click to enlarge
Selected articles from Arkangel No.1.
Winter 1989
Contents:
Internal Feuding
by Ronnie Lee
The animal rights movement can so easily become a closed
society and, when one is very active within it, it is so easy
to forget about the nature of the outside world. Being forced
to live, for several years, with people who by and large care
about nothing except themselves, has made me appreciate, much
more, other people within our movement, even if I don't happen
to agree with them on every issue.
So often animal rights people, because of relatively minor
differences of opinion or some small personal dispute, appear
to hate each other more than they do apathetic outsiders or
even the animal abusers themselves. Two people can be both
committed vegans, both vehemently opposed to all animal
exploitation, both have houses full of rescued cats and dogs
and yet despise each other absolutely because of some minor
disagreement. Surely this is nothing less than a crazy
situation?
One of the reasons these internal feuds arise is because
our movement has largely the wrong attitude towards the
struggle for animal liberation. We would do far better to
consider it as a war. In a war the people fighting on one side
become united and are prepared to sink their differences for
the common good. By "war" I am not necessarily advocating
violence. A war can be defined as "a strong effort to combat
evil" and so a person who spends their time giving out
leaflets can consider themselves just as much a warrior as one
who engages in direct action. It is an attitude of mind.
This unity for the war effort does not mean that all A/R
campaigners must always have exactly the same opinions. Indeed
the movement would soon stagnate if that were to be the
case.What it does mean, though, is that those disagreements
should be expressed within a climate of mutual respect. They
should be discussed sensibly and rationally without insults or
rhetoric and if the disagreement still persists we should
agree to differ and carryon working together in those large
areas where there is still accord. Vis-a-vis the animal
abusers and other hostile elements of society we must always
present a broad united front.
Our enemies really don't have to make much of an effort to
destroy our movement when we're so very good at doing that
ourselves. The whole history of our struggle just seems to be
one of self-inflicted wounds. Words such as "infiltrators",
"traitors", "maniacs", "terrorists" have been bandied about
without any thought as to the deep hurt and divisions they may
cause. There is probably not one of us who is not to
blame.
It is not too late, however, to set forth on the road
towards reconciliation. For societies, groups and individuals
to put behind them the hurtful disputes of the past and to
begin working together with care and respect for each other.
It may give a strange satisfaction to insult somebody in the
movement whom you feel has insulted you, but what good can
that do for the cause of animal liberation ?
In Arkangel we have done our utmost not to insult other
campaigners with whom we have some disagreement. We may
criticize their attitudes and some of the things they've said,
but that is within the context of respect for them as fellow
animal rights campaigners and appreciation of the considerable
contribution they have all made towards the cause. It hurts
and angers me to hear genuine, caring people described as
"terrorists" and "loonies", but what possible good would it do
to use insulting words against the campaigners who have made
those remarks? All that would do is just exacerbate the
divisions and ill-feeling within the movement. Somebody,
somewhere, has to call a halt to the succession of mutually
inflicted injuries.
The animal rights movement is a group of caring people in a
still largely cruel and apathetic world. We are all of us very
special, and it is important that we are all of us special to
each other. One People united in One Struggle until the
victory is ours.
RONNIE LEE
Controversial Actions - Hysterical
Reactions
by Ronnie Lee
Over the past year several actions by animal liberationists
have caused controversy, and what I "Would describe as an
hysterical reaction, within the movement because they have
involved a danger to life. The following articles constitute a
discussion of various aspects of this situation.
Beyond Non-Violence
More and more often we hear animal rights repre-sentatives
condemning the actions of the ALF etc on the grounds that they
are "violent". But is the dividing line between violence and
non-violence (wherever that may be) really the dividing line
between right and wrong?
First it might help to define "violence". According to my
dictionary itis something which involves "great force or
strength or intensity" and thus it can cover a great many
situations. In animal rights terms, however, "violence" is
normally used to refer to actions where property is damaged or
where the lives of others are harmed or threatened.
This inevitably leads to some confusion because, in moral
terms, actions which only damage property are surely different
to those which harm or threaten life. It is, therefore, really
not helpful for people in the movement to describe them both
as "violence". "Property damage" would be a far better term to
describe the first kind.
