalf of the city's sanitation workers. “At the back of the line,” King's biographer, Stephen B. Oates, observes, “black teenagers were smashing windows and looting stores. . . . King signaled to [James] Lawson [the local march coordinator] . . . ‘I will never lead a violent march,’ King said, ‘so please call it off.’ While Lawson yelled in his bullhorn for everybody to return to the church, King . . . climbed into a car [and sped away].”5 No one was hurt that day in Memphis, but some serious violence was done.
ARAs who think that arson and other forms of destruction of property are forms of “nonviolent direct action” are free to think what they will. Certainly nothing I say can make them change their minds. I will only observe that, in my opinion, unless or until these advocates accept the fact that some ARAs use violence in the name of animal rights (for example, when they firebomb empty research labs), the general public will turn a deaf ear when their spokespersons attempt to justify such actions.
So the real question, I believe, is not whether some ARAs use violence. The real question is whether they are justified in doing so. Here are the main outlines of a possible justification.
1. Animals are innocent.
2. Violence is used only when it is necessary to rescue them so that they are spared terrible harms.
3. Excessive violence is never used.
4. Violence is used only after nonviolent alternatives have been exhausted, as time and circumstances permit.
5. Therefore, in these cases, the use of violence is justified.
What should we say in response to this line of reasoning? If all the premises (1 through 4) are true, how can we avoid agreeing with the conclusion (5)? True, Gandhian pacifists can avoid the conclusion; they do not accept any violence, even in defense of the innocent. However, most of us are not Gandhian pacifists; for us, the plot thickens.
Personally, I don't think the second premise is true of all or even most of the violence done in the name of animal rights. Why not? Because the vast majority of this violence does not involve animal rescue. The vast majority (I estimate 98 percent) is property destruction, pure and simple. In cases like these, the defense we are considering contributes nothing by way of justification.
What of the remaining two percent of cases, cases where violence is used and animals are rescued? For example, suppose a multi-million dollar lab is burnt to the ground after the animals in it have been liberated. Would this kind of violence be justified, given the argument sketched above?
Again, I don't think so. And the reason I don't think so is that I don't think the requirement set forth in premise 4 has been satisfied. Personally, I do not think that ARAs in general, members of the ALF in particular, have done nearly enough when it comes to exhausting nonviolent alternatives. Granted, to do this will take time and will require great patience coupled with hard, dedicated work. Granted, the results of these labors are uncertain. And granted, animals will be suffering and dying every hour of every day that ARAs struggle to free them using nonviolent means. Nevertheless, unless or until ARAs have done the demanding nonviolent work that needs to be done, the use of violence, in my judgment, is not morally justified. (It is also a tactical disaster. Even when animals are rescued, the story the media tells is about the “terrorist” acts of ARAs, not the terrible things that were being done to animals. The one thing ARA violence never fails to produce is more grist for the mills run by spokespersons for the major animal user industries.)
ARAs who disagree with me are certainly free to argue that violence is justified under different conditions than those I have given. For example, they could argue that violence is justified when the damage caused is so extensive that it puts an animal abuser out of business. In this case, no animals are rescued but (so it may be argued) some animals are spared the horrors of vivisection in a lab or a lifetime of deprivation on a fur farm, for example. However, to consider such an argument is premature. Before it merits consideration, ARAs who support such actions need to acknowledge that these are violent acts, something that, as we have seen, these supporters are loath to admit.
The role of violence in social justice movements raises complicated questions that always have and always will divide activists on matters of substance, ethics, and strategy in particular. It need not divide ARAs when it comes to assessments of character. I know ARAs who have spent years in jail because they have broken the law, having used violence as I understand this idea. To a person, these activists believe ARAs already have exhausted nonviolent alternatives. To a person, they believe the time for talking has passed. To a person, they believe the time for acting has arrived.
I have never doubted the sincerity and commitment—or the courage—these activists embody. I am reminded of an observation (I cannot find the source) Gandhi once made, to the effect that he had more admiration for people who have the courage to use violence than he had for people who embraced nonviolence out of cowardice. So, yes, ARAs who use violence are courageous in their acts, and sincere in their commitment. And yes, perhaps some of us who reject the violence they employ do so out of cowardice. Nevertheless, violence done by ARAs, in my judgment, not only is wrong but hurts, rather than helps, the animal rights movement.
Before concluding, it is important to take note of how the story of “animal rights violence” gets told by the media. On the one side, we have the law-abiding people who work for the major animal user industries. On the other side, we have violent, law-breaking ARAs. Paragons of nonviolence versus beady-eyed flamethrowers. Not only is this absurdly unfair to ARAs, 99+ percent of whom do not participate in violent forms of activism, it is nothing less than a cover-up of the truth when it comes to what the major animal user industries do. The treatment animals receive in the name of scientific research illustrates my meaning.
Animals are drowned, suffocated, and starved to death; they have their limbs severed and their organs crushed; they are burned, exposed to radiation, and used in experimental surgeries; they are shocked, raised in isolation, exposed to weapons of mass destruction, and rendered blind or paralyzed; they are given heart attacks, ulcers, paralysis, and seizures; they are forced to inhale tobacco smoke, drink alcohol, and ingest various drugs, such as heroine and cocaine.
And they say ARAs are violent. The bitter truth would be laughable if it were not so tragic. The violence done to things by some ARAs (by which I mean the violent destruction of insensate property) is nothing compared to the violence done to feeling creatures by the major animal user industries. A raindrop compared to an ocean. On a day-to-day basis, by far the greatest amount of violence done in the “civilized” world occurs because of what humans do to other animals. That the violence is legally protected, that in some cases (for example, vivisection) it is socially esteemed, only serves to make matters worse.
Finally, and lamentably, one thing seems certain. Unless the massive amount of violence done to animals is acknowledged by those who do it, and until meaningful steps are taken to end it, as certain as night follows day, some ARAs, somewhere, somehow, will use violence against animal abusers themselves to defend the rights of animals.6
Notes
1. Mohandas K. Gandhi, Autobiography: The Story of my Experiments with Truth (Boston: Beacon Press, 1965).
2. As I understand the issues, these three conditions represent the paradigm case of the justification for the use of violence. Additional conditions may be possible. My discussion of violence here is adapted from my discussion in Empty Cages: Facing the Challenge of Animal Rights (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2004).
3. Thus do we find the Animal Liberation Front described as being involved in “a non-violent campaign, activists taking all precautions not to harm any animals (human or otherwise).”
4. Thomas Merton, ed., Gandhi on Nonviolence (New York: New Directions, 1965), 39.
5. Stephen B. Oates, Let the Trumpet Sound: The Life of Martin Luther King, Jr. (New York: Harper & Row, 1982), 477.
6. For further elaboration on the future of violence by ARAs, see my “Understanding Animal Rights Violence,” in Defending Animal Rights (Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press, 2001).
Direct Action: Progress, Peril, or Both?
FREEMAN WICKLUND
This article was published in the July–August 1998 issue of The Animals' Agenda. Some people no longer hold the positions and titles that they did when the article was first published, and more recent direct actions are not taken into consideration.
Direct action—placing oneself in harm's way for a cause more important than oneself—may prove a formidable challenge to injustice and bolster positive social change. It may be nonviolent as in Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s civil disobedience campaigns against segregation in the 1960s, or it may be violent as in fugitive “slave” Nat Turner's 1831 armed rebellion, which killed 60 people. Direct action may wield psychological and persuasive force as did Mohandas Gandhi's 1930s civil disobedience campaign for an independent India, or it may wield physical and coercive force as does the Irish Republican Army's assassinations and bombings. The United States has a long tradition of direct action: the American Revolution and the movements for civil rights, women's suffrage, temperance, and the abolition of slavery all had a direct action component. The present struggle for animal liberation is no exception.
This article seeks to evaluate the effectiveness of direct action for animals.1 To do this, we must first know what we want. Before you read on, try visualizing an ideal society where animal liberation has already been achieved. What would the people be wearing and eating in this society? How would they treat the animals in their lives? And what is their motivation for behaving in this way?
In your visualization, did you see a society where an unwilling majority is forced by a tiny minority to adhere to a vegan lifestyle? Such a society would require a loyal force of animal rights troops and probably martial law. The troops would be needed to accompany campers and hikers into the woods to ensure that they are not hunting, trapping, or fishing. They would also be responsible for finding and eliminating the inevitable black market trade in illegal animal products; raiding the homes of non-believers in search of contraband animal flesh, milk, eggs, and skins; and busting the illegal speakeasy-style burger bars. The troops would basically do all they could try to force an unwilling public to live vegan lives.
Creating such a society would be impractical. Animal rights supporters lack the money, material resources, authority, people, skills, and will to implement this kind of society. More importantly, such a society is undesirable. In the same way that back-alley abortions were conducted prior to abortion's legalization, and speakeasy bars violated Prohibition, violence toward animals will continue as long as there is a demand for the products of exploitation.
If you are like most animal advocates, the society you envisioned did not have martial law, but was rather a respectful society where people did not eat, wear, vivisect, or otherwise use animals or animal products because to do so would be morally repugnant, unconscionable, and wrong. In other words, the majority of people in an animal rights society have voluntarily adopted an animal rights philosophy.
Although all social justice struggles achieve their victories through a combination of coercion and persuasion, to effectively strategize, we must choose which mechanism will be the primary mechanism best suited for achieving our objectives. Harry Emerson Fosdick wrote, “He who chooses the beginning of the road chooses the place it leads to. It is the means that determines the ends.” The road of coercion leads toward the society of martial law. The road of persuasion leads to the respectful society where the majority of people voluntarily choose a vegan lifestyle.
