Top Chiron lawyer's home is vandalized -- Protesters clothed in black linked to animal-rights group

[Guest guest]

The following article from today's Chronicle tells the story of an attack

by supposed animal rights protesters on the home of a lawyer employed by one of

Huntingdon Life Sciences corporate clients. Huntingdon, as you probably know,

engages in horribly cruel and unnecessary animal experiments for it's clients.

It's conduct is totally inexcusable.

 

But so is the conduct of those who attack a home in the name of the AR

movement. Such violent conduct only plays into the hands of those who call our

movement " terrorist " by taking attention away from the serious work of stopping

Huntingdon's cruelty and placing it on the tactics of a few extremists. It is

noteworthy that, during the Viet Nam war, U.S. government agents infiltrated to

anti-war movement (Project Cointelpro) and turned it to violent tactics in a

successful effort to damage the anti-war movement. And it raises serious

questions about the motives who would use such tactics now in the name of our AR

movement.

 

Sadly, those same extremists will continue their inexcusably foolish and

harmful tactics as long as there are those who will support them. In my

opinion, those who support such tactics by going to violent demonstration, even

if they do not participate in the violence, condone terror tactics and all the

harm that such tactics are doing to the AR movement.

 

For an example of just how one can use one's energy and creativity to help

develop the AR movement into a mass movement that will finally end cruelty of

the kind practiced against animal victims by Huntingdon, just consider the fine

work of the folks at Farm Sanctuary or IDA's Project Hope, who dedicate their

lives to saving animals and using them to publicize the plight of so many others

who could not be saved. Consider the work of Tribe of Heart, whose new

documentary, Peaceable Kingdom, about Farm Sanctuary, may well turn the hearts

of millions toward a more compassionate lifestyle.

 

Then ask yourself: Whose work will really make a difference by turning

public sentiment against animal cruelty, those who work in a compassionate,

intelligent and realistic way to save animal lives and build a movement or those

who throw childish temper tantrums and commit crimes in the name of our

movement?

 

Whether we win this struggle for compassion sooner or later will depend on

the tactics we choose. I, for one, choose to win sooner by rejecting the

violent and childish tactics that can only serve to defeat or slow us down. For

the sake of our movement's success, for the sake of the billions or trillions of

animals who will suffer more every day that our victory is delayed by extreme

and counterproductive tactics, won't you please join me?

 

Pete

 

_

 

San Francisco Chronicle

Monday, August 16, 2004

 

ORINDA

Top Chiron lawyer's home is vandalized

Protesters clothed in black linked to animal-rights group

 

Henry K. Lee, Chronicle Staff Writer

 

 

 

 

 

Orinda police are investigating the vandalism of the East Bay home of

Chiron Corp.'s top attorney on Sunday, in which a group of people broke windows

and tried to flood his home with water during a noisy protest.

 

Neighbors said the people were animal-rights protesters wearing black

clothing and masks, and carrying signs. The demonstrators converged on the home

of Chiron's general counsel William Green on Sunnyside Court in Orinda about

10:15 a.m. while he was away on vacation, neighbors said.

 

The protesters broke about a dozen windows and turned on his garden hose

in his backyard deck, and left after 20 minutes. No arrests were made, but

neighbors provided license plate numbers to Orinda police.

 

" I feel a bit violated by this, " Green said Sunday evening, minutes after

returning home to survey the damage. " I think it's beyond the pale of what

should be permissible in civilized society. "

 

The protest comes six months after Chiron filed a lawsuit against Stop

Huntingdon Animal Cruelty USA. The group's name refers to Huntingdon Life

Sciences, a New Jersey company that performs animal testing for clients,

including Chiron.

 

It was not immediately clear Sunday whether the protesters were connected

to the Stop Huntingdon group.

 

Green, 60, has previously been the target of protesters over at least the

past two years, with flyers stuck on telephone phones and gravestones placed

nearby representing dead animals. Other employees have also been awakened by

late-night visits by protesters with megaphones.

 

Neighbor Jim Abrams, 60, said the Orinda protest began with marching and

chanting. But tensions grew when Abrams tried to block the side gate to Green's

home, and some protesters charged past him.

 

" They ran toward one of the gates that goes into the backyard, " Abrams

said. " They broke some windows, and the hose was running on the deck -- I don't

know if they intended to throw the hose into the broken window. There were some

people obviously bent on doing some damage. "

 

Chiron's lawsuit said that the names, addresses and phone numbers of

Chiron employees have been posted on a Web site and that the group has worked

with a fugitive suspected of planting bombs at the firm and another business

last year.

 

The suspect, Daniel Andreas San Diego, 25, of Sonoma is accused of

planting a pipe bomb on Aug. 28 at Chiron and another on Sept. 26 at Shaklee

Corp., a Pleasanton firm that makes health, beauty and household products.

 

San Diego remains at large, Special Agent LaRae Quy, FBI spokeswoman in

San Francisco, said Sunday. A $50,000 reward is being offered for tips in the

case.

 

In a June ruling, Alameda County Superior Court Judge Steven Brick said

Chiron had a chance of prevailing in the lawsuit and denied a request by the

animal-rights group to throw out the complaint as a SLAPP suit, or one that

restricted its free-speech rights.

 

Brick said Chiron's lawsuit had more to do with " acts of unlawful

harassment and threats " rather than the animal-rights group's right to free

speech. " Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty USA's) free speech rights under the

First Amendment do not protect its conduct in this situation, " Brick wrote.

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Thanks for your thoughtful response to my post, Matthew. You wrote: " The

question is not one of morality, since direct action causes no physical

suffering, only economic suffering. " I respectfully dissent.

 

The cornerstone of all morality is, of course, the Golden Rule. Since I

moderate the Veggie Jews' , perhaps I should phrase it in the

negative as Rabbi Hillel did: Do not do unto others that which you would not

want them to do unto you. I understand that it's stated in the positive in

some cultures but the meaning is the same. I don't think any one of us

would consider it anything less than unacceptable if we were personally

victimized in a way that caused us only economic but not physical suffering,

especially in an effort intended to intimidate.

 

I've got a real problem with the " new " definition of violence as something

that " can only truly be perpetuated against sentient beings, " according to

Matthew. I'm afraid that not only I but the dictionary as well disagrees

with you. According to my admittedly not " new " Funk & Wangles, violence

involves the use of force to achieve ends. It has nothing to do with the

object of the force or whether it is sentient.

 

But I agree that, at least on one level, as you said, " The question IS one

of effectiveness. " And by that measure alone, violence should be rejected.

If you think that violence will help our AR movement grow into the mass

movement we must achieve in order to reach our goals, just ask some of the

95% of Americans who eat a standard American diet what they think of animal

rights " terrorism, " as the media calls it. I think you'll find that very

few of them are sympathetic to our cause. The fact is that mainstream

Americans, the very people we have to reach with our message, do not approve

of violent tactics to achieve social change, (at least here in the

homeland), and they become more estranged from rather than sympathetic to

our cause with every new act that they perceive to be " terror. " The media,

which represents financial interests tied to animal exploitation, will not

miss a chance to portray any small act of isolated violence as typical of

the AR movement as a whole. They understand the value of making our

movement look extreme by focusing on violence. So should we, and we should

learn to avoid that very extremism in order to most quickly defeat the

forces of cruelty arrayed against us.

 

I regret that my self-righteousness offends you, Matthew. I freely admit to

having that fault, but as faults go, it's not so bad. It's inspired me

during my career to provide free legal representation to about 30 animal

rights and peace activists charged with demonstration related crimes (not

one of whom ever served one minute in jail); I've written the three sections

of the California Green Party platform dealing with animal issues, and I'm

proud to say it's the most progressive AR platform of any political party on

earth as far as I know; I've organized Greens for the Ethical Treatment of

Animals within the California Green Party to get the AR platform planks

passed; I organized the University Alumni Campaign Against Vivisection for

In Defense of Animals to decrease alumni contributions to universities

involved in animal experimentation (and that's just about all of them); and,

most recently, I've organized Veggie Jews to try to spread the veggie

message into the Jewish community, whose support is needed to end some

slaughterhouse abuses. Now, I know that's not much compared to what many

professional animal activists have done and do every day, but it's the best

that I could squeeze in while earning a living, and it's a lot better than

nothing. So, if I am a bit self-righteous at times, at least I do try to

put it to good and nonviolent use. (Thank goodness you didn't point out how

egotistical I am. Now that would be a lot harder to defend.) ;-)

 

 

 

 

-

" Matthew G Liebman " <mliebman

" Pete " <plcohon

Cc: " South Bay Veggies " ; " Veggie Jews "

<VeggieJews >; " " ; " Freedom For

Animals " <freedomforanimals >; " BAARN "

<baarn >

Monday, August 16, 2004 1:11 PM

Re: Top Chiron lawyer's home is vandalized -- Protesters clothed in

black linked to animal-rights group

 

 

> Pete,

>

> Anger and destruction may make you uncomfortable, and that is fine. You

may

> choose to be activist in other ways. But don't get self-righteous against

> activists that have been successful in bringing HLS attrocities to light,

> and in bringing HLS to its knees.

