Skip to content

On Clarity Regarding Nonviolent Direct Action

Well it looks like I’ve found my niche in the world of animal bloggers: annoying people by writing about things they don’t want to think about.

Who knew that a piecemeal discussion of Terrorists or Freedom Fighters? would cause so much ire? I feel the need to clarify a handful of issues that are sounding like they’ve gone through the telephone game I played as a child (where you tell a story to someone and they tell it to someone else, and four people later the story is very different from when it started).

  • At no point have I advocated the use of violence against anyone. I don’t even believe in the death penalty, as I think it’s barbaric (and sends a ridiculously hypocritical message).
  • There are groups working against animal exploitation that do NOT claim to be nonviolent. The ALF is not one of them. The ALF is a nonviolent group.
  • My hope is that readers of Animal Person think about their own definition of nonviolence. Does it include property damage? Does it include sabotage? Does it include arson? And if it includes arson, what about the very real possibility that a sentient nonhuman or a human (like maybe a firefighter) is injured?
  • The idea that if you really supported something you’d do it yourself doesn’t make sense to me. I support lots of things I’m not going to do because I don’t have the time, the skill or the inclination. I have supported candidates running for political office, which is something I have no interest in doing myself, but if someone represents my beliefs and is going to do a good job fighting the good fight, I’ll give them money and maybe support them in other ways, as well. But I’m fairly certain there’s no way I’m ever running for office.
  • No one has ever said that nonviolent direct action is a substitute for vegan education. It’s not one or the other. Vegan education is a given and the foundation, however many people feel it is not enough and they want to do more.
  • No one has ever said that property damage is always necessary. Those who believe in nonviolent direct action see a range of tactics that put varying degrees or types of force on exploiters. They believe every situation is different and warrants its own strategic plan.
  • If you think that property damage is unacceptable, as is breaking the law, what about open rescue? I have yet to hear from someone who disagrees with open rescue. What’s going on there?
  • Those against nonviolent direct action, such as breaking into a lab and rescuing some animals, often say that those animals are a drop in the bucket, and rescuing them doesn’t help our cause. I understand that thinking. However, it’s usually coming from people who are NOT utilitarians, and that seems like a very utilitarian notion to me. Aren’t abolitionists doing what they do because of the utmost respect they have for individual sentient beings? Why is it that that respect doesn’t come into play when breaking into a lab to rescue a couple of animals? Why is the individual suddenly not so important?

Finally, there’s an awful lot of Truth being flung around. Just as an example (i.e., not to pick on anyone), the most recent comment, by Scott, includes:

Alex,

The only thing that will bring us closer to abolition is education. . . . Every incident of property damage and sabotage takes us further from the goal of abolition.

I’m not agreeing or disagreeing because I don’t know that’s true. How does anyone know that’s true? (And by the way, Scott does include language such as "I believe" and "I think" in his comment.)

I’m not the go-to-theorist person. I’m not the bearer of The Truth. I don’t claim to have all the answers. It’s more like have all the questions. As I’ve written before, I don’t want to tell anyone what to think. I just want them to think.
 

21 Comments Post a comment
  1. Scott may be accurate, however, it's consequentalism reasoning he employs, not moral. My argument is simply a defense of Steve Best's premise, which states that those who would criticize the A.L.F. for their direct action while not criticizing those who operated the "Underground Railroad," for example, are speciesist. Again, a premise as yet unchallenged. Indeed, perhaps as a matter of consequence, property destruction does hinder the movement – that may be true. However, as an issue of morality (i.e., secondary self-defense or defense by-proxy), Best's argument is sound.

    June 17, 2008
  2. Scott #

    Fair enough. I suppose we can read in implicit "I believe"s in front of those comments. In turn, we can read in an "I believe" in front of your statement "The ALF is a non-violent group." What this is boiling down to is a debate over language, namely the meaning of the word violent. I say the word includes property damage. You say it doesn't. Who's right? me. or you. There's no answer. We can agree to disagree. That said, because "violence" is such a nebulous word, I don't think it's enough to just say "we're non-violent" and that makes it so. There are people who would argue that beating their wives is not violence, but rather "corrective force." We can argue, but if they believe it's not violence, there's not a lot we can point to to prove them wrong. Such is the nature of language.