Understanding these distinctions allows us to better evaluate direct action by determining when, and under what circumstances, it moves us closer to—or further away from—our ultimate objective of a society where most people live vegan lives because they believe in animal rights.
Direct Action for Animals
Coordinated direct action for animals began in Britain in the early 1960s with the formation of the Hunt Saboteurs Association (HSA). Its members prevented the killing of wildlife by confusing the hunters' hounds with false scents and signals, and by placing themselves between the hunters and the hunted. In 1972 some HSA members formed an underground organization called the Band of Mercy and conducted nighttime raids to damage vehicles used to transport hounds to the hunting grounds. In 1973 the Band of Mercy diversified its targets by attempting to burn down an unfinished vivisection laboratory in Milton Keynes, and by burning a sealing boat in East Anglia. In 1975 the Band of Mercy changed its name to the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) and continued to conduct clandestine raids against industries that use animals.
In the United States, ALF actions started in 1977 when two dolphins were released from a research facility in Honolulu, Hawaii. In the 1980s, the American ALF conducted a handful of expertly planned, high-profile, and well-orchestrated raids on research laboratories to rescue animals and obtain evidence of abuse. The 1994 raids at the City of Hope medical center in Duarte, California and the University of Pennsylvania's head injury clinic resulted in an $11,000 fine against the former and helped obtain a suspension of grant money to the latter. At some raids the ALF damaged equipment and used fire to destroy vacated labs. Labs responded by increasing security and pressuring government officials to take stronger action, which they did.
In 1987 the first Federal grand jury was convened in Sacramento, California to investigate the $4.5 million arson that had destroyed a research lab under construction earlier that year. Historically, the government uses grand juries to intimidate activists and destroy the solidarity and trust within political movements. Grand juries targeting animal activists in California, Michigan, Oregon, Washington, and Utah did just that. The US ALF's last high profile lab raid was the Texas Tech raid in July of 1989.
Recently, the ALF have been focusing their attention on fur farms. According to J. P. Goodwin, who was arrested for ALF activity in 1992 and is currently the executive director of the Coalition to Abolish the Fur Trade, the ALF have raided more than 45 fur farms and released 80,000 animals since the fall of 1995. Although many of these animals were recaptured or died soon after release, Goodwin defends the raids by claiming, “At least now the animals have a fighting chance at life, instead of a certain death from neck-breaking, gassing, or anal electrocution.” He also says that at least two raided farms went out of business, and others may have closed rather than invest in security measures to protect their farms from raids. Although he admits it is impossible to know how many mink farms have closed because of ALF actions, Goodwin says the US Department of Agriculture's National Agriculture Statistics Service shows that between 1995 and 1996, the number of US mink farms dropped from 450 to 415.
Pros and Cons of the ALF
According to Katie Fedor, founder of the North American ALF Press Office, the ALF consists of anonymous activists who work individually or in groups called “cells” to conduct clandestine commando raids that rescue animals, destroy the opposition's property, and obtain evidence of animal cruelty, while taking all precautions to avoid injuring human or nonhuman animals. Fedor claims that besides saving animals and reducing the opposition's profits, ALF actions generate media coverage and help shed light on the atrocities committed against animals.
But do ALF actions further the attainment of our ultimate goal—the creation of a society where the masses voluntarily adopt a belief in animal rights? Goodwin believes so. “I think [ALF actions] lead to controversy, which leads to education, which leads to the removal of demand for the product,” he says. For the most part, Fedor, Direct Action Defense Fund co-founder Catherine Rice, and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals chairperson Ingrid Newkirk agree with Goodwin. As Newkirk explains, “Sometimes a direct action angers people, annoys them, and causes them to deride our cause. . . . [W]e have to find ways that may not be popular and may not be appealing and may not be initially persuasive to grab headlines, put animal issues on the front page, and keep the debate alive. Out of those debates changes come whether people like what got them talking in the first place or they don't.”
However, not all activists agree. Courtney Dillard, who has a master's degree in rhetoric and has extensively researched the animal rights movement's use of direct action and media coverage, says, “If there has been one downfall of this movement, it is our subjugation of the message to gain media coverage at the expense of our argument. The message is lost to image, and that image is typically negative, which decreases our numbers. People steer away from extremely controversial images. They steer away from things that are easily ridiculed, and a lot of the images that have come out of this movement taint us as being violent or ludicrous.”
Dillard believes the public's typical response to hostile, threatening, or disrespectful actions could be summed up by the words of author Ralph Waldo Emerson: “What you do speaks so loud that I cannot hear what you say.” Instead of discussing animal exploitation, the focus shifts to critique the activists' negative characteristics. This is evidenced by the fact that after ALF actions in Minneapolis, Salt Lake City, Norfolk, Syracuse, and other cities, editorials by local media representatives vocally condemned the ALF and animal rights.
ALF actions create other outcomes we must also consider when evaluating their overall worth. Four US ALF activists are currently serving sentences ranging from 12 to 57 months. Joshua Ellerman, who used pipe bombs to cause $1 million in damage to the Fur Breeders Agricultural Co-op in Sandy, Utah, faces a 35-year jail sentence. Since June of 1995 grand juries, accompanied with increased governmental surveillance and harassment towards activists, have convened in New York, Utah, and Oregon under the guise of investigating ALF activity. As a result, many activists have left the movement and some of the targeted animal organizations have been crippled. Time and energy is diverted away from direct animal rights work and into justifying ALF actions, training activists in security, challenging grand juries, and coping with increased government repression. Financial resources are diverted away from animals and into paying bail and providing lawyers for ALF activists, and maintaining movement support throughout their sentences. Considering these realities, we should ask ourselves how much of our limited resources we are willing to divert away from promoting animal rights in order to sustain the ALF and endure the movement-wide and publicly sanctioned repression it creates? At what point do these actions cost more than they are worth?
The Nonviolent Path
In order to create the ideal society we visualized, we must convince society of the justness of our cause and mobilize them to take action. Both Gandhi's struggle for an independent India and King's struggle for civil rights successfully used direct action to change their societies' views and mobilize the masses. Considering our similar aims, we should analyze their direct action strategies to see if we may learn from them.
In his book Why We Can't Wait, King wrote that people engaged in direct action “must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty.”2 By openly revealing their plans beforehand, treating their opponents with goodwill, and courageously bearing violent repression without hitting back, members of the US Civil Rights Movement maintained the moral high ground, exposed the tyrannical nature of their rivals, mobilized public sympathy, and ultimately won the support of enough people to gain their demand for equal legal rights.
King viewed direct action as the final part of a natural progression. He said, “In any nonviolent campaign there are four basic steps: collection of the facts to determine whether injustices exist, negotiation, self-purification, and direct action.” In all of King's campaigns, diverse arrays of tactics were used, such as public speeches, literature distribution, boycotts, marches, sit-ins, kneel-ins, freedom rides, etc. However, these tactics were only used if negotiations did not secure their demands. King's sincere attempts to gain justice through negotiations and extensive public education efforts helped justify to the public his eventual escalation to the use of direct action.
But before engaging in direct action, King required activists to undergo “self-purification.” This refers to the training and screening conducted to ensure that all direct action participants would remain calm, dignified, and respectful regardless of the violence they might endure. Potential civil rights demonstrators were required to sign a pledge agreeing to “sacrifice personal wishes in order that all [people] might be free” and to “refrain from violence of fist, tongue, or heart.” During workshops, they were asked if they could endure jail time and beatings without retaliating. Trainers assumed the role of hostile and abusive police officers to test the courage, nerves, and discipline of the activists, and to ensure that they would follow the nonviolent creed “to resist without bitterness; to be cursed and not reply; to be beaten and not hit back.” Not everyone who volunteered could pass these rigorous tests.
The self-purification stage prepared civil rights activists to courageously endure violent repression without retaliating or surrendering. In May of 1963 Birmingham activists seeking integration were beaten with clubs, attacked by police dogs, and blasted down streets with high-pressure water hoses, yet they remained nonviolent in word and deed. King firmly believed that this blatantly unjust repression helped positively transform the values of the nation. He felt that because of these incidents, “the moral conscience of the nation was deeply stirred and, all over the country, our fight became the fight of decent Americans of all races and creeds.”
It seems the attitudes of the entire country were shifting in a positive direction—including those of white segregationists and police. During the campaign, King noticed the unusual neutrality of white citizens who previously would have violently resisted them. He was also aware of one incident in which police forces violated direct orders from their superior officer by refusing to attack peaceful marchers with fire hoses and dogs.
At the peak of this direct action campaign, an estimated 2,500 protesters were in jail, but their heroic self-sacrifice had galvanized to action thousands more who saturated the streets of Birmingham until finally local businesses agreed to the protesters' demands of integrated facilities and nondiscriminatory hiring practices.
As it turns out, self-sacrifice is a major component of King's—and his mentor, Gandhi's—direct action strategy. Gandhi explains it this way, “I have found that mere appeal to reason does not answer where prejudices are age-long and based on supposed religious authority. Reason has to be strengthened by suffering and suffering opens the eyes to understanding.”
Contemporary nonviolent strategist Gene Sharp, author of the book The Politics of Nonviolent Action, names this technique of courageously and respectfully bearing violent repression to gain active support for your cause “political jujitsu.” Political jujitsu allows activists to turn their opponent's repression into an asset. The more their opponent represses them, the stronger their movement becomes. However, in order to use this technique activists must be willing to endure the repression without retaliating with violence or hostility.