Moral arguments concerning damage to property are really
rather straightforward. If such damage directly saves animals
from death or suffering, or if it does so indirectly by
helping to drive animal abusers out of busi,ness, it would
seem very difficult to raise convincing arguments against it.
After all, life must be held to be more valuable than mere
inanimate objects.
The real difficulty comes when the "violence" harms or
threatens life. In the next section "Endangering Lives", I
intend to deal with situations where life is unintentionally,
or perhaps recklessly, endangered. Here I will deal with
actions that are deliberately intended to cause injury or
death.
Firstly, though, I'd like to expose some of the hypocrisy
which surrounds the condemnation of "violence". Many animal
rights campaigners purport to be non-violent and vociferously
criticize the "violent" actions of others in the movement. But
if one is to stake claim to non-violence one must be
consistently opposed to violence, and with many "non-violent"
campaign-ers this seems not at all to be the case.
To begin with, what is the position of such people
regarding violence used for human liberation? Would they have
opposed the use of force by the slaves who fought in the West
Indies for their own emancipation or the use of weapons and
explosives by the French Resistance? Today, would they oppose
the violence of the ANC or that used by the people of
Nicaragua to defend themselves against the contras? If the
answer to any of them is "no", then there is speciesism afoot,
for it surely must be speciesist to oppose violence for animal
liberation, but not to oppose it when used for the liberation
of humans.
Secondly, how many of these lovers of non-violence campaign
for strong legislation to outlaw particular forms of animal
persecution ? Most of them, I'd bet, and there's nothing wrong
with that, except that those who do so cannot claim to be
non-violent. If such legislation is passed, what will happen
in the final analysis to the abusers of animals? Well, the
answer is they will be put in, prison. And isn't imprisonment
just another form of violence? I certainly know what I'd
choose between a prison sentence and a punch on the nose!
Bryant of the LACS rejoiced (quite rightly) over the
jailing of a couple of fox-torturers and then talks about his
"abhorrence of violence". His abhorrence apparently does not
cover the violence of the state and concerns itself only with
the violence of animal rights campaigners. Like that of many
others, his is a hypocritical position. Whether carried out by
the state or by the individual, violence is violence is
violence.
Therefore it would seem wrong to condemn actions merely
because they are "violent". After all, there are some violent
actions, such as the jailing of animal abusers, which almost
all of us would support. Thus it makes no sense to use
"violence" as the dividing line between right and wrong.
But what of the deliberate killing or injuring of others by
animal liberation campaigners or attempts to do such things?
Nobody ever has been killed or seriously injured and such
attempts are few and far between, but this is still an
important question for discussion.
It is a very strong tenet of the animal rights movement
that the end doesn't justify the means. Thus we hold it wrong
to carry out painful experiments on animals no matter what
would be the benefit to humankind (if indeed there be a
benefit, and many would argue that there isn't). By the same
token it must be wrong to deliberately kill or injure an
innocent human (or other animal) as part of a campaign for
animal liberation.
A problem arises, however, when we are not dealing with
innocent victims. Let's take the following imaginary situation
:-
We live in a society where the torturing of babies is
perfectly legal. I discover the location of a baby torture
chamber. I could campaign for baby-torture to be outlawed, but
that will do nothing to save babies from being tortured today
or tomorrow or for many months, even years, in the future. I
could smash up the torture chamber, but I know the torturer is
determined and will soon set up another one. I do not have the
facilities to imprison the torturer. Therefore I kill him. Is
my action to be condemned?
If not, then it is very hard to condemn the Animal Rights
Militia for making attempts on the lives of vivisectors
without being guilty of gross speciesism. One can criticize
them for not taking sufficient care not to endanger innocent
life (if ordinary people are put at risk} , but how can one
find fault with the main intention of the act? If vivisectors
are not to be disposed of then neither is the imaginery
baby-torturer.
I am not advocating here the execution of animal abusers,
for in that imaginery society it may also be wrong to kill the
torturers of babies. What I am trying to point out is that
things are not really as clear-cut as they may first of all
seem. Should people in that imaginary society show
understanding and compassion for those whose concern for the
helpless and the innocent leads them to kill the
baby-torturers, or should they condemn them with the same
vitriol that many in our movement have used against the
ARM?
