Korean Job Discussion Forums

[red dog]

http://www.animalconcerns.org/external.html?www=http%3A//www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/11035255/the_rise__fall_of_the_ecoradical_underground&itemid=200608011822180.576221

Unfortunately, they haven't printed the full article, but what's there is very well-written and hopefully sheds some light on why people feel the need to take this kind of action.

Sounds like this story would make a good movie ...

[Ya-ta Boy]

[red dog]

How would I know? I just liked the article, that's all. It's funny that you found it "scathing"; I didn't. What I got out of it is that a group of intelligent young people became concerned about the animals and the planet and came to feel that traditional methods of protest weren't enough. Whether they were right or wrong, who knows? I guess history will be their judge ... if the planet somehow manages to sustain our (collective) existence long enough.

[flotsam]

[Delirium's Brother]

I know exactly what he would think because he said it many times in many different ways:

[red dog]

[red dog]

[red dog]

Double post.

[Ya-ta Boy]

Gandhi, smandhi! I'm looking for a formula for a fire bomb and some ideas on how to spin blowing up a bongo truck into an act of liberation.

[Delirium's Brother]

[red dog]

Hi D.B.,

I don't see any connection at all between Kristallnacht (sp?) and what the ELF and ALF do. Most people who engage in ELF- and ALF-type actions adhere to a strict code of nonviolence -- some, but not all, feel that burning down empty buildings is acceptable within this code. Personally I'm uncomfortable with the idea of arson, but that's just my opinion and I'm not prepared to say the activists are bad people or throw around Nazi comparisons because of it.

I'm also curious about the context of the quote you posted earlier -- what sorts of "coercive" actions was Gandhi referring to? Even boycotts and civil disobedience are sometimes considered coercive. Having a police force and putting people in jail definitely constitute coercion. It's great that Gandhi achieved so much using the methods he chose, but there's a strong case suggesting they wouldn't be as effective in the animal- and Earth-liberation movements. Here's an article that argues for "direct action" in addition to other tactics:

http://www.nocompromise.org/issues/11BruceSNV.html

[Delirium's Brother]

[red dog]

Thanks, DB, and I really do appreciate your thoughtful reply. I posted the article because I've struggled with these issues myself and still can't decide whether to support the activists or not.

To be clear, I do support nonviolent direct action in principle, if the situation warrants it -- the ALF actions of the '80s in the United States, which involved the liberation of animals from laboratories where they were being tortured, are a clear-cut example. No one was harmed or killed, and there was no arson (and therefore no danger of anyone being harmed by accident). The activists planned the liberations very carefully and found homes for the animals before taking them. However, they did break the law by "stealing" animals, since animals are considered property under the law. And in at least some cases, they also destroyed equipment that would have facilitated the torture of more animals. Although they were risking their freedom by breaking the law, they didn't conduct "open" rescues or make it easy for the authorities to catch them -- and I personally have no problem with this.

From what I've read, since the '80s "underground" activists have moved away from that model because it's so difficult to coordinate large-scale liberations and find homes for so many animals -- many of whom have special needs and wouldn't be able to live with the average family. These days there seems to be a greater focus on economic sabotage and on confronting the industries that exploit animals to send a strong message against what they're doing. The idea is to force farmers, vivisectors, etc., to spend more money on security and insurance and to make people reconsider starting that type of business in the first place.

While I can certainly understand the reasoning behind this shift, a possible downside is the loss of the "warm and fuzzy" image the early ALFers created -- I remember the photos of masked activists cuddling beagles who would otherwise have been killed in laboratories, and they were so moving. Today's ALF/ELF activists are harder to relate to, and it's always interesting when the media makes an attempt to gain some insight into their motives, their objectives, and what made them feel that illegal acts were necessary to achieve them.

It's true that some animal/environmental activists have rejected the ALF's and the ELF's code of nonviolence and believe physically harming opponents is a legitimate tactic. This attitude seems to have become more widespread over the past 10 years as more conventional forms of activism have failed. Of course this concerns me, and I'm very hesitant to support this new faction, but I still don't like to see their crimes blown out of proportion and hear people mindlessly throwing around the "terrorist" label where it simply doesn't fit.

I also have mixed feelings because I'm human and have to ask myself what kind of defenders I'd want on my side if I were a tortured animal. I'm not sure if warm and fuzzy is always the way to go.

Where the ELF is concerned, I'm even more ambivalent because I also do things to harm the environment -- by drinking coffee, taking cabs when I could take the subway, moving into a newer building in preference to an older one ... this story forces me take a closer look at my own actions and ask whether I can do better.

You've made some very good points and I don't think I'm going to be able to address them all now. But I don't think all above-ground activists are against all illegal direct action. There are a few books and articles out there that present a range of opinions, some of them from above-ground activists defending underground activities. I think nearly all animal people (including me) are extremely hesitant to support violence, or any action where anyone could possibly get hurt (especially arson). But I did have a chance to attend a conference back in 1999 where above-ground activists discussed these kinds of issues and there was no uniform position. Some people totally condemned arson and some suggested that "open rescues" (where people liberate animals and then turn themselves in to the authorities) would be more effective than secret rescues. Others asked us to consider how we'd feel if the victims were human and whether we'd support stronger measures -- including violence -- in that case. Bruce Friedrich (who wrote the article I linked to in my last post) and Freeman Wicklund (the person he was responding to) were both among the speakers, and they both made good points. It's hard for me to say who's right.

I also hope we can continue this discussion later, and in the meantime I'll try to come up with some better-developed ideas on this subject.