Some question animal activists' ability to use this technique because we are not fighting for our own rights, as black people and Indians were for theirs. Thankfully, irrespective of the victim of violent repression, political jujitsu undermines the opposition's authority while bolstering the authority of the courageous activists who endure the repression. Sympathy for activists translates into sympathy for the cause they represent. If people respect you, they will want to emulate you. The fact that we fight for others does not invalidate this strategy. However, it does mean we must conduct our actions in such a way that it maintains the focus on the animals, while avoiding the temptation to change the focus to issues of police brutality or our own suffering.
Lessons at Hegins
The protests surrounding the annual pigeon shoot in Hegins, Pennsylvania, reveal the different forms that direct action for animals can take. Every Labor Day since 1934, over 5,000 pigeons are used as live targets for shooters. Seventy percent of the birds shot are only wounded. Local children catch the wounded birds and kill them by breaking their necks, stepping on them, or throwing them into piles to suffocate on each other.
Since 1990, the Fund for Animals has spearheaded the campaign to end the shoot. They have initiated petition drives, “Action Alerts” to mobilize local residents, cruelty complaints, legislation, and advertising, and produced an educational video to affect change. The group has also tried a diverse array of direct action, some of which included openly violating the law.
In 1992 the Fund encouraged people from all over the country to attend the protest at Hegins. According to Heidi Prescott, the Fund's national director, more than 1,500 people came and the tone of the protest was extremely hostile. Shooters and their supporters entered the park through an intimidating gantlet of activists who shouted insults and spit on them. A crew of activists calling themselves the “Black Berets” dressed in military fatigues and picked fights with shoot supporters. Amidst loud chanting and yelling, some activists rushed the field in an attempt to disrupt activities or free birds from their cages. In all, 114 arrests were made (mostly of protesters but including shoot supporters) on charges including disorderly conduct, criminal trespass, theft (for releasing the birds), and harassment.
The following year, after reconsidering the tactics of the previous protest, the Fund sought to avoid confrontation and law-breaking. They encouraged people to not attend the event unless they could fill a volunteer role in the group's organized efforts, and they trained volunteers not to engage shoot supporters in verbal confrontations or respond to their caustic remarks and behaviors. The Fund set up mobile veterinary units where volunteers brought wounded birds for treatment. The action was calm, disciplined, focused, and non-threatening.
According to Prescott, Fund organizers made a conscious decision to change their tactics because the hostile approach was not working: “The media focused on the yelling match between the people, and the birds got lost.” She says it wasn't until protesters adopted a respectful, non-threatening approach that the media focus returned to the birds: “When we changed our role at the shoot to that of rescuers, caretakers, and abuse documenters, there was no clash for the media to focus on, and instead they focused on the wounded birds and their treatment. The cameras would be inside the vet van filming the veterinarians taking care of these poor wounded animals. Consequently, the more nonviolent our behavior became, the more violent the shoot supporters became, and that's when they started to bite the birds' heads off and attack the rescuers. This allowed the media to clearly see who was violent.”
The demonstrators' actions were so compelling that even locals, who until then had been extremely hostile, became more sympathetic to the Fund. More and more, local newspaper's editorial boards spoke out against the shoot as did state legislators. State Representative Sara Steelman helped the Fund document killed and wounded birds at the 1995 and 1996 shoots. One hunter even offered to write a letter to the legislature asking for a ban on all live bird shoots after witnessing the 1996 civil disobedience action in which activists, who occupied the killing field to halt the shoot, calmly and quietly endured the angry taunts of shooters before being arrested.
Although the shoot continues, the Fund's respectful and selfless actions keep the focus on the birds' suffering and has started generating the sympathy and support from all areas that is moving them closer to their goal of ending the shoot.3
Comparing Movement Strategies
When we compare some forms of current animal rights direct action to King and Gandhi's mandates that they be conducted in a respectful, open, and self-sacrificial manner, we see some striking differences. Few animal rights groups have formal nonviolence codes, and those that do often allow verbal hostility, threats, clandestine property destruction, and/or arson—none of which meets the standards of respect promoted by King and Gandhi. Likewise, most law-breaking activists do not openly reveal their plans to the opposition in an attempt to remove the opposition's fears as Gandhi and King did. Instead, ALF raids depend on secrecy for their success. Furthermore, the ALF seeks to avoid punishment. Even aboveground activists who break the law for animals typically try to avoid jail by accepting deals or using hunger strikes in an attempt to shorten their sentence after being convicted.
There are also differences in the natural progression of direct action campaigns. Most animal rights direct action activists assume negotiations will fail, and skip this stage of the campaign. However, King and Gandhi saw even unsuccessful negotiations as strategically important for helping justify the escalation of their direct action tactics, correcting any of the opposition's misconceptions, and showing the sincerity of their beliefs. Besides skipping negotiations, animal activists also tend to skip the campaign stage of self-purification—which helps activists' foster the courage, discipline, and self-sacrifice that enables them to conduct respectful direct action despite violent repression.
These differences between our direct action and those of Gandhi and King explain the difference in results we receive, and show a fundamental difference to our strategies. The animal rights movement predominantly uses direct action as a physical force to save animals, destroy property, disrupt the opposition's business through blockades and occupations, and to harass and intimidate. King and Gandhi on the other hand used direct action predominantly as a psychological force to persuade, empower, and mobilize the masses. Only after gaining the support of the majority of the public or opposition did their direct action take on more of a coercive, yet still nonviolent, nature.
In the End
Given our ultimate objective of achieving a cooperative and respectful society that voluntarily avoids animal exploitation, we should seriously consider adopting Gandhian direct action to gain the psychological force needed to rally support and mobilize the masses. Certainly ALF direct action has rescued thousands of animals, closed abusive establishments, exposed animal exploitation, and generated much media coverage. But have these actions decreased the demand for the products of animal exploitation, or have the rescued animals just been replaced? Have the abusive establishments closed only to be replaced by others that are better suited to provide for the demand? Has the media coverage helped persuade people to adopt a belief in animal rights or urged them to deride us as irrational and violent? And most importantly, are we sacrificing a lasting liberation for animals at the altar of short-term gains? Let me draw an analogy to explain this further.
Imagine a gigantic tree of oppression that represents all animal exploitation. Each of its thousands of branches represents a different manifestation of animal abuse. The ALF's current attacks against the industries would be represented by attempting to trim the tree's branches. Certainly they have their victories—thousands of mink released, the closure of a fur store, the destruction of a slaughter-house—and a branch or two fall to the ground. However, as a societal minority, our movement has few tree trimmers. Our numbers are so small that we can only cut down a few branches. Meanwhile, as we cut a few of the easier branches off, the tree continues to sink its roots deeper into the soil, growing larger, and sprouting even more branches so that overall, despite our victories, we are even worse off than when we started.
Conversely, Gandhian direct action recognizes the best way to permanently remove all of the tree's branches is by starving its roots—or removing the public's demand for the products of animal exploitation. Despite the tree trimmers' efforts, the branches of animal exploitation will continue to flourish as long as the tree continues to feed from the soil. At first the process of digging up the roots seems slow and tedious, and results may seem unclear as the branches continue to thrive. But as we continue to dig out the roots, the tree's growth is stunted. With more persistence, the tree of oppression with all of its thousands of branches will be completely starved and die a permanent death.
Words can't describe the depth of tragedy of the fact that millions of animals suffer imprisonment and slaughter on a daily basis, but our task as animal activists is to minimize their casualties and suffering. Considering this analogy, we can see that non-Gandhian actions divert our resources away from attacking the roots of the problem, and thereby prolong the struggle. ALF advocates speak of the thousands of animals freed to show how ALF actions bring about desired results in the shortest amount of time. But given this new understanding of the situation, we must ask ourselves, “Are we sacrificing millions of animals to save thousands?”
As a movement, we need to rethink our current direct action strategy: Do we want to engage in a battle of physical force with our government that has nearly an unlimited ability to repress us? Do we really want to portray the opposition as the victim by attacking their businesses? Do we sincerely believe the media will reward our anti-social actions by portraying animal issues in a favorable light, or that society will encourage our threatening behavior by adopting a belief in animal rights? Most importantly, will our current form of direct action move us closer to our ultimate goal of a respectful society that voluntarily recognizes the inherent value of all animal life, or will it only ensure that we never attain it?
It is my sincere hope that by honestly evaluating these questions and engaging in respectful dialogue we can start to build a growing, sustainable, and strong animal rights movement that—united in nonviolence—will be able to unearth the roots of oppression as quickly as possible, and establish in its place our ideal society. Please do all you can to help make this dream a reality.
Afterword: Where We Go From Here
Although I believe strongly in a Gandhian approach to animal activism, I also believe animal activists need to let our shared commitment to the animals be stronger than any disagreements we may have on strategy or other issues. Maintaining solidarity within the movement is paramount. The way to do this is by respecting other activists and seeking to understand their thoughts and ideas. We do not all need to agree with each other, as this will never happen. But our diversity of opinions and free exchange of ideas in an environment of mutual respect will help keep our movement strong. There is much that animal advocates can learn from one another.
For example, Gandhian nonviolence proponents need to feel the same sense of urgency as the ALF activists and supporters do. In the US and its surrounding waters, an average of 47,000 animals are killed every minute for food alone. The animals' need for immediate action cannot be denied. Although strategic nonviolence proponents keep their “eyes on the prize” and seek long-term results, they must at the same time feel this urgency, so they continue making daily contributions to achieving those long-term aims and never become complacent.