>

> Your inability to distinguish between property destruction and true

> violence demonstrates the degreee to which you've been duped by the forces

> that attempt to discredit our movement. Breaking windows that were payed

> for with blood money is not violence. Neither is embarassing an animal

> abuser in front of his/her neighbors by " outting " them. Violence is

> punching a beagle puppy in the face. Violence is dissecting a monkey while

> she's still alive. Violence is killing 500 animals every day.

>

> " Violence " can only truly be perpetuated against sentient beings. While I

> do not participate in property destruction, I understand the motives of

> those who do. Sabotage has been a driving force behind every freedom

> movement, from the Boston Tea Party to the suffragettes to the Jewish

> resistance fighters. Please reconsider the way you use the term

" violence. "

> I do not support violence in this movement, and I would be upspeakably

> dissappointed if a living being were hurt or killed as a result of these

> actions. But in 20 years of operation, not a single human being has been

> harmed by the actions of the Animal Liberation Front. Again, these actions

> are not for me; but I understand those who are comfortable with them.

>

> The question is not one of morality, since direct action causes no

physical

> suffering, only economic suffering. The question IS one of effectiveness.

> It's undeniable that the SHAC campaign has struck hard against HLS's

> economic interests. The media image question is a bit more difficult.

> Whether or not these types of actions give animal rights a good image or

> bad image is an empirical question, and not a simple one. Clearly these

> things turn some people off. But on the other hand these actions bring the

> issue into the public realm where they can be discussed. If you believe in

> the rightness of our cause, you should be comfortable with that.

>

> Anyone who watched ABC7 news last night saw that for, I believe, only the

> second time, footage of HLS attrocities were showed on prime time news, to

> an audience of thousands. This would not have happened but for a few

broken

> windows.

>

> These actions also help make groups like PETA seem more moderate in

> comparison. They let people know that this is a serious issue that people

> feel extremely passionate about. Sure Tribe of Heart does the same thing,

> and that's great. The more strategies we use, the more effective we'll be.

>

> I think the strategies we use should be discussed thouroughly, with a

focus

> on whether or not they WORK. This is a tactical discussion that we can't

> ignore. However, holier-than-though assertions of " childishness " and

> " terrorism " are not responsible ways of strategic planning.

>

> For anyone interested in a nuanced and thoughtful discussion of these

> issues, I highly recommend Steven Best's new book " Terrorists or Freedom

> Fighters? " Also, Satya magazine recently did a very balanced 2 issue

series

> on activism, violence, and sabotage.

>

> Finally, for those of you not on the veggiejews list, I thought you might

> be interested in seeing what Pete said in a secondary posting:

>

> " When groups known to use violent tactics advertise a demonstration, we

can

> speak and write to warn folks of the dangers of such tactics. The groups

> who engage in such tactics should never be allowed to give the impression

> that they speak for our movement.We can avoid all AR actions and

> fundraisers by groups that encourage or use violence. In my opinion, we

> should even go so far as to inform the authorities about any past or

> planned terror acts in the name of our movement, so as to protect our

> movement and the animals from the violent backlash that terror tactics can

> cause. "

>

> With friends like this, who needs COINTELPRO?

>

> -Matthew

[Guest guest]

Great dialogue! thanks for sharing..both of you... I think you are both right!!

This issue is so important. And so all encompassing.

 

Pete <plcohon wrote:

Thanks for your thoughtful response to my post, Matthew. You wrote: " The

question is not one of morality, since direct action causes no physical

suffering, only economic suffering. " I respectfully dissent.

 

The cornerstone of all morality is, of course, the Golden Rule. Since I

moderate the Veggie Jews' , perhaps I should phrase it in the

negative as Rabbi Hillel did: Do not do unto others that which you would not

want them to do unto you. I understand that it's stated in the positive in

some cultures but the meaning is the same. I don't think any one of us

would consider it anything less than unacceptable if we were personally

victimized in a way that caused us only economic but not physical suffering,

especially in an effort intended to intimidate.

 

I've got a real problem with the " new " definition of violence as something

that " can only truly be perpetuated against sentient beings, " according to

Matthew. I'm afraid that not only I but the dictionary as well disagrees

with you. According to my admittedly not " new " Funk & Wangles, violence

involves the use of force to achieve ends. It has nothing to do with the

object of the force or whether it is sentient.

 

But I agree that, at least on one level, as you said, " The question IS one

of effectiveness. " And by that measure alone, violence should be rejected.

If you think that violence will help our AR movement grow into the mass

movement we must achieve in order to reach our goals, just ask some of the

95% of Americans who eat a standard American diet what they think of animal

rights " terrorism, " as the media calls it. I think you'll find that very

few of them are sympathetic to our cause. The fact is that mainstream

Americans, the very people we have to reach with our message, do not approve

of violent tactics to achieve social change, (at least here in the

homeland), and they become more estranged from rather than sympathetic to

our cause with every new act that they perceive to be " terror. " The media,

which represents financial interests tied to animal exploitation, will not

miss a chance to portray any small act of isolated violence as typical of

the AR movement as a whole. They understand the value of making our

movement look extreme by focusing on violence. So should we, and we should

learn to avoid that very extremism in order to most quickly defeat the

forces of cruelty arrayed against us.

 

I regret that my self-righteousness offends you, Matthew. I freely admit to

having that fault, but as faults go, it's not so bad. It's inspired me

during my career to provide free legal representation to about 30 animal

rights and peace activists charged with demonstration related crimes (not

one of whom ever served one minute in jail); I've written the three sections

of the California Green Party platform dealing with animal issues, and I'm

proud to say it's the most progressive AR platform of any political party on

earth as far as I know; I've organized Greens for the Ethical Treatment of

Animals within the California Green Party to get the AR platform planks

passed; I organized the University Alumni Campaign Against Vivisection for

In Defense of Animals to decrease alumni contributions to universities

involved in animal experimentation (and that's just about all of them); and,

most recently, I've organized Veggie Jews to try to spread the veggie

message into the Jewish community, whose support is needed to end some

slaughterhouse abuses. Now, I know that's not much compared to what many

professional animal activists have done and do every day, but it's the best

that I could squeeze in while earning a living, and it's a lot better than

nothing. So, if I am a bit self-righteous at times, at least I do try to

put it to good and nonviolent use. (Thank goodness you didn't point out how

egotistical I am. Now that would be a lot harder to defend.) ;-)

 

 

 

 

-

" Matthew G Liebman " <mliebman

" Pete " <plcohon

Cc: " South Bay Veggies " ; " Veggie Jews "

<VeggieJews >; " " ; " Freedom For

Animals " <freedomforanimals >; " BAARN "

<baarn >

Monday, August 16, 2004 1:11 PM

Re: Top Chiron lawyer's home is vandalized -- Protesters clothed in

black linked to animal-rights group

 

 

> Pete,

>

> Anger and destruction may make you uncomfortable, and that is fine. You

may

> choose to be activist in other ways. But don't get self-righteous against

> activists that have been successful in bringing HLS attrocities to light,

> and in bringing HLS to its knees.

>

> Your inability to distinguish between property destruction and true

> violence demonstrates the degreee to which you've been duped by the forces

> that attempt to discredit our movement. Breaking windows that were payed

> for with blood money is not violence. Neither is embarassing an animal

> abuser in front of his/her neighbors by " outting " them. Violence is

> punching a beagle puppy in the face. Violence is dissecting a monkey while

> she's still alive. Violence is killing 500 animals every day.

>

> " Violence " can only truly be perpetuated against sentient beings. While I

> do not participate in property destruction, I understand the motives of

> those who do. Sabotage has been a driving force behind every freedom

> movement, from the Boston Tea Party to the suffragettes to the Jewish

> resistance fighters. Please reconsider the way you use the term

" violence. "

> I do not support violence in this movement, and I would be upspeakably

> dissappointed if a living being were hurt or killed as a result of these

> actions. But in 20 years of operation, not a single human being has been

> harmed by the actions of the Animal Liberation Front. Again, these actions

> are not for me; but I understand those who are comfortable with them.

>

> The question is not one of morality, since direct action causes no

physical

> suffering, only economic suffering. The question IS one of effectiveness.

> It's undeniable that the SHAC campaign has struck hard against HLS's

> economic interests. The media image question is a bit more difficult.

> Whether or not these types of actions give animal rights a good image or

> bad image is an empirical question, and not a simple one. Clearly these

> things turn some people off. But on the other hand these actions bring the

> issue into the public realm where they can be discussed. If you believe in

> the rightness of our cause, you should be comfortable with that.

>

> Anyone who watched ABC7 news last night saw that for, I believe, only the

> second time, footage of HLS attrocities were showed on prime time news, to

> an audience of thousands. This would not have happened but for a few

broken

> windows.

>

> These actions also help make groups like PETA seem more moderate in

> comparison. They let people know that this is a serious issue that people

> feel extremely passionate about. Sure Tribe of Heart does the same thing,

> and that's great. The more strategies we use, the more effective we'll be.

>

> I think the strategies we use should be discussed thouroughly, with a

focus

> on whether or not they WORK. This is a tactical discussion that we can't

> ignore. However, holier-than-though assertions of " childishness " and

> " terrorism " are not responsible ways of strategic planning.

>

> For anyone interested in a nuanced and thoughtful discussion of these

> issues, I highly recommend Steven Best's new book " Terrorists or Freedom

> Fighters? " Also, Satya magazine recently did a very balanced 2 issue

series

> on activism, violence, and sabotage.