Bristol Ravers
by Anon
"We are sick and tired of a tiny bunch of half-witted
pseudo-terrorists undermining the work done by Animal Aid. . .
. . We condemn whole-heartedly this cowardly, stupid and
dangerous act". (Animal Aid statement quoted to TV and
newspapers)
"We will suffer incalculable damage from those who planted
the Bristol device. Terrorist actions are negative and destroy
the image of a positive campaign". (Steve McIvor, BUAV, quoted
in The Times)
Very few people in the movement will be unaware of the
explosion that damaged the Senate House at Bristol University
earlier this year. According to the media, the attack was
first of all claimed by a previously unknown group called The
Animal Abused Society. Later a man purporting to represent the
ALF telephoned the press with a claim of responsibility, but
the police had doubts about its authenticity because of
inaccuracies that it contained. Animal rights campaigners have
been protesting against cruel experiments carried out at
Bristol University for many years. The above quotes are
utterances which came from certain sections of the animal
rights movement following the incident and the first two, at
least, are typical of several statements that were made.
I don't intend here to discuss the pros and cons of the
Bristol explosion. Another article which covers that appears
earlier. What I do intend to do is to discuss the statements.
For it is my contention that they are inaccurate, unjust and
actually compound any harm to the movement that the Bristol
explosion may have done.
You will note, first of all, that I use the word
"explosion" rather than "bomb" or "bombing" to describe the
incident. The latter terms are highly emotive and I believe
get in the way of any rational discussion. When demolition
workers blow up a condemned building, that is an explosion.
When quarry workers blast out rock, that too is an explosion.
Yet when pro-animal campaigners damage a building at a cruel
university, that is referred to as a "bombing". Our
terminology is somewhat strange.
Before turning to the quotes it would be a good idea to
consider the question of whether those responsible for the
Bristol explosion were genuine animal-rights campaigners or
people from the other side, bent on discrediting the
movement, as has been suggested or claimed in some quarters.
The simple truth of the matter is that there is no evidence
that they weren't "genuine" people, so unless any such
evidence comes to light, we have to assume that they were.
It seems to have become something of a habit within the
animal rights movement to claim that other campaigners, whose ideas or actions one
disagrees with, are somehow "infiltrators" or secret members
of the opposition. This is yet another attitude that hinders
sensible debate.
So were the people who caused the explosion really
"terrorists"? Was their attack on Bristol University an act of
"Terror"? The French Resistance, for instance, quite
frequently used explosives in their campaign against Nazi
oppression. Sometimes their actions endangered, even killed,
innocent life. But, even if we weren't totally happy about
everything they did, would we call them "terrorists"? If not
is it really correct to apply that term to people who, rightly
or wrongly, use explosives in the fight against the holocaust
of animal persecution (especial where there is no evidence of
an intention injure anyone)? Do different standards apply to
the use of explosives for human freedom al their use for
animal liberation? If so, why is that other than another
manifestation of speciesism?
Secondly, is it fair to call the Bristol action "cowardly"?
One must remember that if those responsible ever get caught
they are likely face many years in prison for an act intended
to further the cause of animal liberation. Is such an act
(whether it be right or wrong) really therefore, the action of
a coward. Possibly the aspect of imprisonment doesn't occur to
those who sit behind desks and make press statements.
Are quotes like those above going to have any effect in
changing the attitudes and actions of the people responsible
for the explosion? The answer is obviously no. They will only
serve to put their backs up and make them unreceptive to any
sensible argument that those quoted may wish to come up with.
Opponents of such incidents as the Bristol action would serve
their own cause better by putting forward calm and rational
arguments in animal rights publications, rather than by
diatribes in the public media.
Finally, is it really true that the Bristol explosion
undermined "the work done by Anim really "terrorists"? Was
their attack on Bristol Aid", caused "incalculable damage" to
the BUAV or destroyed "the image of a positive campaign"?
Well, people in the movement will have varying opinions. But
the one thing that does seem to be the case is that quotes
like those from Animal Aid and Steve McIvor serve only to add
to any damage that may have been done. If the gutter press has
led the public to think of animal rights campaigners as
"terrorists" the further use of the word can only serve to
reinforce that opinion.