Moreover, strategic nonviolence supporters need to have the same courage and willingness to make sacrifices that ALF members do. The open rescues conducted by Compassionate Action for Animals, Compassion Over Killing, Mercy for Animals, and United Animal Rights Coalition are excellent examples of courageous, Gandhi-style direct action. Open rescues not only save sick, injured, and neglected individuals now, but also effectively expose the horrors of factory farming in a compelling manner that creates public awareness and moves people to action. More groups around the country need to actively organize open rescues and investigations.
Besides open rescues, humane education is another powerful, yet under-utilized Gandhian tactic within our movement. Not all courage and sacrifice need involve risking jail sentences. More activists need to sacrifice their time and money to develop the courage and skills to teach social justice issues like animal rights in a respectful, non-judgmental manner so that students may develop their critical thinking skills, become informed on the issues, and learn about the compassionate choices they can make. Humane education is a powerful way to attack the root problem of people's demand for animal products and swell the number of activists in our movement. It would be worthwhile for animal organizations to devote some of their resources toward local humane education efforts.
Of course, ALF members and supporters who do not adopt a Gandhian approach may still want to acknowledge the importance of gaining public sympathy and support for our cause. Simple refinements of ALF actions could go a long way toward minimizing public backlash and promoting education on the issues.
For example, instead of short ALF communiqués that sometimes read as threatening, angry, and fanatical, there could be respectful letters that explain in a reasonable manner the facts about the animal exploitation targeted and the compassionate motives that compelled the activists to action. Mass media outlets often use quotes from these communiqués, and animal rights media often reprint them in their entirety. The quotes will be more persuasive to the general public if they contain information on animal abuse, cogent arguments in support of animal rights, and solutions for how to end animal exploitation rather than hateful words directed at the abusers.
Similarly, the ALF's spray-painted messages could be less threatening, and more compassionate and issue-focused. I recall the ALF spray-painting fur stores with the slogans, “Fur scum your time has come,” and “Fur is dead and you're next.” Threats and name-calling only conform to the public's stereotype of the ALF being angry, misanthropic terrorists. The action itself shows the determination and commitment of the activists; any slogans left behind should reveal the love that drives them and their compassionate message. Slogans like “Animals need you to stop buying fur” or “Please go vegan,” keep the attention focused on the issue and help defy negative stereotypes. After all, how many “terrorist” groups use the word “please”? Maybe even spray-painting pro-animal bible verses like “Proverbs 12:10” and “Genesis 1:29”4 would also challenge stereotypes and court discussion on the issues.
ALF members may also want to revive a tactic used in vivisection lab raids during the '80s: leaving behind an animal rights book, like Peter Singer's Animal Liberation. Such a gesture demonstrates that the ALF sees its opponents as potential allies and not enemies. It shows a respect and hope that the vivisectors and other animal abusers may change their ways and join our cause. At the very least, it helps promote the book and make people aware of it if mentioned in the media coverage.
In essence, the more the ALF shows that they are reasonable, respectful, and loving toward both human and nonhuman animals, the fewer negative consequences will result from their missions of mercy.
Regardless of the tactics we employ, we will face repression by those who have a stake in maintaining the status quo. Repression comes in many forms—from our co-workers and family members ridiculing our vegan diet to the police arresting and jailing us for rescuing abused and injured animals. Because repression is a given, it makes sense that we adopt an attitude where we are thankful and honored for the sacrifices we are called to make for the noble and worthy cause of animal rights. We need not fear these sacrifices. Rather, we should embrace them as the stones that pave the road to total and lasting animal liberation.
Moreover, since each and every one of us is expected to endure repression for the cause, let us all respect and support each other as human beings, even when we do not support each other's actions. It is our solidarity that will help us survive the rough times and steel ourselves for the continued struggle.
In conclusion, listen to your conscience and your experiences. Think for yourself. Take whatever actions you believe to be the most effective. Have all of your actions for animals be motivated by love. And, most importantly, never give up. We will achieve animal liberation.
Notes
1. For a much fuller statement of my position, see Strategic Nonviolence for Animal Liberation. This strategy guide includes 29 chapters with practical information on implementing Gandhian nonviolence for more potent campaigns. It may be found on the Web at www.exploreveg.org/help/activist/snv/ or requested from Eco-Animal Allies, 3010 Hennepin Ave. S. #579, Minneapolis, MN 55044; Info@EcoAnimalAllies.org; www.exploreveg.org/.
2. Martin Luther King, Jr., Why We Can't Wait (New York: Penguin Books, 2000). This is King's classic exploration of the events and forces behind the Civil Rights Movement.
3. The Hegins Pigeon Shoot ended in 1999. According to the Fund for Animals' National Director, Heidi Prescott, “The actual victory was in the courts,” referring to the State Supreme Court Chief Justice Flaherty's ruling that humane officers could file cruelty charges and bring the case against the pigeon shoot. The ruling also described the myriad cruelties at the shoot. “What I think turned public opinion in our favor, was us turning into the ‘good guys’ with the rescue effort and turning them back into the violent ‘bad guys’ while focusing the attention back on the birds and their suffering,” said Prescott. However, there is still no statewide ban on pigeon shoots in Pennsylvania. A substantial amount of legislative support the Fund had evaporated after some anonymous animal activist(s) broke the windows at the pigeon shoot coordinator's house in 1997. “I had to work really hard to turn 25 State Representatives back around and there were a couple I couldn't turn around. It took a year to undo the damage that was done by that action,” said Prescott.
4. Proverbs 12:10: “A righteous man has regard for the lives of his beast, but the mercy of the wicked is cruel.” Genesis 1:29: “And God said, ‘Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit; you shall have them for food.’”
Defending Agitation and the ALF
BRUCE G. FRIEDRICH
Some activists in the animal rights movement argue that only “nonviolent” activities in the tradition of Martin Luther King, Jr. and Mahatma Gandhi are acceptable in the struggle for animal liberation (for the purposes of this essay, I will refer to this sort of activity as “strategic nonviolence”). These activists have disparaged, and even labeled as counterproductive, direct action tactics that involve secrecy and/or property destruction. The animal rights movement calls the people who carry out such actions, subject to some other guidelines, of course, the “Animal Liberation Front,” or ALF, and refers to their acts as “ALF actions.”
Those who uphold strategic nonviolence as the sole acceptable tactic for the animal rights movement suggest, for example, that burning down a veal slaughterhouse or freeing dogs under the cover of night from their cages in vivisection laboratories to find them good homes serves only to alienate people who might otherwise agree with us, while draining our movement of resources (both mental and physical/monetary). They further argue that using the tactics of the oppressors (i.e., secrecy, sabotage, and so on) lowers us to their level ethically. They suggest that all actions for social justice, whether justice for animals or justice for people, must, both for reasons of morality and practicality, adhere to some basic standards, including complete openness among all participants.
In one of the more widely circulated examples of this view, one long-time activist and former ALF-advocate, Freeman Wicklund, wrote in The Animals' Agenda, July–August 1998, “I believe non-Gandhian actions jeopardize the movement's sustainability, solidarity, and ultimate effectiveness to such a degree that I [now] speak out against them” (see Wicklund in this volume).
To be clear, these activist theorists support education, demonstrations, leafleting, tabling, speaking, and civil disobedience that is done openly. They support, then, the vast majority of activities in which activists engage. The one activity they oppose is direct action where activists do not take responsibility for their actions, or direct action that uses tactics of duplicity.
So, for example, this philosophy would not oppose the hen liberations of 2001, which found activists from Compassion Over Killing (Washington, DC), Compassionate Action for Animals (Minneapolis, Minnesota), and Mercy for Animals (Dayton, Ohio) documenting the extremely abusive conditions of egg-laying facilities, rescuing hens from battery cages, producing videos, and taking full responsibility for their actions. This sort of direct action would be deemed acceptable, but not property destruction and other tactics that are secretive.
Drawing Lines and Making Choices: Which Side Are You On?
Just to let you know which side I'm on and how I got there: I wrote my college honors thesis on the continuum in thought from Leo Tolstoy to Mohandas Gandhi to Martin Luther King, Jr., distilling the essentials of each of their political programs, and discussing how they overlap and how they differ. After college, I spent more than six years working full time in a Catholic Worker shelter for homeless families and a soup kitchen in Washington, DC without pay (part of Gandhi's nonviolent program). I've been an animal rights activist since 1987, but have dedicated the bulk of my post-college years to nonviolent activism on behalf of peace and justice. This activism has been framed in the tradition of strategic nonviolence, as discussed earlier.
As someone who has read extensively in the nonviolent tradition and who has been arrested repeatedly for acts of nonviolent civil disobedience, I would like to address some of the arguments that are made in opposition to more subversive direct action tactics such as those engaged in by the ALF.
I do want to be clear: I wholeheartedly support strategic nonviolence, and I even think that actions in this mode may be, as the outlet for most of our energy, more effective in most respects (although clearly not for the specific animals involved in the case of liberations) than ALF activities, especially for our historical situation. I fully believe in education, leafleting, open demonstrations, and so on.
My disagreement is not, at all, with activists who use exclusively strategic nonviolence; this is the route I've chosen for my life. My issue is with activists who claim that this is the only route, and that ALF style direct action is counterproductive and/or inherently indefensible. For the reasons discussed below, I have a strong sense that their analysis is wanting. That is, my strong sense is that ALF actions are helpful in the long-term struggle, and I am totally convinced that they are a reasonable response to the level of violence inflicted against animals today.