    I think the whole debate is really about legitimizing the actions of certain groups, like the ALF. They want to continue doing what they do, believing that it is right. Others label them as violent for doing so. But being labeled "violent" is disasterous to the group's public image, so they coin a new, more friendly term, "non-violent direct action" and make a case for calling their actions non-violent. It is the exact principle which has led governments to coin terms like "collateral damage."

    I think that the ALF's case has failed. Whether or not we think damaging another's property is good or bad, they have lost the war for the public's favor. I don't think they can win it by continuing in the same vein. And this is all about the public favor. We are trying to convince everyday people that something is very wrong. I think that peaceful education is a better means of doing so. Perhaps, when there is a "critical mass" of people, nation- or world-wide, who believe it is wrong to use animals in the way we do, then "direct action" could be a legitimate tactic, as "the public" would agree with it. Until then, I think direct action is more about the activists, and less about protecting animals.

    As for open rescue [this is getting long, sorry!], I see it as a fundamentally different thing. Open Rescue is about education. The people who perform them don't hide their faces, they damage as little property as is possible (and I believe they should – and some do – pay for what damage they cause). I don't disagree with violence because it's illegal. I disagree with it because it's violent.

    Finally, I'm enjoying this debate, and I find it educational. I hope I haven't given anyone the opposite impression.

    s

    June 17, 2008
  3. Woah.
    You said: "No one has ever said that nonviolent direct action is a substitute for vegan education. It's not one or the other."
    Vegan education IS nonviolent direct action. You're right it's not one or the other, vegan education is one of various forms of direct action.
    Direct action is action that DIRECTLY influences the goal. If the goal is a vegan world, vegan education is direct action.

    I think this:
    veganism = foundation
    vegan education = one type of direction action
    violence = one type of direct action
    direct action =/ violence
    property destruction =/ violence
    open rescue =/ violence

    If only I could make little venn diagrams in text :/

    June 17, 2008
  4. Alex,
    As you know, I agree about not doing what you'd do for humans for nonhumans is speciesist, and I too have not heard anything that convinces me otherwise.

    Scott,
    I'm glad you're involved! I probably appear over-the-top about language, and I don't know if I would be had I studied anything other than applied linguistics. But I do know that we in the animal rights movement (such as it is) do seem to have some significant disagreements about the definitions of some very important terms. I agree with you that there's often no answer and we can agree to disagree about certain words. What annoys me is when people tell me that I'm wrong about what a word means, when language, like it or not, is fluid and constantly-changing. (Of course, I can be wrong about a word; I'm referring to when there are multiple definitions or interpretations for any of a variety of reasons.) I say that the ALF is a nonviolent group because their mission and values, according to their website, is clear about that (plus they haven't injured anyone). When I think about the successes of the ALF, I can choose to think about the animals they've saved and the exploiters they've financially damaged, and/or I can consider public perception. When you focus on public perception, indeed the situation doesn't look good for the ALF. (Hey, mine's getting long, too!) I like the differences you mention regarding open rescue (no masks, focus on education, sometimes leaving money for damages).

    Elaine,
    I don't view vegan education as direct action (of course it's nonviolent, so I won't address that). As pattrice wrote in a comment that I posted about the day after:

    "Direct action includes only activist tactics that, like boycotts and sabotage, are intended to have an immediate impact on a problem or its causes. In contrast, indirect action aims for future change through more circuitous routes, such as education, legislation, and symbolic demonstrations of opinion.."
    http://www.animalperson.net/animal_person/2008/05/on-direct-actio.html

    In other words, direct equals immediate in this context.

    June 17, 2008
  5. Scott #

    I just picked up "Terrorists or Freedom Fighters?" at the public library (somewhat surprised that they had it). Looking forward to reading it (hope I have time)

    s

    June 17, 2008
  6. Deb #

    I know you said it in your post already, but it seems to need emphasis – not all non-violent direct action includes property damage, not all ALF actions include property damage. Seems like a lot of people can't get past their own assumption that ALF actions = property destruction. It's not true. The only difference between a lot of ALF actions and open rescues are the masks themselves. So does that mean people think it is violence if you wear a mask, but not if you don't? Sorry, but that is really an absurd thought to me.