And if the public are really unable to distinguish between
Animal Aid, the BUAV and those responsible for the Bristol
explosion, then the use of the word "terrorist", is only going
to further encourage the application of the term to all of
them. Extreme language like "terrorists", "cowardly" and
"stupid" inevitably becomes the focus of media attention and
this often leaves no room for the facts about animal abuse to
be pointed out. Far better to explain calmly how the horrors
of animal persecution can sometimes drive people to take what
some might consider to be "extreme" actions, and then go on to
outline what those horrors are and what ordinary people can do
to end them.
If people are going to appear in the media as
representatives of the movement, we must be able to expect
something better from them than unconstructive raving.
The Bristol Bomb Revisited
by Barry Maycock
Now that the furore over the Bristol University explosion
has long died down it should be possible to step back and look
more dispassionately at the implications of that puzzling
event . Many animal rights campaigners were surprised by it,
mainly because it didn't fit in with certain known patterns of
recent direct action campaigns for example, the one which has
targeted the big department stores .selling furs. In addition,
the group which is supposed to have claimed responsibility the
"Animal Abused Society" - was surely named for the one
occasion, and no statement was issued to shed light on its
existence. Much more predictable were the reactions, not only
of the politicians and their media lackeys, but also of the
usual self-appointed few who claim to represent the animal
rights movement in all its ragged diversity. The inelegant
haste by which they rushed to distance themselves, not just
from this event, but from direct action as a whole, suggested
that there was more at stake here than initially appeared.
For example, if there is one thing our experience has
taught us it is the necessity for caution, so as not to
prejudge an issue before the facts are fully known. But at
recent events (eg. The Dingles fire at Plymouth) animal rights
"leaders" were accusing the ALF before the police themselves
had stated any conclusions. Wild utterances also followed the
Bristol bomb: hardly had the dust settled before Animal Aid
announced that the explosion had ruined "years of peaceful
work" - implying an achievement so fragile that one event had
blown it away! This sort of nonsense is a positive inducement
for a lunatic with a grudge to plant a bomb, or (a more likely
scenario) for a Special Branch "dirty tricks" squad to arrange
such an "incident" to discredit the movement, or to frame
particular individuals. The police have done this sort of
thing in the past, and will do so again - to the extent of
committing murder if necessary.
Consistent in all these reactions has been the kind of
language used: in a Guardian letter, one Animal Aid member
attacked "the handful of idiots who prefer bombs to rational
argument" while disposing of "rational argument" in favour of
mere abuse ("lunatic extremists", "idiots", "nutcases").
Similar phrases were used in AA's April "Outrage" ("half-witted
pseudo-terrorists") and in a recent CAW statement ("stupid and
mindless act of terrorism"). But when certain words ("violence",
"terrorism") are simply flung around like this, "rational
argument" becomes impossible, and the key problem here - the
vexed question of campaigning tactics - is never discussed.
The CAW reaction is more understandable, as this Bristol group
became the target of police "investigation", ie. the" usual
harassment. But all these groups, particularly the national
societies, could actually approach the matter in a different
way: they could dissociate themselves from direct action (if
that is their policy) while using the publicity to turn the
spotlight onto the horrors of animal abuse. As it is, the
various statements suggest, not just the usual political
ineptitude, but a deeply felt, very personal anger.
What are we to make of this? One obvious explanation is
that direct action (of any kind} runs counter to the kind of
policies that the national societies are pursuing, and the
kind of movement they wish to create. In this respect the
campaigns of autonomous groups, indeed their very "autonomy",
create a problem, because they remain outside the control of
the big societies, a possible source of future conflict. But
the real danger is this: that the national societies simply
end up performing the function within society of a "Joyal
opposition ", cultivated by the state in order to control and
contain protest, absorb genuine unrest, and isolate
"extremists" thus monopolising the framework within which
dissent is articulated. Events like the Bristol bomb become
opportunities, not to expose animal abuse, but to proclaim the
"respectability" of certain organisations, and gain
credibility with those who shape public opinion.