Looking for Cues from Other Movements
There seems to be an assumption among some who feel that only strategic nonviolence is acceptable in a social justice movement that Gandhi and King were solely responsible for the transformations that took place in India and then in the southern United States, that the actions and agenda of Gandhi and King were the only methods of social change being practiced. They seem to look to Gandhi and King as the sole liberators of their people and to say, “Hey, if it worked there, it can work here.”
In actuality, as I examine the history, it seems undeniable that strategic nonviolence played a role, but was only one of many tactics—and not necessarily the most important or effective one. A more thorough analysis indicates that a significant portion of the impetus for change has come from the Nat Turners, John Browns, and Malcolm Xs. And, in one of history's more vivid examples, the United States gained freedom from the British by fighting a war—and one of the first actions of liberation was the Boston Tea Party. The perpetrators were never apprehended.
It is worth recalling that the assassinations of both King and Gandhi, the avatars of the nonviolent path, caused violent rioting on the part of their supporters, and that disinterested histories of the abolition of slavery or civil rights in the US, or independence in India, indicate that constant social unrest and riots were essential to the success of those movements.
Going further, I would suggest that including ALF activity in our movement has both practical and moral value. Practically speaking, ALF activity is more challenging than strategic nonviolence and will inevitably be more effective in some situations than strategic nonviolence alone. Even if strategic nonviolence were the best thing for India and civil rights in the United States (which, as I've indicated, is less than clear), there are still many aspects of historical reality that indicate that lessons from these movements may not be transferable to our efforts for animal liberation.
Limitations in Extrapolating from Gandhi and King to Animal Rights
As one rather serious, if obvious, example, Gandhi and King had massive numbers of followers who were fighting for their own liberation. Their movements involved and required hundreds of thousands of people, marching and sacrificing—all of them hoping to get something back for themselves or their ancestors, all of them responding to oppression against them personally. Gandhi was so beloved by the masses that he was able to convince people to stop rioting by conducting a fast. At the present time, a very small portion of the US population is willing to make these sorts of sacrifices for animal rights. Does it seem reasonable to wait until we have the mass movement required for this program to enact animal liberation? Do the animals have the time to spare?
As another example of how these past human rights movements do not lend themselves to easy replication by the animal liberation movement, Gandhi and King stressed that strategic nonviolence requires that the oppressors see the suffering of the satyagrahis (nonviolent activists) and say, “That person is like me, despite being [Indian, black, etc.].” Gandhi and King talked about looking into the eyes of the oppressor as he (it was always a he then) hit you with a club or doused you with a fire hose, to connect to him on a deep and human level. It is hard to fathom the animals doing any more suffering than they already have, but public empathy has yet to develop. Billions of animals have been tortured in myriad ways, without the oppressors, so far, feeling the empathy required for societal change. There is just no way to replicate this concept, which is essential to strategic nonviolence, in the animal movement.
Gandhi and King also stressed the power of global opinion to win their liberty. What gave them the limited power they possessed was massive global popular opinion on their behalf. Almost the entire world in the 1930s and '40s was awed by Gandhi and supported Indian independence. Support for civil rights in the US was so strong that King won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1964, years before most of the reforms actually took hold. The world was able to look at India, to look at the US, and say, “We don't do that here. Look at how that country is treating its people.” Unfortunately, it seems unlikely that we will be able to generate massive global outrage over animal abuse any time soon.
Gandhi and King also both spoke and wrote eloquently about the need for satyagrahis to “fill the jails,” to “enter the prisons as the bridegroom enters the bridal chamber,” with joy. However much I wish we had enough animal liberationists to “fill the jails,” at this moment in history, we don't. Again and unfortunately, animal liberation is a unique movement that does not compare easily to any past social movement.
And, just to be clear, despite these liberation movements having the numbers, having the benefit of being the same species as the oppressors, having people willing to go to jail, and so on, the oppressors still fought, hard, to retain control. And a look at history indicates, as mentioned previously, that the violent revolutionaries were probably as essential to change as the nonviolent ones.
So, if we can't apply the experiences of Gandhi and King to the animal movement, what past social justice movements do apply? The movement for the abolition of slavery and the Nazi resistance throughout Europe seem to me closer approximations to where we are with the animal rights movement, because they involved people advocating for and acting on behalf of others (though even these movements generated supportive global opinion and had exponentially more supporters than animal liberation today, among other differences). In fact, I have on many occasions responded to those who are incredulous that I would suggest that destroying instruments of oppression is okay by pointing out that if these were Nazi gas ovens or slave ships, everyone today, through the lens of history, would support their destruction. I have no doubt that the lens of history will one day focus on the fact that items of torture and oppression against animals are in the same class as items used for human torture and oppression, and deserve to be destroyed.
Regarding ALF activities, I would agree with the proponents of strategic nonviolence who note that we're not in a historical space where we can mobilize enough people to make such tactics as effective as they would be were they occurring on a widespread scale. However, simply granting that they would be justified were they happening on a routine basis does destroy the underpinnings of the argument that says they're inherently counterproductive.
With so much economic pressure against the animal movement (think about advertising, just for starters), so little support, no voices from the oppressed themselves (at least not in the streets, getting arrested and demanding justice), nothing like the international support commanded by Gandhi or King, few willing to go to jail involuntarily (let alone voluntarily), etc., strategic nonviolence (proposed as the best or only alternative) seems naïve and misguided.
The Value of the ALF
Far from alienating our likely allies, I have found that ALF activities speak to people, regardless of their belief in animal rights. They provide an opportunity to discuss the gravity of the situation, the fact that animals suffer and die like we do, the fact that they are not less important than we are, the fact that when animals are liberated, there is cause for celebration, not shame. People grasp these concepts, even if they don't agree. That activists would go to such lengths, risking their own freedom for the cause, taking steps that hark back to the Underground Railroad and anti-Nazi activities, speaks to the public in ways that passing out leaflets can't.
The second way in which ALF activities are, practically speaking, useful to the movement is that they shift the debate. In the same way that John Brown made William Jennings Bryan respectable, ALF activities make the rest of the movement respectable. John Kennedy said, “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable.” I think it's equally true that those who work on the radical fringe push that fringe outward and make others, formerly radical from society's vantage, seem far more mainstream. And that, of course, is our goal: to alert society to the fact that animal liberation is every bit as reasonable, as a movement and philosophy, as was the abolition of slavery and suffrage for women. This psychology of “good cop, bad cop” is used in a million different ways, and I think it can be applied both analytically to past social justice movements and tactically to the current movement for animal liberation.
Blow It Up
At an animal rights conference in July 2001 I stated that “if we believe that animals have an equal right to be free from pain and suffering as do human beings, then of course we're going to be blowing stuff up and smashing windows. For the record, I don't do this stuff, but I do advocate it. I think it's a great way to bring about animal liberation. And considering the level of the atrocity and the level of the suffering, I think it would be a great thing if all these fast food outlets, and these slaughterhouses, and these vivisection laboratories, and the banks that fund them, were to explode tomorrow. I think it's perfectly appropriate for people to take bricks and toss them through windows and everything else along those lines.”
In the wake of the awful tragedies of September 11, some anti-animal groups publicized my statements, placing the sound file online, taking out anti-PETA ads using an excerpt from this quote as the centerpiece, and attempting to use my statements to attack both PETA—despite the fact that my comments were not on behalf of PETA—and the animal rights movement generally. It was another red herring, but it did give us an opportunity to explain why anyone would feel so strongly about the abuse of animals inherent in raising them for food or “research.”
Let me offer a parenthetical reflection: Although the anti-animal forces try to paint these as “terrorist” activities, no human being has ever been harmed in an ALF action. The ALF has always required that all reasonable steps be taken to ensure this. However, as we all were, I was shaken by the events of September 11, and now, along with many other activists, I question the ability to ensure that burning down a building can be done without putting human beings, especially fire-fighters, at risk. Based on my time living with rats and mice in Washington, DC, I have always assumed that animals will escape such fires, since their senses of smell, wariness of such dangers, and ability to move through almost invisible holes is so impressive, but I think that we should not dismiss the possibility that they, also, will be harmed. These reflections do not, of course, rule out burning meat trucks. And they don't mean that when the next slaughterhouse or vivisection lab burns down, I will denounce those who carried out the burning, or that I will feel anything other than joy in my heart for the loss of the torture dungeons.
I've been interviewed repeatedly regarding my July 2001 statements. In every instance, I was able to describe the awful abuse of animals involved in the farmed animal and vivisection industries, the complete waste and horrible abuse involved, and so on. I was able to paint a vivid picture, pointing out that if these were human beings in laboratories, slaughterhouses, or factory farms, everyone would support burning down the implements of their torture. In fact, if these were dogs and cats, most of the general public would be supportive of such actions. These arguments resonate with people. From a public relations stand-point, the anti-animal groups seem to me to have made a big mistake.
Again, I want to be clear that these are not tactics that PETA uses or suggests, and they're not tactics to which I personally resort. All I am saying is that, in my view, they have their place in our movement and should not be actively opposed by people who support animal rights, even if they're not what we consider to be the best use of our own energy.
Taking Responsibility: Reflections on the Pragmatism of “Doing Time”
The one “escape clause” offered by those who suggest that only strategic nonviolence is acceptable is that ALF-type activity is okay as long as one does it aboveboard and claims responsibility. It seems obvious to me that this sort of action, if it lands us in jail, is more likely to alienate us from people than ALF activities. It confuses people. I speak from experience, as a member of a peace and justice community that routinely engages in civil disobedience in broad daylight, and then goes to jail, refusing bail, refusing to do community service as penance for our “wrongdoing,” and so on.