>

> Finally, for those of you not on the veggiejews list, I thought you might

> be interested in seeing what Pete said in a secondary posting:

>

> " When groups known to use violent tactics advertise a demonstration, we

can

> speak and write to warn folks of the dangers of such tactics. The groups

> who engage in such tactics should never be allowed to give the impression

> that they speak for our movement.We can avoid all AR actions and

> fundraisers by groups that encourage or use violence. In my opinion, we

> should even go so far as to inform the authorities about any past or

> planned terror acts in the name of our movement, so as to protect our

> movement and the animals from the violent backlash that terror tactics can

> cause. "

>

> With friends like this, who needs COINTELPRO?

>

> -Matthew

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

[i've added the list to the recipients, because I think this issue

deserves serious attention. Those new to this thread can read from the

bottom up. This thread began this morning on most other bay area AR lists,

and is in regards to the recent property destruction at the Orinda home of

William Green, a lawyer for Chiron and a major supporter of Huntingdon Life

Sciences. Pete Cohon has criticized such tactics, while I disagree with

him.]

 

Pete,

 

First and foremost, I want to say I appreciate the nuance and

constructiveness of your latest email. I think that the more we actually

empirically discuss and evaluate our tactics, the more effective we’ll be.

That requires everyone to avoid pigeonholing people as either sell-outs

(mainstream) or terrorists (direct action). There are not two opposing

camps, but rather a spectrum of tactics, most of which will be needed for

animal liberation. As a future animal rights lawyer myself (I’m currently a

student at Stanford Law School), I’ve chosen to pursue more mainstream

avenues, as you have Pete, but I understand that the battle will not be won

with law alone.

 

Second, I really think you should disavow your earlier statement about

finking on those who advocate direct action. Your suggestion can only fuel

a sense of paranoia and fear among those who work for animal liberation.

The only kind of rats we need more of in this movement are the kind that we

save from HLS.

 

THE MORAL ISSUE:

Regardless of what your dictionary says, violence carries an extremely

strong connotation, especially in the context of animal rights activism and

the Bush/Ashcroft regime. Words mean what they convey, nothing more and

nothing less. When the animal exploitation industries use the word, they

intend to convey an image of animal rights activists as violent towards

humans. It is very important for us to make people realize that in 30 years

(I mistakenly said 20 in my last email), ALF actions have caused hundreds

of millions of dollars in damage, and liberated thousands of animals, but

not one single person has been injured or killed. When you partner up with

William Green (who whined about “animal rights terrorists” in front of the

US Senate Judiciary Committee three months ago, also the man whose house

was trashed yesterday) or Teresa Platt (the executive director of the Fur

Commission) to decry violence, you tacitly accept the connotations that our

enemies ascribe to the term “violence.” AR advocates should tease out the

multiple meanings of words like “terror” and “violence” to point out

crucial differences between what we do and what they do. When you lump SHAC

activists in with violent people, you’re doing the oppositions work for

them.

 

As for the Golden Rule, I think it makes for some pretty ineffective

activism. Should we only use tactics that our opponents are HAPPY with?

That seems nonsensical to me. Even mainstream campaigns are not consistent

with the golden rule. I would not want someone to put me out of work (as we

all wish to do with slaughterhouse employees); I would not want someone to

pass a law against my livelihood (as many of us are lobbying for in

California against foie gras); I would not want someone to disturb me with

nightmarish pictures of death (as mainstream pamphlets do), and so on. Do

they ENJOY our tactics? Would we enjoy them if they were done to us? No, of

course not. But that doesn’t make these tactics immoral.

 

If property becomes an object of moral consideration, the rich will

continue to hold precedence over the rest of us who own less property. And

since property is only that which the law recognizes as belonging to

someone (as a lawyer, I’m sure you’re familiar with legal positivism), any

animal liberation is by definition a property crime, since animals are

nothing more than property in the eyes of the US legal system. Was the ALF

breaking the Golden Rule when they broke into the Penn Head Injury Lab to

liberate tortured primates? Was that not a form of property theft?

 

And while we’re quoting our “chosen people,” how about this one, from Dr.

Maxwell Schnurer:

“The ALF and Holocaust resistance represent a method of bringing about new

understanding that challenges these mental habits [of objectification,

fragmentation, and consumption]. The actions of these militants blaze new

paths of meaning far beyond the direct action they participate in. The

meaning of active militant resistance can pervade the popular consciousness

of entire societies, and in the case of the ALF and of the Holocaust

resistance, their actions work to make mindlessness more difficult.”

 

The world might be a very different place had these Holocaust resistance

fighters treated the Nazis as they would have wanted to be treated.

 

If we could win liberation for animals through sanctuaries and compassion

alone, not a single person would participate in militant direct action.

Everyone wishes it were that simple. It’s not.

 

THE EFFECTIVENESS ISSUE:

As I said in my last email, this is the issue I’m less comfortable with.

Pete, you say that these tactics will not win over the hearts and minds of

the average American. I think you’re right. Sabotage cannot “help our AR

movement grow into the mass movement we must achieve in order to reach our

goals.” But I don’t think that’s the goal of direct action.

 

Our struggle is a multi-layered one. On the one hand, we seek to create a

cultural shift towards ethical respect for non-human animals. On the other

hand, we seek to alleviate the suffering experienced RIGHT NOW by living

animals.

 

We work towards the first, long-term goal through education, legislation,

lawsuits, documentaries, and other mainstream tactics, including Pete's

laudable accomplishments.

 

The second, short-term goal demands less patience and demands DIRECT

action. Sabotage, vandalism, and property destruction will not make William

Green more compassionate. But they just might encourage him and others to

stop supporting HLS. The past 5 years have shown how effective these

strategies can be at crippling animal abusers.

 

Of course, we have to be sure that we don’t compromise the first goal in

pursuing the second. If sabotage and property destruction give us a bad

image, then we should strongly reconsider those tactics. But it’s not clear

that the coverage is always bad press. And it’s not clear that bad press

can’t be helpful. PETA got terrible press in the 80s for supporting the ALF

rescues, and today it is the dominant voice in popular culture for

mainstream animal rights. The civil rights movement and the Montgomery Bus

Boycott got terrible press, but we know now that they were right, and they

succeeded to some degree. Karen Dawn of Dawnwatch.com keeps a close eye on

the way these issues play out in the popular media, and her webpage is a

helpful tool to think about AR media images.

 

I don’t believe that sabotage and property destruction are always good in

and of themselves. They’re good to the degree they’re effective. This means

the movement should be very thoughtful about when we use these tactics:

activists can’t simply smash stuff when the rage hits them. Thoughtless

destruction can be counter-productive and these activists end up acting

selfishly: they satiate their own feelings while animals suffer as a

result. But this also means that we shouldn’t condemn thoughtful

destruction. Destruction that is calculated at strategic targets, as the

SHAC campaign is, can be effective. Quoting Shakespeare: “There is nothing

either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.”

 

Of course some tactics are more effective than others. For me, I think open

rescues are generally better than lab raids. I think home demos that last

for 2 hours are generally better than home sabotages that last for 8

minutes. I think arguing against animal abusers is generally better than

intimidating them. I think good press is generally better than bad press.

But these are my preferences, and I’ll save my venom for the exploiters,

not for those allies who disagree with my preferences.

 

Best,

Matthew

 

 

 

Quoting Pete <plcohon:

 

>

>

>

>

>

> Thanks for your thoughtful response to my post, Matthew.  You wrote: 

> " The

>

> question is not one of morality, since direct action causes no physical

>

> suffering, only economic suffering. "   I respectfully dissent.

>

>

>

> The cornerstone of all morality is, of course, the Golden Rule.  Since I

>

> moderate the Veggie Jews' , perhaps I should phrase it in the

>

> negative as Rabbi Hillel did: Do not do unto others that which you would

> not

>

> want them to do unto you.  I understand that it's stated in the positive

> in

>

> some cultures but the meaning is the same.  I don't think any one of us

>

> would consider it anything less than unacceptable if we were personally

>

> victimized in a way that caused us only economic but not physical

> suffering,

>

> especially in an effort intended to intimidate.

>

>

>

> I've got a real problem with the " new " definition of violence as

> something

>

> that " can only truly be perpetuated against sentient beings, " according

> to

>

> Matthew.  I'm afraid that not only I but the dictionary as well disagrees

>

> with you.  According to my admittedly not " new " Funk & Wangles, violence

>

> involves the use of force to achieve ends.  It has nothing to do with the

>

> object of the force or whether it is sentient.

>

>

>

> But I agree that, at least on one level, as you said, " The question IS

> one

>

> of effectiveness. "   And by that measure alone, violence should be

> rejected.

>

> If you think that violence will help our AR movement grow into the mass

>

> movement we must achieve in order to reach our goals, just ask some of

> the

>

> 95% of Americans who eat a standard American diet what they think of

> animal

>

> rights " terrorism, " as the media calls it.  I think you'll find that very

>

> few of them are sympathetic to our cause.  The fact is that mainstream

>

> Americans, the very people we have to reach with our message, do not

> approve

>

> of violent tactics to achieve social change, (at least here in the

>

> homeland), and they become more estranged from rather than sympathetic to

>

> our cause with every new act that they perceive to be " terror. "   The

> media,

>

> which represents financial interests tied to animal exploitation, will

> not

>

> miss a chance to portray any small act of isolated violence as typical of

>

> the AR movement as a whole.  They understand the value of making our

>

> movement look extreme by focusing on violence.  So should we, and we

> should

>

> learn to avoid that very extremism in order to most quickly defeat the

>

> forces of cruelty arrayed against us.

