|
About ALF >
History
History of the Animal
Liberation Front
|
|

Introduction
The
Animal Liberation Movement (ALM) consists of small autonomous
groups of people all over the world who carry out direct
action according to certain guidelines (click here). The ALM
evolved from the Animal Liberation Front (ALF), which in turn
grew out of the hunt saboteur movement in England in the
1970s.
|
Philosophy of the Animal
Liberation Movement
The Animal
Liberation Movement is a loosely-associated collection of
cells of people who intentionally violate the law in order to
free animals from captivity and the horrors of exploitation.
As activists in one cell do not know activists in another
cell, their non-hierarchical structure and anonymity prevents
legal authorities from breaking up the organization. Animal
Liberation activists break into any building or compound - be
it a fur farm or university laboratory - in order to release
and/or rescue animals. They also destroy property in order to
prevent further harm done to animals and to weaken
exploitation industries economically. Their actions have
damaged many operations, shut down others, and prevented still
others from ever forming for fear of attack. They may also
utilize intimidation to prevent further animal abuse and
murder. |
The men
and women of the Animal Liberation Movement pattern themselves
after the freedom fighters in Nazi Germany who liberated war
prisoners and Holocaust victims and destroyed equipment-such
as weapons, railways, and gas ovens that the Nazis used to
torture and kill their victims. Other comparisons would
include the Apartheid movement, led by Nelson Mandela, who
used and supported violence in the fight for liberation in
South Africa, and the current struggle by Palestinians against
their Israeli oppressors.
Similarly, by providing
veterinary care and homes for many of the animals they
liberate, a comparison can be made to the US Underground
Railroad movement, which helped fugitive human slaves reach
free states and Canada in the 1800s. Whereas corporate
society, the state, and mass media brand the liberationists as
terrorists, the ALM has important similarities with some of
the great freedom fighters of the past two centuries, and is
akin to contemporary peace and justice movements in its quest
to end bloodshed and violence toward life and to win justice
for other species.
On the grounds that animals have
basic rights, animal liberationists repudiate the argument
that scientists or industries can own any animal as their
property. Simply stated, animals have the right to life,
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, all of which contradict
the property status that is often literally burnt into their
flesh. Even if animal "research" assists human beings in some
way, and there are significant doubts that it does, that is no
more guarantee of legitimacy than if the data came from
experimenting on non-consenting human beings, for the rights
of an animal trump utilitarian appeals to human benefit.
|
The
blanket privileging of human over animal interests is simply
speciesism, a prejudicial and discriminatory belief system as
ethically flawed and philosophically unfounded as sexism or
racism, but far more murderous and consequential in its
implications. Thus, the ALM holds that animals are freed, not
stolen, from fur farms or laboratories, and that when one
destroys the inanimate property of animal exploiters, one is
merely leveling what was wrongfully used to violate the rights
of living beings.
|
The ALM
believes that there is a higher law than that created by and
for the corporate-state complex, a moral law that transcends
the corrupt and biased statues of the US political system.
When the law is wrong, the right thing to do is to break it.
This is often how moral progress is made in history, from
defiance of American slavery and Hitler's anti-Semitism to
sit-ins at "whites only" lunch counters in Alabama.
|
As the
Animal Liberation Movement continues to operate and grow, it
will inspire and incorporate numerous other direct action and
animal liberation efforts. These range from groups such as the
Justice Department and the Animal Rights Militia, who unlike
the ALF defend and use violent tactics (such as personnel
bombs delivered through the mail) to Compassion Over Killing
and Mercy For Animals who break into factory farms to free
animals in cages but eschew tactics of property destruction.
|
History of the Animal Liberation
Movement
In 1970s England, animal activists
turned from legal tactics of hunt disruption to illegal
tactics of sabotage when they grew weary of being assaulted
and jailed and sought more effective strategy. A hunt
saboteur's group known as the Band of Mercy broadened the
focus to target other animal exploitation industries such as
vivisection and began to use arson as a potent tool of
property destruction. Two of its leaders were arrested in 1974
and released a year later. One, Cliff Goodman, turned snitch
and left the movement; the other, Ronnie Lee, deepened his
convictions and in 1976 began a new militant group that he
called the Animal Liberation Front which would forever change
the face of direct action struggle.
|
| Taking
shape in the mid-1990s, the numerous anti-vivisection
struggles provoking
controversy in
England can be seen as a second wave of direct action,
following the first wave that began in the 1960s with the
actions of hunt saboteur groups. The new struggles often
overlap with the ALF, but they are also independent of it.
Whereas the ALF is an underground movement pursuing illegal
tactics such as property destruction, the second wave of
direct action is an aboveground presence that disavows the use
of sabotage or violence and uses strictly legal forms of
pressure.
|
|
 |
|
|
| The second
wave of direct action began with attacks on vivisection
suppliers. In September 1996, activists began a campaign
against Consort Kennels, a dog breeder for vivisection labs.