Although I find this a deeply powerful witness and would not trade my jail and prison experiences for anything, I can say with complete certainty that these sorts of actions do not resonate with people. I can't even count the number of people (fellow prisoners and guards while I was in prison; relatives, church groups, and others outside of prison) who said to me, basically (and sometimes explicitly), “You went to jail voluntarily? If the cause is so important, why go to jail when you can keep acting for your cause on the outside? Why on earth don't you keep acting until you're caught?” And so on.
If we believe that animals have as much right to be free from pain and suffering as human beings do, and if we understand the degree of the animals' suffering, how can we disdain actions that liberate them, actions that treat their suffering as important? In the Agenda article referred to above, it was put this way: “Certainly ALF direct action has rescued thousands of animals, closed abusive establishments, exposed animal exploitation, and generated much media coverage. But are we sacrificing long-term liberation on the altar of short-term goals?”
I can't understand how one could argue, if one believes that other animals have as much right to be free from suffering as humans do, that such consequences are not enough to justify ALF activity. In addition to totally disagreeing with the argument that ALF activities alienate people (certainly, they shake people up, and some people will claim to be alienated), I can't imagine arguing, even if it were true: “Well, yes, animals were saved, but you know, some people are now alienated from our message.” Imagine applying similar logic to some movement for human liberation.
Furthermore, the oppressors claimed (and their apologists still claim) that Gandhi's and King's more radical tactics were alienating and set back their overall cause for liberation. King's “Letter from a Birmingham Jail” addresses these arguments, suggesting that people need to understand the seriousness of the situation. His arguments are equally valid in defending his strategic nonviolence, which unsettled people, or in defending ALF or Underground Railroad styles of nonco-operation with evil. The naysayers were—and are—wrong in both cases.
Freedom Cannot Wait
Ask yourself: Is strategic nonviolence always the best tactic, as its adherents claim? For example, there is the story of the man who “stole” a mistreated rabbit from an abusive “owner's” yard and placed her in a good home. He contends that ALF activity worked wonders for that rabbit overnight. Would you have forced that rabbit to remain in those conditions? I doubt that many of us would. At the very least, this anecdote should lay to rest the idea that strategic nonviolence is the only tactic worth supporting. Surely the small ethical compromise, if you feel there is one, in this man's unwillingness to leave a note claiming responsibility for taking the rabbit (even though some might argue he should have; we're evaluating the action as it happened), is far outweighed by the rabbit's ability to live a normal rabbit life and be spared the suffering to which she had been subjected.
There are similar cases where abused animals, especially dogs on chains in back yards or cats in feces-ridden households, have been taken away, without their “owner's” consent, and placed in good homes. Surely these actions are justified.
And, although direct action methods involving secrecy and/or property destruction have comprised a tiny fraction of activist work in the realm of animal protection, certain of these actions are milestones in tracing the progress of the modern animal rights movement. For example, in 1985, members of the ALF broke into animal labs at the University of Pennsylvania, where an insider had leaked disturbing information of cruel experiments being conducted on baboons. During the laboratory raid, the ALF stole videotapes, taken by the vivisectors themselves, of the “research” being carried out in the lab. While the actual perpetrators of the break-in and theft disappeared underground, general release of the stolen videotapes resulted in a public uproar. On the videotapes, we see the vivisectors strapping baboons to operating tables, cementing a helmet harness to an animal's shaved skull, and propelling the baboon's head forward into the cement, all in the presence of other baboons and to the accompaniment of loud rock music, joking and smoking. The vivisectors describe the force of the crash as “1,000 Gs” (a 15-force “G” can kill a human being). After the blow, the experimenters strike the helmet repeatedly with a hammer, using their full force in attempts to dislodge it from the injured head. As a result of public outcry, the lab was eventually shut down by order of former Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Margaret Heckler.
Similarly, in 1987, members of “True Friends” broke into SEMA Laboratories in Rockville, Maryland, where chimpanzees were kept in barren isolation cages. Video footage taken by True Friends documents the animals' isolation and expressions of insanity. Four chimpanzees were taken in the raid and delivered to sanctuary homes. As a result of the True Friends investigation, world-renowned chimpanzee experts Jane Goodall and Roger Fouts demanded a tour of the SEMA facilities. Disturbed by what they saw, Goodall and Fouts ignited a fresh debate on the use of nonhuman primates in research, radically altering the discourse on the subject.
Indeed, how can those who suggest that strategic nonviolence is the only acceptable means of social change so discount the many animals who have been saved by ALF activities? And how can they disdain the many undercover investigations carried out (and photos/videos taken) by PETA, Farm Sanctuary, Viva!USA, SHARK, and others, followed by powerful exposés that have saved countless animal lives, brought the issue of animal suffering into the public sphere, mobilized public opinion, led to lawsuits against animal abusers, led to labs shutting down, and been so valuable and important for our movement?
All Roads Lead to Liberation: Maintaining a United Front
We are all working toward the same goal, and we should support one another—as long as basic humane principles are not violated. I have heard that some who adhere to the “strategic nonviolence is the only way” camp claim that ALF activities are the moral equivalent of vivisection. This is completely antithetical to the philosophies of King and Gandhi, who understood that “We are all in this struggle together.”
Beyond the need to unify, I find most people's adherence to “strategic nonviolence” as a moral principle to be questionable. How many proponents of strategic nonviolence as the sole acceptable tactic in animal liberation were opposed to the US bombing missions in Bosnia, Afghanistan, or Nazi Germany? Why is it sometimes okay to kill people as a means to an end, but not okay to engage in ALF activities?
Even Gandhi said repeatedly that violence was preferable to apathy or cowardice, stating explicitly, “When my eldest son asked me what he should have done, had he been present when I was almost fatally assaulted in 1908, whether he should have run away and seen me killed or whether he should have used his physical force which he could and wanted to use, and defended me, I told him that it was his duty to defend me even by using violence. . . . I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honour than that she should in a cowardly manner become or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonour.” And when England was defending itself against the Nazis, although Gandhi felt that nonviolent defense would be better, he agreed that armed defense was preferable to acquiescence, and even assisted in the war effort, as he had in previous wars.
I am convinced that it is our innate speciesism, deeply ingrained in most of us, that allows this discussion to even occur. When I'm wondering about my actions, or the actions of others in the movement, I attempt to relocate the scenario and ask myself, “What if there were people in these cages, people in these slaughterhouses?” When I start to feel uncomfortable, when I evaluate ALF actions, I strive to break out of my need to be accepted or respected, and I try to think about how I would react if this were happening to a dear friend or relative—because these animals have every bit as much right not to be in these conditions as you do, as I do, as anyone does.
In the end, it seems to me that the most important thing is that those of us who take the animals' side simply stop the internecine fighting and name calling, which does not help animals at all, and get back to the essential work of animal liberation.
Bricks And Bullhorns
KEVIN JONAS
By means of a well-thought-out strategy, and extremely effective campaigning methods, SHAC has decimated a once powerful vivisection company and trepidation has been spread through the vivisection industry as a whole.—Ronnie Lee, founder of the Animal Liberation Front
The One-Two Punch
The debate over the use of animals in laboratory research has been taken to an uncomfortably personal level for those involved in this barbaric industry. The Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC) campaign, currently battling to close down the notorious Huntingdon Life Sciences (HLS) in 15 different countries, consistently pushes the middle ground of protest activity by engaging in unexpected home demonstrations, property destruction, liberations of animals, office disruptions, and electronic attacks. While controversy surrounds this campaign at every step and target, SHAC proudly proclaims that it is not your grandparents' Humane Society or ASPCA, but rather a radical abolitionist effort that will not compromise, will not apologize, and will never relent.
Since 1999 the SHAC campaign has laid siege to Huntingdon Life Sciences—a contract research organization that kills roughly 500 animals a day testing household and industrial products—by means of a strategic combination of lawful campaign tactics and illegal direct action. This combination has targeted HLS employees, clients, investors, and laboratory suppliers by day (as hordes of emails, phone calls, and sign-wielding demonstrators obstruct the business), while breaking windows at homes, sinking private yachts, and disseminating personal credit card information throughout cyberspace by night. The combined impact of both types of action, legal and illegal, carries far more weight than either approach alone. Complete siege mentality has set in for those targeted; scores have capitulated to the SHAC bark, and even more to the SHAC bite.
Demonstrations on their own often seem benign and manageable to those on the receiving end. Likewise, ALF attacks have traditionally been random, and those targeted with liberations and economic sabotage could reasonably expect no further concerted efforts directed against them. The seemingly logical marriage of both forms of social activism has demonstrated that the grass roots can assemble an effective and cohesive fighting unit, independent of forces such as the main-stream press and political processes.
When Harry Met Sally
The SHAC campaign, and its unique blend of activism, has its origins in the UK in the mid-1990s.1 For over 25 years, the ALF in England had been hammering away at businesses that exploit animals. Thousands of animals were liberated from vivisection labs and millions of pounds in damage were inflicted. A few concerted efforts by direct action advocates at specific targets had met with success; for example, a series of arson attacks convinced all the major department stores to discontinue the sale of fur garments (especially after one major store, Dingles, completely burned to the ground), and Boots, a widely known drugstore chain, had its windows smashed so many times that it ceased testing its products on animals. By and large, however, the actions of the ALF were scattershot; accessibility and opportunity seemed to determine the targets of such direct actions.