This policy is often justified in terms of the growing
"maturation" of the animal rights movement. The reasoning is
as follows: that as the movement matures politically it needs
to move away from "direct action", which may have been
necessary in an earlier phase, but which has now become an
impediment to progress. This viewpoint is a convenient one,
for it enables groups to praise earlier actions, and make use
of them in various ways, while condemning present activity.
But it also forgets history: that direct action was taken up
as a response to the FAILURE of earlier campaigning, which had
few real results to show for over a century of "peaceful
persuasion". To go "beyond" direct action could well mean a
return to the unhappy situation that existed before, repeating
the same old mistakes. It is this predictable trajectory that
has, over the past few years, been conveniently forgotten
.
Certainly the current policies of the nationals give little
indication of growing "maturity". There is far too much
emphasis on consumer campaigns, on "cruelty-free living", even
though the limitations of "lifestyle politics" have been
exposed so often; and campaigns that concentrate on "soft"
issues (eg: cosmetics testing} are too cautious to have much
impact. They will enjoy a small measure of success because
they go with the grain of public opinion; but the very
publicity they generate is itself a trap, distracting
attention from the one real demand that the movement should
always be making the immediate abolition of ALL animal
experimentation. The debate on this issue has still not been
won indeed it is as if we are even encouraged to put our
energies into a peripheral skirmish, while the real battle
lies elsewhere. These tiny victories (with respect to cosmetics
testing) do not necessarily save any lives, or prevent any
suffering - the animals simply get shifted, as it were, to
another part of the laboratory, according to one of the Iron
Laws of Animal Abuse (which states that animal experiments -
and animal products - will continue to expand to use up the
growing supply of animals available).
These campaigns depend for their justification on so many
unsupported assumptions and bland assertions, relying on the
illusion that the so called "free-market" really does bring
"freedom of choice", and that the consumer does possess the
necessary power to effect change: this is a view that needs to
be argued (though it rarely is), not simply assumed. In actual
fact, of course rand how many times does this have to be
stated and re-stated?) the "market" is rigged and the
"choices" are trivial and utterly bogus, like the choice
between ten brands of soap powder or ten brands of margarine,
all basically the same and produced by the same vast
conglomerate ie. Unilever). "Lifestyle politics" is the kind
that Capitalism positively encourages, not only shifting us
away from activism to "lifestyle", but actually prompting us
to consume and extend the range of choices available. A
lifestyle can be bought like any other commodity, and usually
at somebody's expense; the more some of us can "live without
cruelty", the more others will have to live with it:
"cruelty", like other unwanted products, can be dumped on the
world's poor. To me the movement from "animal liberation" to
"living without cruelty" is a backward step away from the bars
of the cage, as it were, and into the nice local wholefood
shop. All this is risk-free and painless, and "alternatives"
and "substitutes" are continually being manufactured in order
to ensure that it will be.
Even those much proclaimed signs of progress (eg. the
spread of vegetarianism) need only indicate certain changing
consumption patterns within a narrow band of the "aware"
middle class, mainly in the U.S. and Europe: in any case
vegetarianism can continue to grow alongside increased animal
consumption, indeed that is exactly what is happening (eg.
there can be more vegetarians along with people eating more
and more meat-based foods). Furthermore, vegetarianism can
spread throughout the West while new markets for animal
products can be opened up in the rest of the world, into areas
that have been, for varied reasons, primarily "vegetarian" in
the past. The national societies, in their apparent belief in
"consumerism", are merely proclaiming a liberalism that does
not speak its name - and thus leave little room for radical
Greens, anarchists, socialists, etc, who do not share that
particular political perspective.
The weakness of all these campaigns stem therefore from
this narrowness of perspective, made even narrower by the
rejection of direct action and groups (often the most energetic
and committed) from which it springs. It is a stance which
colludes with the policies of the state with its attempt to
isolate the ALF and deprive it of the "oxygen of publicity" by
suppressing the Supporters Group - so that ALF actions appear
to make very little sense, to spring out of desperation and
blind fanaticism rather than careful thought and intelligent
planning. The gulf that separates the national societies and
so many passionate activists will continue to provoke the very
actions that are so disliked, as long as the latter are denied
support and legitimacy, and deprived of any real voice except
the one provided by direct action.