>

>

>

> I regret that my self-righteousness offends you, Matthew.  I freely admit

> to

>

> having that fault, but as faults go, it's not so bad.  It's inspired me

>

> during my career to provide free legal representation to about 30 animal

>

> rights and peace activists charged with demonstration related crimes (not

>

> one of whom ever served one minute in jail); I've written the three

> sections

>

> of the California Green Party platform dealing with animal issues, and

> I'm

>

> proud to say it's the most progressive AR platform of any political party

> on

>

> earth as far as I know; I've organized Greens for the Ethical Treatment

> of

>

> Animals within the California Green Party to get the AR platform planks

>

> passed; I organized the University Alumni Campaign Against Vivisection

> for

>

> In Defense of Animals to decrease alumni contributions to universities

>

> involved in animal experimentation (and that's just about all of them);

> and,

>

> most recently, I've organized Veggie Jews to try to spread the veggie

>

> message into the Jewish community, whose support is needed to end some

>

> slaughterhouse abuses.  Now, I know that's not much compared to what many

>

> professional animal activists have done and do every day, but it's the

> best

>

> that I could squeeze in while earning a living, and it's a lot better

> than

>

> nothing.  So, if I am a bit self-righteous at times, at least I do try to

>

> put it to good and nonviolent use.  (Thank goodness you didn't point out

> how

>

> egotistical I am.  Now that would be a lot harder to defend.)  ;-)

>

>

>

-

>

> " Matthew G Liebman " <mliebman

>

> " Pete " <plcohon

>

> Cc: " South Bay Veggies " ; " Veggie Jews "

>

> <VeggieJews >; " " ; " Freedom

> For

>

> Animals " <freedomforanimals >; " BAARN "

>

> <baarn >

>

> Monday, August 16, 2004 1:11 PM

>

> Re: Top Chiron lawyer's home is vandalized -- Protesters clothed

> in

>

> black linked to animal-rights group

>

>

>

>

>

> > Pete,

>

> >

>

> > Anger and destruction may make you uncomfortable, and that is fine. You

>

> may

>

> > choose to be activist in other ways. But don't get self-righteous

> against

>

> > activists that have been successful in bringing HLS attrocities to

> light,

>

> > and in bringing HLS to its knees.

>

> >

>

> > Your inability to distinguish between property destruction and true

>

> > violence demonstrates the degreee to which you've been duped by the

> forces

>

> > that attempt to discredit our movement. Breaking windows that were

> payed

>

> > for with blood money is not violence. Neither is embarassing an animal

>

> > abuser in front of his/her neighbors by " outting " them. Violence is

>

> > punching a beagle puppy in the face. Violence is dissecting a monkey

> while

>

> > she's still alive. Violence is killing 500 animals every day.

>

> >

>

> > " Violence " can only truly be perpetuated against sentient beings. While

> I

>

> > do not participate in property destruction, I understand the motives of

>

> > those who do. Sabotage has been a driving force behind every freedom

>

> > movement, from the Boston Tea Party to the suffragettes to the Jewish

>

> > resistance fighters. Please reconsider the way you use the term

>

> " violence. "

>

> > I do not support violence in this movement, and I would be upspeakably

>

> > dissappointed if a living being were hurt or killed as a result of

> these

>

> > actions. But in 20 years of operation, not a single human being has

> been

>

> > harmed by the actions of the Animal Liberation Front. Again, these

> actions

>

> > are not for me; but I understand those who are comfortable with them.

>

> >

>

> > The question is not one of morality, since direct action causes no

>

> physical

>

> > suffering, only economic suffering. The question IS one of

> effectiveness.

>

> > It's undeniable that the SHAC campaign has struck hard against HLS's

>

> > economic interests. The media image question is a bit more difficult.

>

> > Whether or not these types of actions give animal rights a good image

> or

>

> > bad image is an empirical question, and not a simple one. Clearly these

>

> > things turn some people off. But on the other hand these actions bring

> the

>

> > issue into the public realm where they can be discussed. If you believe

> in

>

> > the rightness of our cause, you should be comfortable with that.

>

> >

>

> > Anyone who watched ABC7 news last night saw that for, I believe, only

> the

>

> > second time, footage of HLS attrocities were showed on prime time news,

> to

>

> > an audience of thousands. This would not have happened but for a few

>

> broken

>

> > windows.

>

> >

>

> > These actions also help make groups like PETA seem more moderate in

>

> > comparison. They let people know that this is a serious issue that

> people

>

> > feel extremely passionate about. Sure Tribe of Heart does the same

> thing,

>

> > and that's great. The more strategies we use, the more effective we'll

> be.

>

> >

>

> > I think the strategies we use should be discussed thouroughly, with a

>

> focus

>

> > on whether or not they WORK. This is a tactical discussion that we

> can't

>

> > ignore. However, holier-than-though assertions of " childishness " and

>

> > " terrorism " are not responsible ways of strategic planning.

>

> >

>

> > For anyone interested in a nuanced and thoughtful discussion of these

>

> > issues, I highly recommend Steven Best's new book " Terrorists or

> Freedom

>

> > Fighters? " Also, Satya magazine recently did a very balanced 2 issue

>

> series

>

> > on activism, violence, and sabotage.

>

> >

>

> > Finally, for those of you not on the veggiejews list, I thought you

> might

>

> > be interested in seeing what Pete said in a secondary posting:

>

> >

>

> > " When groups known to use violent tactics advertise a demonstration, we

>

> can

>

> > speak and write to warn folks of the dangers of such tactics. The

> groups

>

> > who engage in such tactics should never be allowed to give the

> impression

>

> > that they speak for our movement.We can avoid all AR actions and

>

> > fundraisers by groups that encourage or use violence. In my opinion, we

>

> > should even go so far as to inform the authorities about any past or

>

> > planned terror acts in the name of our movement, so as to protect our

>

> > movement and the animals from the violent backlash that terror tactics

> can

>

> > cause. "

>

> >

>

> > With friends like this, who needs COINTELPRO?

>

> >

>

> > -Matthew

>

>

>

>

>

" G-d said, 'See, I give you every seed-bearing plant that is upon all the

> earth, and every tree that has seed-bearing fruit; they shall be yours

> for food.  And to all the animals on land, to all the birds of the sky,

> and to everything that creeps on earth, in which there is the breath of

> life, [i give] all the green plants for food.'  And it was so.  And G-d

> saw all that He had made, and found it very good. "   [Genesis, 1:29-31]

>

>

>

> Veggie Jews is an on-line and real world organization with events in

> local communities dedicated to supporting Jewish vegans and vegetarians

> of all ages and spreading vegan, vegetarian and animal rights values into

> the Jewish community.  Our non-Jewish friends are always welcome.  Please

> tell a friend about us.

>

>

>

> And remember: It's only kosher if it's cruelty-free.

Pete <plcohon wrote:

 

The following article from today's Chronicle tells the story of an attack

by supposed animal rights protesters on the home of a lawyer employed by

one of Huntingdon Life Sciences corporate clients. Huntingdon, as you

probably know, engages in horribly cruel and unnecessary animal experiments

for it's clients. It's conduct is totally inexcusable.

 

But so is the conduct of those who attack a home in the name of the AR

movement. Such violent conduct only plays into the hands of those who call

our movement " terrorist " by taking attention away from the serious work of

stopping Huntingdon's cruelty and placing it on the tactics of a few

extremists. It is noteworthy that, during the Viet Nam war, U.S. government

agents infiltrated to anti-war movement (Project Cointelpro) and turned it

to violent tactics in a successful effort to damage the anti-war movement.

And it raises serious questions about the motives who would use such

tactics now in the name of our AR movement.

 

Sadly, those same extremists will continue their inexcusably foolish and

harmful tactics as long as there are those who will support them. In my

opinion, those who support such tactics by going to violent demonstration,

even if they do not participate in the violence, condone terror tactics and

all the harm that such tactics are doing to the AR movement.

 

For an example of just how one can use one's energy and creativity to help

develop the AR movement into a mass movement that will finally end cruelty

of the kind practiced against animal victims by Huntingdon, just consider

the fine work of the folks at Farm Sanctuary or IDA's Project Hope, who

dedicate their lives to saving animals and using them to publicize the

plight of so many others who could not be saved. Consider the work of Tribe

of Heart, whose new documentary, Peaceable Kingdom, about Farm Sanctuary,

may well turn the hearts of millions toward a more compassionate lifestyle.

 

Then ask yourself: Whose work will really make a difference by turning

public sentiment against animal cruelty, those who work in a compassionate,

intelligent and realistic way to save animal lives and build a movement or

those who throw childish temper tantrums and commit crimes in the name of

our movement?

 

Whether we win this struggle for compassion sooner or later will depend on

the tactics we choose. I, for one, choose to win sooner by rejecting the

violent and childish tactics that can only serve to defeat or slow us down.