At the same time, numerous aboveground campaigns were in progress. It seemed as though every weekend activists would hold a different placard at a different demonstration. One weekend you were demonstrating against the live export of animals, the next fur, and the next fox hunting. As public exposure to cruelty issues grew, positive change for the animals was slowly taking place, but the tangible accomplishments seemed stiflingly slow. Lacking strategy and cohesion, the movement was unable to curb the increasing number of animals killed.
In 1996 a husband-and-wife team decided, after years of this sort of protest campaigning, that they were going to try to infuse more strategy into the struggle and give the grass roots a much-needed victory. They decided to concentrate all their efforts on a breeder of beagles used for vivisection called Consort Kennels, a target that was winnable and whose demise would be significant. For 10 months the campaign to close Consort brought in hundreds from the grassroots animal movement to stage daily pickets, nightly home protests, and large riotous national demonstrations. At every turn those who owned and worked at Consort were greeted by screaming protestors. Meanwhile, the ALF went where protestors could not—liberating puppies from the facility, trashing the homes of the employees, and painting their cars. After 10 months of aggressive, nonstop pressure, the employee turnover rate and security costs became so great that it was no longer profitable to breed beagles for misery and death, and Consort closed, releasing its last 200 dogs to animal welfare advocates.
This victory was a much-needed shot in the arm for the British animal rights movement. It galvanized the grass roots into a formidable force. More importantly, it empowered these activists, demonstrating that the grass roots need not wait for the media to champion our cause, for the politicians to answer to us (rather than the corporate sector they are wedded to), and for the national groups to do our bidding for us. We can achieve animal liberation on our own. If all activists pool their resources and skills—deploying tactics ranging from letter writing to brick throwing—and concentrate on one target, the opposition does not stand a chance.
After Consort closed, the activists who had united against it turned to a new target, one that would become a legend in animal rights history. Hillgrove Cat Farm was one of the last commercial cat breeders for the vivisection industry and, as such, a significant component of the English animal research infrastructure. The all-out, high-pressure “Save the Hillgrove Cats” campaign ran for 18 months. Again, daily pickets, followed by nighttime home protests, and large-scale national demonstrations destroyed the morale of the owner and the employees. Christopher Brown, who owned the breeding facility, also lived on the premises. Over the course of the campaign he became so vilified that the Sunday Express dubbed him “the most evil man in Britain.” Brown also became the center of many ALF attacks. Not only were kittens rescued from the facility on several occasions, but Brown's cars were fire-bombed, his windows were smashed, and a telephone pole was actually tipped over onto his home. The animal rights movement had never seen such intensity directed at one target, and, despite countless arrests and eventually a court injunction banning all demonstrations within five miles of the farm, the pressure in the end became too much and Brown closed the farm. Over 800 cats were released to the RSPCA for a chance at a better life.
This same recipe for success—the coupling of intense lawful protest activity with direct action focused on one target—has been repeated over and over again in England. A handful of fur stores have shut, a primate importer and breeder has closed permanently, and, in perhaps the truest testament to this strategy, rabbit breeder Regal Rabbits was closed in just one week. The campaign to close Regal was inspired by an ALF raid in which some 20 rabbits were saved. Only one week of intense action was needed, because the owner of the facility had seen what had happened at the other campaign targets and realized that he didn't stand a chance. He released the remaining 1,300 lives to the very people who were trying to shut him down. He is now a mushroom farmer.
“SHAC Attack”
SHAC was born from these victories and strategic foundations in 1999. The idea of using every tool in the toolbox took form and was set into motion. Across the UK, then America, Europe, and the rest of the world, animal rights campaigners set about making HLS a name synonymous with animal cruelty. Preying upon the fiduciary vulnerabilities of the beleaguered lab, the SHAC campaign protested and aimed direct action against any company that financially or otherwise supported the lab. Unlike the breeders that had been singled out previously, HLS is a multinational corporation—with major investors and over 1,200 employees—that depends largely upon relationships with other companies for its operation. Simple daily pickets will not close this company down. Instead, SHAC directs activists' anger, passion, and disgust at companies that HLS needs to survive—companies that don't need HLS.
Over the past three years a laundry list of the world's most significant financial institutions have withdrawn their investments from the lab. Scores of major pharmaceutical, agrochemical, and household product companies have canceled their contracts. Even the lab's janitors, laundry service, and cafeteria suppliers have come under fire. These companies have found it obnoxious and disruptive to have protestors on the phone lines, in their email systems, occupying their boardrooms, and visiting the executives at night. The result has been that HLS has declined in value by 90 percent and teeters on the brink of collapse.
The SHAC campaign has widened the circle of targets more than any other animal rights group. Banks, insurance companies, auditors, and private investors have found themselves receiving the same sort of vitriolic attention as those who actually test on animals. SHAC has made it clear that anyone who touches HLS is fair game. This approach has made the idea of sponsoring, investing in, or providing services to the vivisection industry in any way far less palatable; whole new forms of personal accountability have been brought into play. Although focusing on one target, HLS, the reach of SHAC extends far beyond it.
Direct action in the SHAC campaign has also risen to new levels of intensity and frequency. Since 1999 nearly 80 percent of the ALF attacks that have taken place in the US and the UK have been aimed at closing down HLS. Hundreds upon hundreds of windows have been broken, red paint has been thrown on cars, stink and smoke bombs have cleared office towers (and several city blocks on one occasion), bomb hoaxes have ended business days early, buildings and cars in several countries have been torched, and bombs have been detonated outside some facilities. Never before has the ALF been so active towards the same goals as aboveground groups lawfully protesting.
Just as with Hillgrove, Consort, and the others, the effect has been overwhelming. HLS remains open at the time of this printing only because the British government has interceded twice to prevent the closure of the lab by offering both bank and insurance services when no other commercial company in the US or the UK would. This is unprecedented, and its historical significance cannot be overestimated; volunteer and grassroots activists, joined by the faceless men and women of the ALF, have forced the government of a major western power to show its hand in support of a single failing company.
The battle over HLS has become more than just the battle to close down one rather heinous animal testing lab. A line has been drawn in the sand between animal rights and animal research, and the battle-ground is Huntingdon Life Sciences. It is a winner-take-all scenario. The politicians, law enforcement agencies, and corporate overlords that pull the state's puppet strings all recognize that when the SHAC campaign succeeds in closing HLS, any company could be next. Once activists get that taste for victory and understand the power that is theirs through direct action, they will not retreat. SHAC, and the campaigns that preceded it, are a menace to established forms of traditional activism in that they prove conclusively that not only does direct action work, but it can be compatible with lawful campaigns.
You Scratch My Back, I'll Scratch Yours
It must be said that the SHAC campaign does not run the ALF or have any sort of authority or control over their actions. SHAC has never solicited or funded a liberation or an act of economic sabotage. The relationship between a grassroots campaign approach and under-ground action developed organically, with both adhering to an unspoken but pragmatic utilization of each other's efforts to maximize their own impact.
For SHAC, there has been no question as to how the campaign has benefited from the hard and fast actions of the underground. Companies under protest fire have made their decisions to sever ties with HLS that much more quickly when faced with underground action. One of the most frightening aspects of a demonstration or home protest is the question, “What if this is not where the action stops?” The presence of ALF activity in the campaign has caused a great deal of trepidation for anyone who lands on the SHAC radar screen.
The ALF have exploited the benefits of incorporating their actions within the confines of a large national campaign. Their actions carry far more weight when taken in conjunction with other protest activity than in isolation against random targets. Significantly, the ALF can count on SHAC to publicize and defend their actions. In SHAC, and typically in the grass roots of the movement, the ALF finds sympathetic advocates who are willing to step forward and help with jail and legal costs for those caught in illegal activities. SHAC has helped create this culture of direct action support by selling ALF T-shirts, posters, magazines, and pins. It has hosted ex-ALF activists as speakers and sponsored a cross-country speaking tour for a legendary UK ALF Press Officer.
The various ways that SHAC and the ALF play off each other are mutually beneficial to the cause of animal liberation. The uninvited, but not unwelcome, addition of ALF activity to SHAC's efforts saw a mutually beneficial relationship develop. Both groups saw positive qualities in the other and used them in complementary ways to benefit the cause.
The Dreaded “T” Word
Does the combination of direct action by the ALF and unrelenting protest pressure from SHAC amount to “terrorism”? Yes and no. The campaign to close HLS is without question a concerted effort to strike fear into the hearts of those who criminally abuse animals. SHAC warns that those who support HLS in any way will be called to account for their actions. It warns that those who work at HLS should fear the loss of their jobs, humiliation within their community, and having any semblance of a comfortable life they have made for themselves off the backs of suffering animals callously stripped away.
The SHAC campaign seeks to recognize that this fight to close HLS is encompassed in a war for animal liberation, a battle in which the death toll on the side of the animals and their defenders grows daily. The SHAC campaign drives home the message that the animal rights movement is called a struggle for a reason, because it is a long, hard fight. It will take hard work, sacrifice, and sometimes doing things we are not comfortable doing in any other context. Whatever anxiety the animal abusers experience as a result of the campaign pales in comparison with the pain and horror the animals in Huntingdon suffer daily.
While the targets of direct action may be harassed and even traumatized, the actions are not terrorism in that innocents are not being targeted, only those “combatants” who are involved in the suffering of animals. Should those targeted not enjoy this personalized attention, it is their decision to end it whenever they wish by surrendering their violent profession. The ALF and SHAC are not flying planes into buildings or committing suicide bombings on crowded city buses, and it is an insult to those who have lost loved ones in real acts of terrorism to diminish cataclysmic events like 9/11 with comparisons to liberated dogs and paint-covered doorsteps. Far from being a terrorist attack, political direct action carried out by the ALF or SHAC follows in a noble tradition of social rebellion against prejudice and injustice.