The political "maturation" process consists of reaching out
to them, of communication not rejection. It means building up
the movement in a solid and lasting way - beginning perhaps
with the public meeting at which the local group is formed,
with leafletting and canvassing, with an intelligent and
continuing input into the political life of the community. It
means raising the profile of the whole issue, especially on a
local level, with campaigns against specific targets closer to
home, in order to touch people's lives directly. Within such
campaigns direct action will have an honourable place - it
doesn't have to be synonymous with bombs! It can mean pickets
and occupations, blockades, distactics of every kind. The
momentum of such a movement, however, is actually impeded by
the arrival of the BUAV bus, or by an obligation to take part
in these ever-increasing "national days of action" throughout
the year.
The movement needs a really big push, because so far there
has been no breakthrough politically on the issue of animal
rights - there are too many vested interests, too much power
and money involved. But there is also a deeper reason for
this: animal abuse is like the guilty secret haunting the
edges of our daily lives, the knowledge of which is unbearable
to us because it exposes the hypocrisy deep within a
"compassionate" society, the cruelty at its very core. (A few
other issues are taboo in a similar way - eg. child abuse). It
is worth noting that .. throughout the media reports of the
Bristol explosion, animal liberationists were portrayed either
as misanthropic sentimentalists, or misty eyed fantasists
dreaming of a vegan future, or looking back to a non-existent
"golden age". But the exact opposite is true: animal
liberationists are realists in the truest sense, they have
uncovered an animal "holocaust" at the heart of our society,
and have been so touched by it that they cannot forget, nor
can they turn away, nor can they ever rest until they have
acted, in however small a way, to lessen the weight of that
terrible suffering. No wonder there is so much frustration: a
whole range of related (so-called "Green") issues are being
taken up by politicians, and on so many of them (eg. On the
plight of the rainforests, acid rain) it is no longer
necessary to shout so loudly - indeed the noise from the media
is almost deafening!
But there is no such voice yet for animal rights, nothing
yet has really moved; until it does it remains a sad fact of
life that it often takes a bomb to seize public attention, to
wake people up.
Who Are They Kidding?
by Brendan McNally
Along with the Green movement, animal liberation has. it
seems. now ceased to be seen as a cranky side issue and, to
use the current phrase. gained "respectability". The number of
vegans and veggies continues to grow and certain forms of
animal abuse are becoming socially unacceptable, such as the
wearing of fur and cosmetic testing. No one should pretend
that these are anything but small steps. but they are
indications that years of struggle and sacrifice are paying
off and that. despite the difficulties, the movement is in the
right direction.
Sadly, the logical price of this new found "respectability"
is a sudden crop of "respectable" groups and individuals.
falling over each other to try to distance themselves from the
activists. who they now slag off as "lunatics" and "criminals"
who discredit the "legitimate" campaigners. Who are they
kidding?
Twelve years ago the majority of the population never gave
a thought for the plight of animals in laboratories or factory
farms. Most people were simply ignorant. or refused to believe
the horror stories told by the small. scattered bands of
animal lib "fanatics" out leafletting town centres on Saturday
afternoons. It was only when a large amount of groups of
activists began to take direct action that the public and the
media began to take notice. Establishments were raided.
animals were rescued. documentary evidence of horrifying
going-on was obtained and economic war was waged against the
perpetrators.
Gradually, using the evidence and publicity, the hitherto
largely dormant national animal rights groups began to attract
more and more members and support.
Since then the use of direct action has snow-balled, and
the fortunes of the national groups have likewise improved.
They have never been shy of using "illegally" gained
photographs and documents, or benefiting from publicity to
increase their membership. The Pennsylvania Primates video is
just one of many examples.
How two-faced of these groups then, to now condemn the very
activists who have risked everything and without whom such
evidence would never have been obtained. Can they really
believe that the evil fur trade is on the retreat because of
peaceful negotiations? It is a result of a relentless campaign
of economic warfare by groups of activists, as was admitted by
a leading police officer in a recent Guardian article.
What a bloody cheek for these groups and their spokespeople
to cynically use the capitalist media to protect their status
quo and their jobs, by distancing themselves from genuine
activists, who are still continuing the real struggle. (The
recent literature of some of these groups resembles something
from Saatchi & Saatchi, rather than animal liberation
literature.)
|