For the sake of our movement's success, for the sake of the billions or

trillions of animals who will suffer more every day that our victory is

delayed by extreme and counterproductive tactics, won't you please join me?

 

Pete

 

_

 

San Francisco Chronicle

Monday, August 16, 2004

 

ORINDA

Top Chiron lawyer's home is vandalized

Protesters clothed in black linked to animal-rights group

 

Henry K. Lee, Chronicle Staff Writer

 

 

 

 

 

Orinda police are investigating the vandalism of the East Bay home of

Chiron Corp.'s top attorney on Sunday, in which a group of people broke

windows and tried to flood his home with water during a noisy protest.

 

Neighbors said the people were animal-rights protesters wearing black

clothing and masks, and carrying signs. The demonstrators converged on the

home of Chiron's general counsel William Green on Sunnyside Court in Orinda

abou

t 10:15 a.m. while he was away on vacation, neighbors said.

 

 

The protester

s broke about a dozen windows and turned on his garden hose in his backya

rd deck, and left after 20 minutes. No arrests were made, but neighbors

provided license plate numbers to Orinda police.

 

" I feel a bit violated

by this, " Green said Sunday evening, minutes after retur

n

ing home to survey the damage. " I think it's beyond the pale of what should

be permissible in civilized society. "

 

The protest comes six months aft

er Chiron filed a lawsuit against Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty USA. Th

e group's name refers to Huntingdon Life Sciences, a New Jersey company t

hat performs animal testing for clients, including Chiron.

 

It was n

ot immediately clear Sunday whether the protesters were connected to the Sto

p Huntingdon group.

 

Green, 60, has previously been the target of protest

ers over at least the past two years, with flyers stuck on telephone phones

and gravestones placed nearby representing dead ani

m

als. Other employees have also been awakened by late-night visits by protest

ers with megaphones.

 

Neighbor Jim Abrams, 60, said the Orinda protest b

egan with marching and chanting. But tensions grew when Abrams

tried to block the side gate to Green's home, and some protesters charge

d past him.

 

" They ran toward one of the gates that goes into the ba

ckyard, " A

b

rams said. " They broke some windows, and the hose was running on the deck

-- I don't know if they intended to throw the hose into the broken window.

There were some people obviously bent on doing some damage. "

 

Chiron's

lawsuit said that the names, addresses and phone numbers of Chiron empl

oyees have been posted on a Web site and that the group has worked

with a fugitive suspected of planting bombs at the firm and another busin

ess last year.

 

The suspect, Daniel Andreas San Diego, 25, of Sonoma is ac

cused of planting a pipe bomb on Aug. 28 at Chiron and another on S

ept. 26 at Shaklee Corp., a

P

leasanton firm that makes health, beauty and household products.

 

San

Diego remains at large, Special Agent LaRae Quy, FBI spokeswoman in

San Francisco, said Sunday. A $50,000 reward is being offered for tips in th

e case.

 

In a June ruling, Alameda County Superior Court Judge Steven Bric

k said Chiron had a chance

 

of prevailing in the lawsuit and denied a request by the animal-rights g

roup to throw out the complaint as a SLAPP suit, or one that restricte

d its free-speech rights.

 

Brick said Chiron's lawsuit had more to do with

" acts of unlawful harassment and threats " rather than the animal-rights gr

oup's right to free speech. " Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty USA's) free s

peech rights under the First Amendment do not protect its conduct in this

situation, " Brick wrote.

[Guest guest]

Matthew,

 

Your arguments about why destruction and violence in the name of animal rights

are justified sound persuasive and may be hard to rebut as a logical matter. On

one logical point, however, you lump together rescuing animals, which may

involve incidental property damage and might be considered " property " theft,

with property destruction done in order to scare others into stopping the abuse

of animals. These actions are not the same, and therefore probably have

different moral implications. They do to me.

 

But, more importantly, no matter how persuasively you put forth your positions,

I find them frightening. The reason I am vegan, and why I otherwise work for

animal rights, is in large part because I am so horrified by the violence done

to animals. I cannot understand how adding more violence to the world will

ultimately help us achieve any kind of real peace for animals. Your e-mails

suggest that it is close-minded and self-righteous to condemn violence done in

the name of animal rights. But, in the tradition of Ghandi and Martin Luther

King, I believe it is of the utmost importance that I and others continue to

condemn violence -- whether done to animals or in their name.

 

" However much I may sympathise with and admire worthy motives, I am an

uncompromising opponent of violent methods even to serve the noblest of causes.

Violent means will give violent freedom. I believe that it is impossible to end

hatred with hatred. " -- Ghandi.

 

" In struggling for human dignity the oppressed people of the world must not

allow themselves to become bitter or indulge in hate campaigns. To retaliate

with hate and bitterness would do nothing but intensify the hate in the world.

Along the way of life, someone must have sense enough and morality enough to cut

off the chain of hate. This can be done only by projecting the ethics of love to

the center of our lives. " -- MLK.

 

" There is no way to peace. Peace is the way. " -- A.J. Muste.

 

Sincerely,

Thea Langsam

 

Matthew G Liebman <mliebman wrote:

[i've added the list to the recipients, because I think this issue

deserves serious attention. Those new to this thread can read from the

bottom up. This thread began this morning on most other bay area AR lists,

and is in regards to the recent property destruction at the Orinda home of

William Green, a lawyer for Chiron and a major supporter of Huntingdon Life

Sciences. Pete Cohon has criticized such tactics, while I disagree with

him.]

 

Pete,

 

First and foremost, I want to say I appreciate the nuance and

constructiveness of your latest email. I think that the more we actually

empirically discuss and evaluate our tactics, the more effective we’ll be.

That requires everyone to avoid pigeonholing people as either sell-outs

(mainstream) or terrorists (direct action). There are not two opposing

camps, but rather a spectrum of tactics, most of which will be needed for

animal liberation. As a future animal rights lawyer myself (I’m currently a

student at Stanford Law School), I’ve chosen to pursue more mainstream

avenues, as you have Pete, but I understand that the battle will not be won

with law alone.

 

Second, I really think you should disavow your earlier statement about

finking on those who advocate direct action. Your suggestion can only fuel

a sense of paranoia and fear among those who work for animal liberation.

The only kind of rats we need more of in this movement are the kind that we

save from HLS.

 

THE MORAL ISSUE:

Regardless of what your dictionary says, violence carries an extremely

strong connotation, especially in the context of animal rights activism and

the Bush/Ashcroft regime. Words mean what they convey, nothing more and

nothing less. When the animal exploitation industries use the word, they

intend to convey an image of animal rights activists as violent towards

humans. It is very important for us to make people realize that in 30 years

(I mistakenly said 20 in my last email), ALF actions have caused hundreds

of millions of dollars in damage, and liberated thousands of animals, but

not one single person has been injured or killed. When you partner up with

William Green (who whined about “animal rights terrorists” in front of the

US Senate Judiciary Committee three months ago, also the man whose house

was trashed yesterday) or Teresa Platt (the executive director of the Fur

Commission) to decry violence, you tacitly accept the connotations that our

enemies ascribe to the term “violence.” AR advocates should tease out the

multiple meanings of words like “terror” and “violence” to point out

crucial differences between what we do and what they do. When you lump SHAC

activists in with violent people, you’re doing the oppositions work for

them.

 

As for the Golden Rule, I think it makes for some pretty ineffective

activism. Should we only use tactics that our opponents are HAPPY with?

That seems nonsensical to me. Even mainstream campaigns are not consistent

with the golden rule. I would not want someone to put me out of work (as we

all wish to do with slaughterhouse employees); I would not want someone to

pass a law against my livelihood (as many of us are lobbying for in

California against foie gras); I would not want someone to disturb me with

nightmarish pictures of death (as mainstream pamphlets do), and so on. Do

they ENJOY our tactics? Would we enjoy them if they were done to us? No, of

course not. But that doesn’t make these tactics immoral.

 

If property becomes an object of moral consideration, the rich will

continue to hold precedence over the rest of us who own less property. And

since property is only that which the law recognizes as belonging to

someone (as a lawyer, I’m sure you’re familiar with legal positivism), any

animal liberation is by definition a property crime, since animals are

nothing more than property in the eyes of the US legal system. Was the ALF

breaking the Golden Rule when they broke into the Penn Head Injury Lab to

liberate tortured primates? Was that not a form of property theft?

 

And while we’re quoting our “chosen people,” how about this one, from Dr.

Maxwell Schnurer:

“The ALF and Holocaust resistance represent a method of bringing about new

understanding that challenges these mental habits [of objectification,

fragmentation, and consumption]. The actions of these militants blaze new

paths of meaning far beyond the direct action they participate in. The

meaning of active militant resistance can pervade the popular consciousness

of entire societies, and in the case of the ALF and of the Holocaust

resistance, their actions work to make mindlessness more difficult.”

 

The world might be a very different place had these Holocaust resistance

fighters treated the Nazis as they would have wanted to be treated.

 

If we could win liberation for animals through sanctuaries and compassion

alone, not a single person would participate in militant direct action.

Everyone wishes it were that simple. It’s not.

 

THE EFFECTIVENESS ISSUE:

As I said in my last email, this is the issue I’m less comfortable with.