History teaches us that all successful social justice movements have incorporated some aspects of direct action and tactics that seem unsavory and controversial. The animal rights movement cannot be locked away in a vacuum from the rest of this social justice history if we are to be successful. If protest and potlucks alone could win our cause then, by all means, these would be the avenues we should pursue. Reality teaches us a different lesson. Education, winning the hearts and minds of the general public, is of paramount importance, but in many circumstances, public opinion is difficult to organize and inform. For example, in the fight against pharmaceutical and university research on animals, public access to information is limited, and boycott campaigns have no main street products to target. In addition, a chief vulnerability of our opposition is their fear of personalized attention. In such circumstances, such as the case of Huntingdon Life Sciences, the immediate impact of direct action is not only appropriate, but essential.
Friend or Foe?
The “gloves off” approach to animal advocacy, championed by the ALF and campaigns like SHAC, has ruffled the feathers of many compatriots within the animal advocacy movement. Activists debate the “appropriateness” of certain tactics, and many fear losing the moral high ground in seeking to intimidate the opposition.
Such criticism of direct action and controversial ventures like SHAC is a speciesist insult to those animals who depend on humans to advocate on their behalf. If those opposed to direct action are really honest with themselves, they will have to admit that they do not believe the goal of animal liberation justifies the tactics they claim to oppose but would support in other contexts. Most people do support property destruction, violence, and murder for certain causes. If people in Liberia were being rendered for food, it would be a safe bet that most would support a war to end such an atrocity. If critics of the ALF and SHAC honestly faced the internalized prejudices that they harbor, and imagined that it was white, middle-class kindergartners from Kansas being pumped full of bleach or anally electrocuted, most would be ready to take up arms themselves. It is not children who are suffering and dying by the billions, however, but rather nonhuman animals, and only for that speciesist reason are certain tactics condemned as “terrorist” or taken off the table of discussion.
Those who may ethically support the ALF and the use of controversial means, but see it as a strategic mistake because of the negative impact on public opinion, have only themselves to blame. It is the failure of movement organizations and speakers to reframe the debate away from the tactic to the more substantive issues of animal exploitation. It is a tragic mistake and a setback for the animal rights movement to let the media determine our tactical agenda because of a fear of negative coverage. The actions of the ALF and SHAC play a crucial role in this movement and will not be stopped anytime soon, and if there does exist a problem with media portrayal it is well worth the effort of national groups to invest in becoming more media-savvy organizations.
Direct action has a crucial role to play in the animal advocacy movement, and when the mainstream can look past its fundraising worries, comfort levels, and personal speciesist biases, the opportunity to use the power of the ALF has great potential. The early campaigns of PETA working with the ALF direct action efforts against university vivisection labs proved this masterfully, as have the persistent Sea Shepherd campaigns against whaling and seal clubbing that combined lawful campaigning and illegal direct action. Today, SHAC is the intelligent and strategic continuation of such a rounded attack, effectively coupling both legal and illegal tactics.
When history is written about the animal rights movement, the notable exceptions that will stand out for their achievements will be those efforts that dared to risk scorn and controversy by embracing and/or spearheading cutting edge and radical activism.
Notes
1. The “SHAC campaign” has come to mean any endeavor aimed at contributing to the legal SHAC efforts, whether it be legal or not. In various legal proceedings we have distinguished SHAC the incorporated group as a news/information clearing house, and the “SHAC campaign” as all other protest activities.
Revolutionary Process and the ALF
NICOLAS ATWOOD
This article originally appeared in No Compromise magazine.
One day an “animal lover,” out of curiosity, stops at a frozen pond to investigate bright flags sticking out of muskrat mounds and finds leghold traps stuck deep in the nest of reeds and mud. Fortunately, the traps are empty, but she can't help but think of the potential victims. She pulls up the stakes, holding the traps secure, and takes home as many as she can carry. She feels a mixture of fear and excitement, but overall she's happy knowing that at least the traps in her garbage will never kill an animal.
This, in the simplest terms, is an ALF action—destroying the physical property of an individual or business to benefit an animal, either directly or indirectly. The “animal lover” may become an activist, and as an activist, she'll protest and work to educate others, but in her mind remains the memory of destroying the traps, the small victory.
There is a theory that the use of “violence” by political groups has not caught on in the US to the extent it has in other countries because most Americans believe that there are agencies and institutions that exist to peacefully resolve conflicts, and that this belief is a barrier against participating in political violence. Perhaps in relation to animals this theory collapses, and it is here that the existence of the ALF can be explained. Crimes of enormous proportion against animals are commonly ignored by the legal system. Battery cages and veal crates are accepted as “normal agricultural practice.” Billions of chickens and turkeys are denied even the illusion of humane slaughter. Birds, mice and fish in laboratories are denied the most basic of legal protections. In some states, animals in farms are specifically written out of laws against cruelty.
Of course, opposition—the desire to make a fundamental change in society by throwing oneself against the atrocity of animal abuse—is the right course. The debate over the ALF has never been a question of what is morally justified. How to best bring about change, though, is open to debate. Everyone involved in the animal liberation movement has doubts about the effectiveness of their actions and is searching for the best way to fight animal abuse and exploitation. Most people find that different tactics and strategies fit different contexts and that one way to defend animals does not have to replace other types of activism. Perhaps the biggest debate is over so-called violence versus nonviolence. There are no arguments for or against either approach that prove it universally superior or inferior to the other, or that one will inevitably have really good or really bad effects.
In defense of the ALF, it is certain that the ALF has rescued animals. Well-thought-out releases from fur farms and liberations from research labs have saved animal lives that you can count. Destroying a slaughterhouse or a fur farm–feed wholesaler does not save animals in an easily quantifiable manner, but may save animals nonetheless through monetary loss, inconvenience, fear, etc., that may dissuade a breeder from one last season or spur an exploiter's early retirement. “Violence” and “terrorism” are terms that have long been applied to the most important social, religious and historical forces in this country and in others around the world.
To be fair, much of the criticism of the ALF is justified. The ALF is not revolutionary. It will not bring about fundamental change in society to benefit animals by itself. But ALF actions can be a part of a revolutionary process and can have very important and necessary effects for animals who are suffering.
The ALF has not been proven ineffective. What has been pointed out is that acts born out of frustration, impatience, and impulse do not bring results. In “Making Our Actions Count,” in the #9 issue of No Compromise, Dari Fullmer wrote that “direct action without strategy is useless.” Although random actions may not be entirely useless, the point of choosing targets strategically is important. Direct action activists have to set priorities and be careful to make each effort count. Realistically, we are all limited in the time and energy we can commit to activism (of any kind). We only have a few chances; actions should be more than just symbolic. Don't sit in jail for breaking a window at your local McDonald's.
Research and planning are essential to be effective. This should mean fewer actions, but bigger, more focused actions intended to weaken or remove a vital link in an animal abuse industry. Activists must get to know their local animal industry and the role it plays at the national and local levels. An industry is made up of many different levels, from the farmers, the animal transporters, and the slaughterhouses to the processors and down to the retail end. Also included are industry research centers, promotional groups, industry publications, advertising agencies, etc. Every larger community in this country has at least one company that plays an important role in the larger industry, making the abuse and exploitation of animals profitable.
The Western Wildlife Unit of the ALF in the early 1990s, as well as some recent actions targeting the fur industry, showed us the way. By targeting the research that kept the fur industry prosperous and the fur feed co-ops that provide assistance to farmers, they attacked a weak link in the industry, making an enormous impact. If they had chosen to target the retail end and instead destroyed fur stores, they would have made the evening TV news, but insurance would likely have rebuilt the stores, leaving the industry little the worse. For the most part, the results of attacking retail outlets are not worth the risk.
What industry should the ALF target? Is it better to target a greater evil (such as the meat industry) or plan for a greater impact (by hitting the weakened fur industry)? Huge companies like IBP, ConAgra, National Beef Packing and Perdue Farms kill billions of animals every year. There are approximately 5,000 commercial poultry and livestock farms in the US, approximately 300 large meat-packing plants nation-wide and another 6,000 small and medium-sized meat-packing facilities. Internationally, the US is the world's largest exporter of bird carcasses and other animal “products.” Companies like Tyson and Hormel aggressively target overseas markets. Fighting the meat industry statewide or regionally is the only realistic option. The livestock haulers, the auction yards, the slaughterhouses and farm supply companies are examples of vulnerable links at this level.
What are the weak industries? We're familiar with fur, but there's also horse slaughter, the veal industry, foie gras, dog racing and circuses with animals, among others. For example, circuses remain extremely vulnerable to sabotage. The few dozen circuses that remain in this country are dependent on their means of transportation. A few (empty!) destroyed trucks can stop a circus in its tracks, literally. Many of these circuses survive performance by performance (season by season), and the loss of revenue due to canceled performances could seal their end.
ALF actions are dynamic and inspirational. The ALF can interrupt the dreariness of everyday campaigning with drama that reveals the animal rights struggle at its most essential level, if only for a short time. ALF actions can be a symbol of the revolutionary potential of our movement. The anonymous activist who destroyed muskrat traps acted out of moral duty without thinking of educating the public or hoping for media attention, and, if only temporarily, refused to accept the confines of the law. This ALF has great potential.