    ALF's philosophy hasn't changed, either, they've always stated non-violence as a value, and they've also always made a statement that they don't consider property damage to be violence (if it doesn't cause physical harm to a sentient being). So they haven't tried to rebrand themselves. Even if you don't agree with the property-damage-as-non-violence aspect, a ton of ALF actions would STILL even by the harm-no-innanimate-object stance be non-violent. So, maybe we shouldn't be generalizing too much.

    In fact, the first ALF action in the US (according to some) happened in 1977 with the release of 2 dolphins from a research facility. Others say that the first action was in 1979 with the release of 1 cat, 2 dogs, and 2 guinea pigs from a medical center lab. Yet another claims that the first action wasn't until 1982, with the rescue of 24 cats from a research laboratory.

    Notice something about all of these actions?

    I guess I find it disturbing that so few are willing to look past what the CNNs and FOXs report – we know how their bias falls – and examine for themselves what ALF actions are or are not.

    It isn't like there is a grand master directing everything anyway. When you have such a loose affiliation, bound only by a stated set of values, you're going to get people pushing the edges, but does that mean we paint all ALF actions with the same brush?

    Do we meekly accept what this administration says about animal rights activists?

    June 17, 2008
  7. How exciting, Scott! I appreciate the essay format, as well as the variety of voices included. Please let me/us know your thoughts.

    Deb,
    I agree. I wish everyone would educate themselves and decide for themselves. I had the same misconceptions other people have, but I started to see flaws and gaps and I began questioning more and more, and people like you encouraged me to dig deeper (not sure if that was your intention, but well done!). Thanks!

    June 17, 2008
  8. Dan #

    I generally agree with Scott’s comments, and I would if it were humans in the exact same boat (just as severe, just as many, just as little support from the general public).

    About the ALF, it’s one of the slipperiest concepts ever invented. Why? Because there is no ALF. IOW, there are NO people who you can point to and say “they are the ALF…those certain people named as follows.” Instead, ALF is “defined” roughly as any rescue, sabotage, property damage, etc that doesn’t harm human or nonhuman animals. Anyone can claim their action as “ALF direct action so long as nobody get hurt, right? So, let’s say I decide to go out, rescue some nonhumans, and torch the joint that I rescue them from. If nobody is harmed, and I confirm that, it’s “ALF direct action”. If I make a mistake, and a firefighter or someone in the building is killed, it’s NOT “ALF direct action” because I found out somebody was accidentally killed. Slippery stuff, eh? We just “call it ALF” after we confirm that there were no injuries. Slippery.

    June 17, 2008
  9. Dan #

    Sorry for the double post, but I have a couple of things to add:

    I would be willing to do (i.e. “I would do”) anything that I support. IOW, there is nothing that I support that I would not be willing to engage in myself. I may not actually engage in everything I support, but I would be willing to if I had the time, inclination, etc.

    I do believe that serious property damage is violence. If it wasn’t violence, people wouldn’t bother distinguishing it from true nonviolence, like verbal vegan education. If someone trashes my house or office sufficiently, I will likely be harmed more than if they had punched me in the face. Money and property doesn’t grow on trees. Most people, myself included, have to work hard for our property. Even if insurance covers it, I must deal with the insurance company and coordinating the clean up. My time is extremely valuable to me, and I wouldn’t want to spend it fixing serious property damage. The fact that property damage is such a PITA is exactly why proponents of it want to do it to animal exploiters.

    When animal advocates claim that serious property damage (as opposed to e.g. broken locks or kicked in doors) is NOT violence, it sounds almost as absurd (but not quite) as animal exploiters calling property damage “terrorism”. Both claims, IMO, are wrong. Property damage is violence, but it is not terrorism (unless explosives are used, and then it depends).

    Finally, I am not annoyed in the least about this discussion. I’m just presenting my humble, unworthy opinion. 😉 If I use CAPS occasionally, it’s only because I can’t italicize in the comments section. 🙂

    June 17, 2008
  10. the bunny #

    Obtaining info from ALF themselves (through their website) about who they are is like asking the Bush administration if they are corrupt and kill people. On the surface, they are not going to hold themselves accountable for the damage and injury they have done, nor will they admit to their encouragement and advocation of violence to achieve their goals. Remember, the Bush cronies are "peacekeepers." Yeah, right.