Pete, you say that these tactics will not win over the hearts and minds of

the average American. I think you’re right. Sabotage cannot “help our AR

movement grow into the mass movement we must achieve in order to reach our

goals.” But I don’t think that’s the goal of direct action.

 

Our struggle is a multi-layered one. On the one hand, we seek to create a

cultural shift towards ethical respect for non-human animals. On the other

hand, we seek to alleviate the suffering experienced RIGHT NOW by living

animals.

 

We work towards the first, long-term goal through education, legislation,

lawsuits, documentaries, and other mainstream tactics, including Pete's

laudable accomplishments.

 

The second, short-term goal demands less patience and demands DIRECT

action. Sabotage, vandalism, and property destruction will not make William

Green more compassionate. But they just might encourage him and others to

stop supporting HLS. The past 5 years have shown how effective these

strategies can be at crippling animal abusers.

 

Of course, we have to be sure that we don’t compromise the first goal in

pursuing the second. If sabotage and property destruction give us a bad

image, then we should strongly reconsider those tactics. But it’s not clear

that the coverage is always bad press. And it’s not clear that bad press

can’t be helpful. PETA got terrible press in the 80s for supporting the ALF

rescues, and today it is the dominant voice in popular culture for

mainstream animal rights. The civil rights movement and the Montgomery Bus

Boycott got terrible press, but we know now that they were right, and they

succeeded to some degree. Karen Dawn of Dawnwatch.com keeps a close eye on

the way these issues play out in the popular media, and her webpage is a

helpful tool to think about AR media images.

 

I don’t believe that sabotage and property destruction are always good in

and of themselves. They’re good to the degree they’re effective. This means

the movement should be very thoughtful about when we use these tactics:

activists can’t simply smash stuff when the rage hits them. Thoughtless

destruction can be counter-productive and these activists end up acting

selfishly: they satiate their own feelings while animals suffer as a

result. But this also means that we shouldn’t condemn thoughtful

destruction. Destruction that is calculated at strategic targets, as the

SHAC campaign is, can be effective. Quoting Shakespeare: “There is nothing

either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.”

 

Of course some tactics are more effective than others. For me, I think open

rescues are generally better than lab raids. I think home demos that last

for 2 hours are generally better than home sabotages that last for 8

minutes. I think arguing against animal abusers is generally better than

intimidating them. I think good press is generally better than bad press.

But these are my preferences, and I’ll save my venom for the exploiters,

not for those allies who disagree with my preferences.

 

Best,

Matthew

 

 

 

Quoting Pete <plcohon:

 

>

>

>

>

>

> Thanks for your thoughtful response to my post, Matthew. You wrote:

> " The

>

> question is not one of morality, since direct action causes no physical

>

> suffering, only economic suffering. " I respectfully dissent.

>

>

>

> The cornerstone of all morality is, of course, the Golden Rule. Since I

>

> moderate the Veggie Jews' , perhaps I should phrase it in the

>

> negative as Rabbi Hillel did: Do not do unto others that which you would

> not

>

> want them to do unto you. I understand that it's stated in the positive

> in

>

> some cultures but the meaning is the same. I don't think any one of us

>

> would consider it anything less than unacceptable if we were personally

>

> victimized in a way that caused us only economic but not physical

> suffering,

>

> especially in an effort intended to intimidate.

>

>

>

> I've got a real problem with the " new " definition of violence as

> something

>

> that " can only truly be perpetuated against sentient beings, " according

> to

>

> Matthew. I'm afraid that not only I but the dictionary as well disagrees

>

> with you. According to my admittedly not " new " Funk & Wangles, violence

>

> involves the use of force to achieve ends. It has nothing to do with the

>

> object of the force or whether it is sentient.

>

>

>

> But I agree that, at least on one level, as you said, " The question IS

> one

>

> of effectiveness. " And by that measure alone, violence should be

> rejected.

>

> If you think that violence will help our AR movement grow into the mass

>

> movement we must achieve in order to reach our goals, just ask some of

> the

>

> 95% of Americans who eat a standard American diet what they think of

> animal

>

> rights " terrorism, " as the media calls it. I think you'll find that very

>

> few of them are sympathetic to our cause. The fact is that mainstream

>

> Americans, the very people we have to reach with our message, do not

> approve

>

> of violent tactics to achieve social change, (at least here in the

>

> homeland), and they become more estranged from rather than sympathetic to

>

> our cause with every new act that they perceive to be " terror. " The

> media,

>

> which represents financial interests tied to animal exploitation, will

> not

>

> miss a chance to portray any small act of isolated violence as typical of

>

> the AR movement as a whole. They understand the value of making our

>

> movement look extreme by focusing on violence. So should we, and we

> should

>

> learn to avoid that very extremism in order to most quickly defeat the

>

> forces of cruelty arrayed against us.

>

>

>

> I regret that my self-righteousness offends you, Matthew. I freely admit

> to

>

> having that fault, but as faults go, it's not so bad. It's inspired me

>

> during my career to provide free legal representation to about 30 animal

>

> rights and peace activists charged with demonstration related crimes (not

>

> one of whom ever served one minute in jail); I've written the three

> sections

>

> of the California Green Party platform dealing with animal issues, and

> I'm

>

> proud to say it's the most progressive AR platform of any political party

> on

>

> earth as far as I know; I've organized Greens for the Ethical Treatment

> of

>

> Animals within the California Green Party to get the AR platform planks

>

> passed; I organized the University Alumni Campaign Against Vivisection

> for

>

> In Defense of Animals to decrease alumni contributions to universities

>

> involved in animal experimentation (and that's just about all of them);

> and,

>

> most recently, I've organized Veggie Jews to try to spread the veggie

>

> message into the Jewish community, whose support is needed to end some

>

> slaughterhouse abuses. Now, I know that's not much compared to what many

>

> professional animal activists have done and do every day, but it's the

> best

>

> that I could squeeze in while earning a living, and it's a lot better

> than

>

> nothing. So, if I am a bit self-righteous at times, at least I do try to

>

> put it to good and nonviolent use. (Thank goodness you didn't point out

> how

>

> egotistical I am. Now that would be a lot harder to defend.) ;-)

>

>

>

-

>

> " Matthew G Liebman " <mliebman

>

> " Pete " <plcohon

>

> Cc: " South Bay Veggies " ; " Veggie Jews "

>

> <VeggieJews >; " " ; " Freedom

> For

>

> Animals " <freedomforanimals >; " BAARN "

>

> <baarn >

>

> Monday, August 16, 2004 1:11 PM

>

> Re: Top Chiron lawyer's home is vandalized -- Protesters clothed

> in

>

> black linked to animal-rights group

>

>

>

>

>

> > Pete,

>

> >

>

> > Anger and destruction may make you uncomfortable, and that is fine. You

>

> may

>

> > choose to be activist in other ways. But don't get self-righteous

> against

>

> > activists that have been successful in bringing HLS attrocities to

> light,

>

> > and in bringing HLS to its knees.

>

> >

>

> > Your inability to distinguish between property destruction and true

>

> > violence demonstrates the degreee to which you've been duped by the

> forces

>

> > that attempt to discredit our movement. Breaking windows that were

> payed

>

> > for with blood money is not violence. Neither is embarassing an animal

>

> > abuser in front of his/her neighbors by " outting " them. Violence is

>

> > punching a beagle puppy in the face. Violence is dissecting a monkey

> while

>

> > she's still alive. Violence is killing 500 animals every day.

>

> >

>

> > " Violence " can only truly be perpetuated against sentient beings. While

> I

>

> > do not participate in property destruction, I understand the motives of

>

> > those who do. Sabotage has been a driving force behind every freedom

>

> > movement, from the Boston Tea Party to the suffragettes to the Jewish

>

> > resistance fighters. Please reconsider the way you use the term

>

> " violence. "

>

> > I do not support violence in this movement, and I would be upspeakably

>

> > dissappointed if a living being were hurt or killed as a result of

> these

>

> > actions. But in 20 years of operation, not a single human being has

> been

>

> > harmed by the actions of the Animal Liberation Front. Again, these

> actions

>

> > are not for me; but I understand those who are comfortable with them.

>

> >

>

> > The question is not one of morality, since direct action causes no

>

> physical

>

> > suffering, only economic suffering. The question IS one of

> effectiveness.

>

> > It's undeniable that the SHAC campaign has struck hard against HLS's

>

> > economic interests. The media image question is a bit more difficult.

>

> > Whether or not these types of actions give animal rights a good image

> or

>

> > bad image is an empirical question, and not a simple one. Clearly these

>

> > things turn some people off. But on the other hand these actions bring

> the

>

> > issue into the public realm where they can be discussed. If you believe

> in

>

> > the rightness of our cause, you should be comfortable with that.

>

> >

>

> > Anyone who watched ABC7 news last night saw that for, I believe, only

> the

>

> > second time, footage of HLS attrocities were showed on prime time news,

> to

>

> > an audience of thousands. This would not have happened but for a few

>

> broken

>

> > windows.

>

> >

>

> > These actions also help make groups like PETA seem more moderate in

>

> > comparison. They let people know that this is a serious issue that

> people

>

> > feel extremely passionate about. Sure Tribe of Heart does the same

> thing,

>

> > and that's great. The more strategies we use, the more effective we'll

> be.