After months of applying intense pressure, they closed the
kennel in July 1997 and adopted 200 beagles to loving homes.
In September 1997, fresh on the heels of this victory,
activists began a campaign against Hillgrove Farm, a
vivisection cat breeding operation. The same tactics proved
effective and Hillgrove closed in August 1999. Over 800 cats
were rescued and re-homed.
|
| From these
struggles, the group Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC)
emerged in the late 1990s and quickly became a major force in
the UK and US. SHAC's sole focus is to bring down one of the
world's worst animal testing laboratories, Huntingdon Life
Sciences (HLS). SHAC has pioneered hard-hitting direct action
techniques that include jamming email, phone, and fax systems,
demonstrations at the homes of targeted individuals, and
relentless pressure on secondary companies that provide any
services for HLS, be it insurance or laundry cleaning. While
SHAC Inc. is an aboveground legal protest movement, the "SHAC
movement" resorts to illegal tactics such as property
destruction to exert added pressure on HLS and its clients.
|
| Inspired
by SHAC's success in weakening HLS and driving its stock
prices down, numerous other direct action anti-vivisection
groups have sprouted up in England. One such group, SPEAK, has
been crucial in shutting down plans to build new animal
research facilities at Cambridge University and Oxford
University in 2004. Similarly, since 1999, the Save the
Newchurch Guinea Pigs (SNGP) movement has been waging a
relentless battle to pressure the Chris and John Hall family
to close their guinea pig breeding farm in the Staffordshire
village of Newchurch. |
| The ALF
had migrated to the U.S. in the early 1980s and is now an
international movement in over twenty countries. Learning from
other liberation movements from around the world, animal
liberation activists have now begun to utilize a wider range
of tactics shown to be effective, including the use of force
to stop perpetrators of massive violence against non-human
animals. |
| Thus,
contemporary direct action movements for animal liberation are
diverse, powerful, and effective, and they are growing in
sophistication and strength. In Britain, animal liberation
movements now threaten the viability of the multi-billion
dollar vivisection and pharmaceutical industry and therefore
pose a serious economic threat. In response to the growing
strength of the animal liberation movement on an international
level, legal authorities such as the British Home Office and
the Federal Bureau of Investigation are taking increasingly
strong and repressive measures against it. |
| Whatever
actions animal exploitation industries and governments take
against the animal liberation movement, they will no more stop
it than US soldiers were able to quell North Vietnamese armies
or the resistance movement spreading throughout Iraq, or the
Israelis can stop the Palestinians in their efforts to achieve
their goals. |
| Animal
liberation will end when animal exploitation ends. Meanwhile,
the animal liberation movement is the most active and dynamic
justice movement of our time. It is vital, therefore, that we
monitor and understand it. |
Animal Liberation Guidelines
|
| To
liberate animals from places of abuse, i.e., laboratories,
factory farms, fur farms, etc., and place them in good homes
where they may live out their natural lives, free from
suffering.
|
|
| To
inflict economic damage to those who profit from the misery
and exploitation of animals.
|
|
| To
reveal the horror and atrocities committed against animals
behind locked doors, by performing nonviolent direct actions
and liberations.
|
|
| To hold
those who are responsible and complicitous in the abuse,
torture and death accountable for the terrorism they commit
against innocent, sentient non-human animals.
|
|
| Any
group of people who are vegetarians or vegans and who carry
out actions according to these guidelines have the right to
regard themselves as part of the Animal Liberation
Movement.
|
|
| These
groups, called cells, range from one individual to many
individuals working closely together. Activists in one cell
do not know the underground activists in another because
they choose to remain anonymous.
|
|
| Since
there is not a central organization or membership guide to
underground Animal Liberation cells, people are driven only
by their own personal conscience or cell decisions to carry
out illegal actions. These cells are non-hierarchical in
their structure, which allows for only those people involved
directly in the action to control their own destiny.
|
|
| Since
there isn't a way to contact any of these individuals (their
identity is not known to anyone in the above ground
movement), the use of communiques is one way the underground
communicates with the above ground movement. Communiques can
be sent directly to anyone including the press, underground
support groups, aboveground animal rights groups,
etc.
|
|
| Because
the individuals who engage in underground actions cannot
reveal their identities to anyone, a North American Animal
Liberation Press Office has been created to try to answer
some of the questions as to why these actions may have been
carried out, and to place the actions in a historical and
philosophical context. Since we do not engage in illegal
activities ourselves, we do not know the details of these
actions, but we can try to the best of our ability to give
you a better understanding of why a particular action may
have been carried out. |