    My initial understanding of ALF's intentions came from Lee Hall's book Capers in the Churchyard (not CNN and FOX). She delves into the consequences and inefficacy of organizations and groups like ALF, and goes into detail about how they produce a negative effect on the progress of peaceful activists. From what I remember reading, ALF does support violence. It's not just property damage and sabotage…but also threats and harassment toward individuals AND their family members.

    If you do not believe me, please browse through this web site (an org called Bite Back located in WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA)…http://www.directaction.info/

    Arson, blowing up vans, harassing and threatening people in their homes…these are just a few of the "non-violent direct actions" that the people who make up "ALF" are behind.

    You can CONVENIENTLY say that these people are NOT REALLY ALF. That's naive. They ARE ALF because ALF does not turn these people away or denounce them.

    It would be great if Lee Hall could respond to clarify things for me and for you and for everyone else. She seems to be the one who has done her real homework on this issue. If anyone has contact with her, I would really appreciate her bringing some clarity to this issue (even if it's to prove me wrong).

    Mary, I really can't believe you would say that vegan education is not direct action. It *almost* renders me speechless.
    —–
    Alex's quote: "My argument is simply a defense of Steve Best's premise, which states that those who would criticize the A.L.F. for their direct action while not criticizing those who operated the "Underground Railroad," for example, are speciesist."

    There are some really bad examples being thrown around about what is "speciesist." It's far too easy to use analogies like WWII and American black slavery because they happened over 60 to 100 years ago. It allows the person using the analogy to defer accountability in the present. If you really believe in rescuing prisoners, both human and non-human, then how about getting out there and helping those in Darfur? Or those many prisoners being unjustly tortured (!!!) in Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, and other "black sites" around the world? Or the innocent Iraqis who are being beaten and humiliated and killed in their streets in front of their own families by OUR military. My philosophy stands. Going in and rescuing a few of these people is not going to solve the problem at large. Nothing changes by rescuing a few individuals, when so many are being brutalized. It certainly doesn't/won't change the policies of a corrupt government who will continue to brutalize and torture and humiliate and kill innocent people. Education on a grand scale about what our govt. is doing CAN change things. History has proven that.

    When blacks crossed over to the north, they may not have been slaves any longer, but they were still not free, still did not have rights for the most part, and furthermore they were still considered inferior to whites. It was still a struggle. But less of a struggle. (Sound familiar?) The underground railroad did not solve the problem of slavery, nor did it solve racism in both the north and the south. The extensive dissemination of anti-slavery writing (i.e., INFORMATION about the TRUTH) was, however, an integral cause in rallying abolitionists against slavery, leading up to the civil war.

    Mary's quote: "The idea that if you really supported something you'd do it yourself doesn't make sense to me. I support lots of things I'm not going to do because I don't have the time, the skill or the inclination. I have supported candidates running for political office, which is something I have no interest in doing myself, but if someone represents my beliefs and is going to do a good job fighting the good fight, I'll give them money and maybe support them in other ways, as well. But I'm fairly certain there's no way I'm ever running for office."

    Why did you become vegan then? Why not just donate a shitload of money to animal organizations, instead of actually taking things into your own hands and being vegan? Let them do the work for you. Kind of like carbon offsets.

    The "running for office" analogy doesn't work. Not when it comes to something you are this passionate about (and you are, because you simply cannot get off the subject it seems).

    I became vegan because I have a strong conviction that animals should not be harmed. If I believed in ALF-like ways and truly thought they were ethical AND effective, you bet your ass I'd be out there doing it RIGHT NOW. But I absolutely do NOT believe they are ethical and effective. But if somebody who has a strong conviction about the rights of animals does believe it's ethical/effective, then they should be out there doing it. It's the death and torture of animals we're talking about, not about voting for Joe Shmoe who will decide for us whether or not to tax every dump we take.
    —-
    I appreciated Scott's responses.
    —-
    I think that's about it. I have no more to say. I think I got it all out of my system.