>

> >

>

> > I think the strategies we use should be discussed thouroughly, with a

>

> focus

>

> > on whether or not they WORK. This is a tactical discussion that we

> can't

>

> > ignore. However, holier-than-though assertions of " childishness " and

>

> > " terrorism " are not responsible ways of strategic planning.

>

> >

>

> > For anyone interested in a nuanced and thoughtful discussion of these

>

> > issues, I highly recommend Steven Best's new book " Terrorists or

> Freedom

>

> > Fighters? " Also, Satya magazine recently did a very balanced 2 issue

>

> series

>

> > on activism, violence, and sabotage.

>

> >

>

> > Finally, for those of you not on the veggiejews list, I thought you

> might

>

> > be interested in seeing what Pete said in a secondary posting:

>

> >

>

> > " When groups known to use violent tactics advertise a demonstration, we

>

> can

>

> > speak and write to warn folks of the dangers of such tactics. The

> groups

>

> > who engage in such tactics should never be allowed to give the

> impression

>

> > that they speak for our movement.We can avoid all AR actions and

>

> > fundraisers by groups that encourage or use violence. In my opinion, we

>

> > should even go so far as to inform the authorities about any past or

>

> > planned terror acts in the name of our movement, so as to protect our

>

> > movement and the animals from the violent backlash that terror tactics

> can

>

> > cause. "

>

> >

>

> > With friends like this, who needs COINTELPRO?

>

> >

>

> > -Matthew

>

>

>

>

>

" G-d said, 'See, I give you every seed-bearing plant that is upon all the

> earth, and every tree that has seed-bearing fruit; they shall be yours

> for food. And to all the animals on land, to all the birds of the sky,

> and to everything that creeps on earth, in which there is the breath of

> life, [i give] all the green plants for food.' And it was so. And G-d

> saw all that He had made, and found it very good. " [Genesis, 1:29-31]

>

>

>

> Veggie Jews is an on-line and real world organization with events in

> local communities dedicated to supporting Jewish vegans and vegetarians

> of all ages and spreading vegan, vegetarian and animal rights values into

> the Jewish community. Our non-Jewish friends are always welcome. Please

> tell a friend about us.

>

>

>

> And remember: It's only kosher if it's cruelty-free.

Pete <plcohon wrote:

 

The following article from today's Chronicle tells the story of an attack

by supposed animal rights protesters on the home of a lawyer employed by

one of Huntingdon Life Sciences corporate clients. Huntingdon, as you

probably know, engages in horribly cruel and unnecessary animal experiments

for it's clients. It's conduct is totally inexcusable.

 

But so is the conduct of those who attack a home in the name of the AR

movement. Such violent conduct only plays into the hands of those who call

our movement " terrorist " by taking attention away from the serious work of

stopping Huntingdon's cruelty and placing it on the tactics of a few

extremists. It is noteworthy that, during the Viet Nam war, U.S. government

agents infiltrated to anti-war movement (Project Cointelpro) and turned it

to violent tactics in a successful effort to damage the anti-war movement.

And it raises serious questions about the motives who would use such

tactics now in the name of our AR movement.

 

Sadly, those same extremists will continue their inexcusably foolish and

harmful tactics as long as there are those who will support them. In my

opinion, those who support such tactics by going to violent demonstration,

even if they do not participate in the violence, condone terror tactics and

all the harm that such tactics are doing to the AR movement.

 

For an example of just how one can use one's energy and creativity to help

develop the AR movement into a mass movement that will finally end cruelty

of the kind practiced against animal victims by Huntingdon, just consider

the fine work of the folks at Farm Sanctuary or IDA's Project Hope, who

dedicate their lives to saving animals and using them to publicize the

plight of so many others who could not be saved. Consider the work of Tribe

of Heart, whose new documentary, Peaceable Kingdom, about Farm Sanctuary,

may well turn the hearts of millions toward a more compassionate lifestyle.

 

Then ask yourself: Whose work will really make a difference by turning

public sentiment against animal cruelty, those who work in a compassionate,

intelligent and realistic way to save animal lives and build a movement or

those who throw childish temper tantrums and commit crimes in the name of

our movement?

 

Whether we win this struggle for compassion sooner or later will depend on

the tactics we choose. I, for one, choose to win sooner by rejecting the

violent and childish tactics that can only serve to defeat or slow us down.

For the sake of our movement's success, for the sake of the billions or

trillions of animals who will suffer more every day that our victory is

delayed by extreme and counterproductive tactics, won't you please join me?

 

Pete

 

_

 

San Francisco Chronicle

Monday, August 16, 2004

 

ORINDA

Top Chiron lawyer's home is vandalized

Protesters clothed in black linked to animal-rights group

 

Henry K. Lee, Chronicle Staff Writer

 

 

 

 

 

Orinda police are investigating the vandalism of the East Bay home of

Chiron Corp.'s top attorney on Sunday, in which a group of people broke

windows and tried to flood his home with water during a noisy protest.

 

Neighbors said the people were animal-rights protesters wearing black

clothing and masks, and carrying signs. The demonstrators converged on the

home of Chiron's general counsel William Green on Sunnyside Court in Orinda

abou

t 10:15 a.m. while he was away on vacation, neighbors said.

 

 

The protester

s broke about a dozen windows and turned on his garden hose in his backya

rd deck, and left after 20 minutes. No arrests were made, but neighbors

provided license plate numbers to Orinda police.

 

" I feel a bit violated

by this, " Green said Sunday evening, minutes after retur

n

ing home to survey the damage. " I think it's beyond the pale of what should

be permissible in civilized society. "

 

The protest comes six months aft

er Chiron filed a lawsuit against Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty USA. Th

e group's name refers to Huntingdon Life Sciences, a New Jersey company t

hat performs animal testing for clients, including Chiron.

 

It was n

ot immediately clear Sunday whether the protesters were connected to the Sto

p Huntingdon group.

 

Green, 60, has previously been the target of protest

ers over at least the past two years, with flyers stuck on telephone phones

and gravestones placed nearby representing dead ani

m

als. Other employees have also been awakened by late-night visits by protest

ers with megaphones.

 

Neighbor Jim Abrams, 60, said the Orinda protest b

egan with marching and chanting. But tensions grew when Abrams

tried to block the side gate to Green's home, and some protesters charge

d past him.

 

" They ran toward one of the gates that goes into the ba

ckyard, " A

b

rams said. " They broke some windows, and the hose was running on the deck

-- I don't know if they intended to throw the hose into the broken window.

There were some people obviously bent on doing some damage. "

 

Chiron's

lawsuit said that the names, addresses and phone numbers of Chiron empl

oyees have been posted on a Web site and that the group has worked

with a fugitive suspected of planting bombs at the firm and another busin

ess last year.

 

The suspect, Daniel Andreas San Diego, 25, of Sonoma is ac

cused of planting a pipe bomb on Aug. 28 at Chiron and another on S

ept. 26 at Shaklee Corp., a

P

leasanton firm that makes health, beauty and household products.

 

San

Diego remains at large, Special Agent LaRae Quy, FBI spokeswoman in

San Francisco, said Sunday. A $50,000 reward is being offered for tips in th

e case.

 

In a June ruling, Alameda County Superior Court Judge Steven Bric

k said Chiron had a chance

 

of prevailing in the lawsuit and denied a request by the animal-rights g

roup to throw out the complaint as a SLAPP suit, or one that restricte

d its free-speech rights.

 

Brick said Chiron's lawsuit had more to do with

" acts of unlawful harassment and threats " rather than the animal-rights gr

oup's right to free speech. " Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty USA's) free s

peech rights under the First Amendment do not protect its conduct in this

situation, " Brick wrote.

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Hi Thea,

 

Thank you for your response.

 

1. I feel like I should make a clarification: I'm afraid I've given the

impression that I'm a total supporter of all forms of direct action at all

times. That is not at all the case. I do not consider myself a direct

activist; I've never committed a crime in the name of animal rights.

However, I do openly defend those who do commit non-violent crimes for

animal liberation. The people who do these actions cannot afford to speak

up to defend themselves, so I think it is important for above-ground

activists to defend direct action, especially when they have nothing to

hide from the authorities.

 

2. I completely agree with you, Thea, that there is a huge difference

between liberations and sabotage. I am unequivocally in support of

liberations, but am much more reserved when it comes to property

destruction. However, the point I sought to make was that since animals are

considered property in the eyes of the law, and since all property is

defined as that which the law recognizes as belonging to someone, even

liberations can be considered as a form of property destruction. I also

think we should recognize the moral implications of finking on other

activists. Speaking out for what you believe in is qualitatively different

from running to the FBI every time there is a home demo.

 

3. I'm not sure you've addressed the key important issue, Thea, which is:

What is violence? You describe my position as a justification for

" destruction and violence in the name of animal rights. " This is not quite

accurate. I consider myself a supporter of NON-VIOLENT direct action. You

say that we should be non-violent, and I agree, but you never explain how

property destruction is a form of violence. The ALF has always considered

itself a non-violent organization. (http://www.animalliberationfront.com/

ALFront/WhatisALF.htm). The position that property destruction is immoral

when committed for animal liberation is the perfect example of Marx's

concept of " commodity festishism, " whereby property attains the status of a

subject protected by moral consideration, and subjects (animals) are

degraded to the status of property. But property is NOT a subject, and

subjects are NOT property. Ultimately, I believe in non-violent direct

action, so I don't think violent resistance is ethically justified. I would

not condone committing violence against a sentient being. But I do think

that property destruction and direct liberations are ethically justified

(though the effectiveness issue is more difficult.)