    June 17, 2008
  11. Dan,
    Slippery . . . true. But wait a minute, you'd do anything you'd support . . .if you had the time, inclination, etc.? I don't get the part about doing it if you had the inclination. My point is there are somethings I support by I'm not interested in doing myself. And for the record, I do think that serious property damage is violence. I also think intimidation is violence–of a worse kind–as it's premise is to harm someone.

    bunny,
    You certainly seem increasingly annoyed. As far as I know, most AP readers-including me-have read Capers. Lee used to comment on AP but she hasn't in quite some time. Go to the Friends of Animals website and contact her yourself. She's very accessible. FoA sounds like the perfect organization for you, by the way.
    Next, we all know about Bite Back. Their office is 15 miles from my house, and I visit the site frequently.
    Lee Hall will clarify her position, just like Steve Best would clarify his. My suggestion is to read Terrorists or Freedom Fighters? because there are essays by people involved in ALF-like activities, and there's a thorough treatment of every issue you have raised. It's not a book full of interpretation of ALF activities by outsiders (though there is some of that).

    As far as you being rendered speechless, I'm not sure why. By definition, education is indirect action as the results are in the future, and direct action's results are immediate. I wasn't aware that there was any disagreement about that until Elaine's comment. I've always used the terms the way pattrice does.

    Finally, what's with this rudeness?
    "Why did you become vegan then? Why not just donate a shitload of money to animal organizations, instead of actually taking things into your own hands and being vegan? Let them do the work for you. Kind of like carbon offsets."

    The nature of life is that we can't do everything and we set priorities. Some things we do (such as veganism), some things we support financially, some things we support in other ways, and some things simply don't make the cut because we can only do so much. The running for office analogy works just fine.

    I "simply cannot get off the subject" because I'm passionate about getting people to read and think. You've made it abundantly clear that you don't appreciate my direction.

    When I get really annoyed by someone who just won't stop doing something I don't enjoy, I remove myself from that situation.

    June 18, 2008
  12. Quote:

    "Alex's quote: "My argument is simply a defense of Steve Best's premise, which states that those who would criticize the A.L.F. for their direct action while not criticizing those who operated the "Underground Railroad," for example, are speciesist."

    There are some really bad examples being thrown around about what is "speciesist." It's far too easy to use analogies like WWII and American black slavery because they happened over 60 to 100 years ago. It allows the person using the analogy to defer accountability in the present. If you really believe in rescuing prisoners, both human and non-human, then how about getting out there and helping those in Darfur? Or those many prisoners being unjustly tortured (!!!) in Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, and other "black sites" around the world? Or the innocent Iraqis who are being beaten and humiliated and killed in their streets in front of their own families by OUR military. My philosophy stands. Going in and rescuing a few of these people is not going to solve the problem at large. Nothing changes by rescuing a few individuals, when so many are being brutalized. It certainly doesn't/won't change the policies of a corrupt government who will continue to brutalize and torture and humiliate and kill innocent people. Education on a grand scale about what our govt. is doing CAN change things. History has proven that."

    Strangely Bunny, you fail to address Best's argument. Saying "why don't you go and do x, y, and z" says nothing at all about Best's premise, and my defense of it. You may be accurate about education as the most effective means. However, this is consequential reasoning, which may be appropriate given any evidence you can provide; what isn't appropriate is your failed attempt to refute Best's moral defense of the A.L.F. if you believe it was morally right to free Jew's from concentration camps and destroy Nazi property.

    If you don't believe that Jewish resistance fighters were right, fair enough – you would not be speciesist then. It's very simple; this isn't metaphysical, it's logic – the avoidance of inconsistency.

    Every person who has criticized the A.L.F. has yet to refute Best's premise. However accurate you may be about the wrongness of property destruction, prudentially speaking, you are wrong to make a moral argument against such action assuming that you believe that animals are persons and ought to be included in our moral decision making. Of course, this rests on the assumption that you believe those who ran the Underground Railroad were right to do so.

    June 18, 2008
  13. Dan #

    Mary,

    It sounds like we agree. I don't consider minor property damage violence, only major/serious property damage (I realize there's a gray area between "major" and "minor", but that's no different from most things like this).

    June 18, 2008
  14. the bunny #

    Alex, I believe in peaceful methods…period. I thought I made that perfectly clear in all of my posts. So, yes, I am being consistent.

    If it had been my decision, would I have ordered troops to go over to Europe and kill their way into Germany? No. You need to read your history books. The US didn't rush over to Europe to help out right away. The US took its sweet time. The US always has its reasons for going to war (read: military-industrial complex). When the US finally decided to join the war, it also decided to drop a nice little fun gift on the Japanese in the meantime (don't talk to me about Pearl Harbor – in comparison, Pearl Harbor was like getting tiny bloodless scratch on a finger compared to the bloody mauling the Japanese received in "retribution").

    Meaning that the US went into the war with brute force and nothing more. That was how the war was "won" and the Jews were freed. Did the Jewish resistance fighters free all the Jews? No. Did they conquer Hitler? No. They were inconsequential in solving the problem. Like welfarism, they simply helped a few Jews to suffer less. And if you don't believe in welfarism (the lessening of suffering of animals opposed to concentrating on total abolition) than you shouldn't focus your efforts on liberating only a few…of any animal (human or non-human).

    Again, I think I what I said was pretty clear about how I feel about the underground railroad. It had no true/meaningful bearing on the final abolishment of slavery. Education…writing…disseminating literature was what turned things around and caused people to take a second look at what they believed in.

    In short, I think there are better ways than using brute force or any kind of violence (and by violence I include property damage, sabotage, threats, harassment – which are all psychological violence used to induce fear of an individual in order to achieve one's goals).

    —-

    Mary, I sincerely apologize if I was being rude. When it comes to certain subjects that move me to tears (such as torture and harassment of ANY animal – human or non-human), I get emotional. I DO get distraught. It's difficult for me to just move on from those emotions. Hearing about the torturing of innocent prisoners at US prison camps has brought me to tears. The beating and humiliation of Iraqi citizens in their own country has brought me to many tears. Just as much as the torture and killing of billions of animals every day. Hate AND apathy are our enemies.

    We are not talking about theories or abstract concepts such as welfarism vs. abolitionism. We are talking about the lives of animals (again, human AND non-human). You seem passionate about this subject only in such a way that you are dissecting it as if it were a school term paper. That Bite Back site proves that people are being threatened and harassed every day (in the name of ALF)…with no real meaningful outcome. And yes, that not only annoys me, it makes me sad, upset, and worried.

    It disturbs me that one of the few people in the world who is for the most part on the same page as I am when it comes to animal rights starts to veer off in a direction that involves violence. You may not believe me, but if I am rude, it is unintentional; it is just me becoming passionate and trying to make you see my point of view.

    But, alas…whenever I actually TRY to make someone see my point of view, I usually fail. I seem to always have more success by just being the example and keeping my mouth shut. Thank you for (indirectly) reminding me of that. I will go back to simply being the example now.

    I'll read TOFF. And I will check out the Friends of Animals site (I think I've been there before sometime in the past though).

    June 18, 2008
  15. the bunny #

    By the way, as an aside, I want to say that I do appreciate that you always show my posts on your blog instead of censoring them, like some other bloggers have done. You always give me a fair chance to be heard, even when we disagree.

    June 18, 2008
  16. Thanks, bunny.
    And one more time for the record, I am not advocating violence against any person or nonhuman, nor am I advocating what Dan calls "serious property damage." I can probably be said to advocate for what maybe could be called "minor property damage" (which I just made up) in that I've always agreed with open rescue. What I'm advocating is educating yourself and making your own decision–no matter what that ends up being. Friends of Animals is as nonviolent as they come, by anyone's definition (as far as I know), and they have a blog and they have some great materials, for kids as well as grown-ups, and I hear the cookbook is fabulous. They have their detractors, but who cares? If they're for you, have at it!

    I'm delighted, by the way, to hear that you'll read TOFF. I won't anticipate your reactions, but I would appreciate it if you let us all know what you're thinking when you're finished–or even along the way.

    June 18, 2008
  17. Scott #

    Hi folks, just 2 things:

    First, on rudeness. It's my experience that discussions in comments often come out sounding rude, or sounding angry or argumentative, when they aren't meant to be so. I sometimes go back and read my own comments and think, "hmmm, that actually sounds a lot more harsh than I meant it to". It's hard to express tone when all you've got are typed words and white space.

    Second, to Alex,

    It may be that the quote you've given from Best is irrefutable on moral grounds (I'm not sure I buy that, but let's say it is, for the sake of argument). My question is, (in a friendly tone) so what? I think we should be less concerned with what labels we are going to paint people with ("I'm not a speciesist." "You're a speciesist because of this logical exercise."), and more concerned with what will effectively end the mass exploitation of non-human animals. I think this comment also applies to the debate over whether vegan education constitutes direct or indirect action.

    Third (oops, I lied about just 2 things)

    For those of you who don't object to getting their media in this way, you can download an interesting interview with an ALF member on BBC's Hard Talk, from mininova.org, here:

    http://www.mininova.org/tor/1259547

    You have to download the u-torrent program to access it, but in my experience it's a safe program.

    Also available from mininova are films like Sharkwater, Your Mommy Kills Animals, The World According to Monsanto, and the most recent 30 Days episode, involving a hunter living with a vegan family. Just search for them and you should be able to find them

    s

    June 18, 2008
  18. Scott,
    That might be true about the apparent rudeness, and it would be nice if people made a special effort to not be condescending or sound like they are the bearers of The Truth, even if it's annoying to do so.

    I recommend reading your comment out loud before you press Post. There is so much animosity within this movement that I find it embarrassing, particularly when we're supposed to be on the same side–the side of ending the exploitation of sentient nonhumans.

    The reason I wrote about speciesism with regard to tactics, is that: 1) I was called speciesist because I'm not willing to do for nonhumans what I'd do for humans, and I have to agree with that, and 2) There are certain people who often call others speciesist and think that their behavior and views are not speciesiest at all. My intention with this issue is to present a bit of a cautionary tale and a Gray Matter. Speciesism seemed so clear to me until I was confronted with my own inconsistency (dare I say hypocrisy).

    June 18, 2008
  19. Scott,

    See Mary's response.

    I introduced Best's argument as a theoretical defense of the A.L.F. and also as an instrument to expose our own speciesism. Nothing more, but it's still important to do so if only as a means to recognize why someone would choose to rescue a baby dairy cow. They do so because on our own premises, morality may oblige us to do so.

    Bunny, your examples don't prove the moral defense of direct action unsound – you merely cite examples where direct action either was not used, or was state action, or did not result in immediate abolition. I agree; this isn't a point of contention. Best does, however, articulate, citing examples, of how both direct and indirect action worked together to achieve an end to slavery, for example. I believe he's right; I see no reason why this same logic cannot be applied to the case of Animal Liberation.

    But that's neither here nor there. The point remains: If you had the means, would you defend a stranger who was being physically accosted in a public restroom, for example? If you say yes, then how can you argue that taking efforts to defend a pig while he/she is being physically accosted is morally wrong? If it's illegality that troubles you, this is why I would use the examples of the Jewish Resistance fighters or the Underground Railroad. Again, prudentially you may be right, but not necessarily so. Therefore the moral implications of direct action ought to be discussed.

    June 18, 2008
  20. Deb #

    Since Scott brought up some movies, I thought I'd mention "Behind the Mask". I had sort of assumed everyone knew about it, but maybe not? I'm always out of the loop myself, and I have not seen it, so all I know is that it is screened at the AR conferences and that it is about ALF (hence, the title). http://www.uncagedfilms.com/behindthemask.php

    June 18, 2008
  21. the bunny #

    "That might be true about the apparent rudeness, and it would be nice if people made a special effort to not be condescending or sound like they are the bearers of The Truth, even if it's annoying to do so."

    I have read a number of blogs of yours where you boldly and unequivocally stand up for veganism the same way that I stand up for peace. I have witnessed you be the *bearer of Truth* many times when it comes to veganism.

    If you feel and know something deep down in your heart about a particular thing (in this case veganism and/or peace), you stand up for it. You're passionate about it. You defend it.

    It appears to me that you don't feel the same about absolute peace as you do about veganism.

    For me, there are no if, ands, or buts. I feel the same about 100% peaceful methods as I feel about veganism – it's a conviction that I KNOW is right, just like YOU KNOW veganism is right.

    Though I can break out the logical facts just as much as the next activist, I don't view the wrongness of cruelty toward animals as an abstract "concept" like many other animal rights activists. That "logically" (after hours and hours of pondering it, and using endless x,y, and z exercises) that it's just wrong. It's wrong first and foremost because I feel it in my heart – always have – even when I was a kid eating meat. I feel the same about peace.

    And I am not on any crusade to go down an already well-worn unsuccessful path that leads to more hate.

    It's time to seriously think peacefully outside the hate and violence box.

    June 19, 2008

Leave a comment to mary martin Cancel reply

You may use basic HTML in your comments. Your email address will not be published.

Subscribe to this comment feed via RSS