 

4. Let me again stress that I don't think direct action will result in the

cultural shift we need, or " real peace for animals " as Thea nicely put it.

Direct action is the short-term counterpart to our long term projects like

vegan outreach, picketing, boycotts, letter-writing, and legal work. It's

these tactics that will get us towards a more compassionate society, and I

certainly applaud all of those compassionate efforts. Nevertheless, direct

action can help get us there by demonstrating the attrocities of our

opponents and by helping to save animals in the here and now.

 

5. Many of these long-term non-violent strategies are made effective by the

militancy of the ALF and similar groups. While we're quoting Martin Luther

King, allow me to offer this one:

" I am only effective as long as there is a shadow on white America of the

black man standing behind me with a Molotov cocktail. "

 

6. Even if you do conclude that ALF and SHAC actions are a form of

violence, I would respectuflly ask you to focus your energy on the far

greater violence against animals that happens every second of every day. We

need a healthy debate on these issues, but we also can't afford to splinter

the movement. And we can't afford to waste our passions on in-fighting,

when there are so many attrocities that demand our attention.

 

7. And finally, I'm about to head out of town for a couple of days, so this

will be my last post on the issue. I think I've made my position

sufficiently clear. Plus I'm sure the moderators of these lists are tired

of my ramblings! Anyone interested in discussing these issues further

should feel free to contact me. I'm glad we were able to debate these

issues rather than sink into the divisive fights that usually accompany

these discussions. Again, I highly recommend Steven Best's " Terrorists or

Freedom Fighters? " anthology which thoroughly investigates the arguments

for and against direct action.

 

Very best to all,

Matthew

 

 

Quoting Thea Langsam <thea_langsam:

 

> Matthew,

>

> Your arguments about why destruction and violence in the name of animal

> rights are justified sound persuasive and may be hard to rebut as a

> logical matter. On one logical point, however, you lump together

> rescuing animals, which may involve incidental property damage and might

> be considered " property " theft, with property destruction done in order

> to scare others into stopping the abuse of animals. These actions are

> not the same, and therefore probably have different moral implications.

> They do to me.

>

> But, more importantly, no matter how persuasively you put forth your

> positions, I find them frightening. The reason I am vegan, and why I

> otherwise work for animal rights, is in large part because I am so

> horrified by the violence done to animals. I cannot understand how

> adding more violence to the world will ultimately help us achieve any

> kind of real peace for animals. Your e-mails suggest that it is

> close-minded and self-righteous to condemn violence done in the name of

> animal rights. But, in the tradition of Ghandi and Martin Luther King, I

> believe it is of the utmost importance that I and others continue to

> condemn violence -- whether done to animals or in their name.

>

> " However much I may sympathise with and admire worthy motives, I am an

> uncompromising opponent of violent methods even to serve the noblest of

> causes. Violent means will give violent freedom. I believe that it is

> impossible to end hatred with hatred. " -- Ghandi.

>

> " In struggling for human dignity the oppressed people of the world must

> not allow themselves to become bitter or indulge in hate campaigns. To

> retaliate with hate and bitterness would do nothing but intensify the

> hate in the world. Along the way of life, someone must have sense enough

> and morality enough to cut off the chain of hate. This can be done only

> by projecting the ethics of love to the center of our lives. " -- MLK.

>

> " There is no way to peace. Peace is the way. " -- A.J. Muste.

>

> Sincerely,

> Thea Langsam

>

[Guest guest]

All,

 

Anyone disagreeing with direct action by those who have strong feelings

about the injustices faced in the U.S., whether those injustices are

against people, or animals, should refresh their memories about the

ability of such direct action to mobilize the public. The first such

direct action that in itself was considered an enormous patriotic act in

this country was against big business and for small tea farmers, and was

known as the " Boston Tea Party " . Those of you familiar with the reasons

of this direct action, I will not bore: for those others I suggest you

refresh your memories. It was the " kickoff " of the Revolutionary War.

I disagree that direct action does not work. While I laud Gandhi and

King's work, and agree it was effective, any student of history knows

that BOTH violence and nonviolence have their place in any effective

campaign against injustice. Further, a careful study and endless

conversation about which is ore appropriate in any given campaingn

against injustice was never performed prior to taking action.

 

More succinctly said: People may or may not agree with you, but

sometimes you have to make your voice heard!!!

 

Just my $0.02!!

 

Julie

 

 

 

 

Matthew G Liebman [mliebman]

Monday, August 16, 2004 11:30 PM

Pete

Cc: South Bay Veggies; Veggie Jews; ; Freedom For Animals; BAARN;

 

Re: Top Chiron lawyer's home is vandalized --

Protesters clothed in black linked to animal-rights group

 

 

[i've added the list to the recipients, because I think this

issue

deserves serious attention. Those new to this thread can read from the

bottom up. This thread began this morning on most other bay area AR

lists,

and is in regards to the recent property destruction at the Orinda home

of

William Green, a lawyer for Chiron and a major supporter of Huntingdon

Life

Sciences. Pete Cohon has criticized such tactics, while I disagree with

 

him.]

 

Pete,

 

First and foremost, I want to say I appreciate the nuance and

constructiveness of your latest email. I think that the more we actually

 

empirically discuss and evaluate our tactics, the more effective we'll

be.

That requires everyone to avoid pigeonholing people as either sell-outs

(mainstream) or terrorists (direct action). There are not two opposing

camps, but rather a spectrum of tactics, most of which will be needed

for

animal liberation. As a future animal rights lawyer myself (I'm

currently a

student at Stanford Law School), I've chosen to pursue more mainstream

avenues, as you have Pete, but I understand that the battle will not be

won

with law alone.

 

Second, I really think you should disavow your earlier statement about

finking on those who advocate direct action. Your suggestion can only

fuel

a sense of paranoia and fear among those who work for animal liberation.

 

The only kind of rats we need more of in this movement are the kind that

we

save from HLS.

 

THE MORAL ISSUE:

Regardless of what your dictionary says, violence carries an extremely

strong connotation, especially in the context of animal rights activism

and

the Bush/Ashcroft regime. Words mean what they convey, nothing more and

nothing less. When the animal exploitation industries use the word, they

 

intend to convey an image of animal rights activists as violent towards

humans. It is very important for us to make people realize that in 30

years

(I mistakenly said 20 in my last email), ALF actions have caused

hundreds

of millions of dollars in damage, and liberated thousands of animals,

but

not one single person has been injured or killed. When you partner up

with

William Green (who whined about " animal rights terrorists " in front of

the

US Senate Judiciary Committee three months ago, also the man whose house

 

was trashed yesterday) or Teresa Platt (the executive director of the

Fur

Commission) to decry violence, you tacitly accept the connotations that

our

enemies ascribe to the term " violence. " AR advocates should tease out

the

multiple meanings of words like " terror " and " violence " to point out

crucial differences between what we do and what they do. When you lump

SHAC

activists in with violent people, you're doing the oppositions work for

them.

 

As for the Golden Rule, I think it makes for some pretty ineffective

activism. Should we only use tactics that our opponents are HAPPY with?

That seems nonsensical to me. Even mainstream campaigns are not

consistent

with the golden rule. I would not want someone to put me out of work (as

we

all wish to do with slaughterhouse employees); I would not want someone

to

pass a law against my livelihood (as many of us are lobbying for in

California against foie gras); I would not want someone to disturb me

with

nightmarish pictures of death (as mainstream pamphlets do), and so on.

Do

they ENJOY our tactics? Would we enjoy them if they were done to us? No,

of

course not. But that doesn't make these tactics immoral.

 

If property becomes an object of moral consideration, the rich will

continue to hold precedence over the rest of us who own less property.

And

since property is only that which the law recognizes as belonging to

someone (as a lawyer, I'm sure you're familiar with legal positivism),

any

animal liberation is by definition a property crime, since animals are

nothing more than property in the eyes of the US legal system. Was the

ALF

breaking the Golden Rule when they broke into the Penn Head Injury Lab

to

liberate tortured primates? Was that not a form of property theft?

 

And while we're quoting our " chosen people, " how about this one, from

Dr.

Maxwell Schnurer:

" The ALF and Holocaust resistance represent a method of bringing about

new

understanding that challenges these mental habits [of objectification,

fragmentation, and consumption]. The actions of these militants blaze

new

paths of meaning far beyond the direct action they participate in. The

meaning of active militant resistance can pervade the popular

consciousness

of entire societies, and in the case of the ALF and of the Holocaust

resistance, their actions work to make mindlessness more difficult. "

 

The world might be a very different place had these Holocaust resistance

 

fighters treated the Nazis as they would have wanted to be treated.

 

If we could win liberation for animals through sanctuaries and

compassion

alone, not a single person would participate in militant direct action.

Everyone wishes it were that simple. It's not.

 

THE EFFECTIVENESS ISSUE:

As I said in my last email, this is the issue I'm less comfortable with.

 

Pete, you say that these tactics will not win over the hearts and minds

of

the average American. I think you're right. Sabotage cannot " help our AR

 

movement grow into the mass movement we must achieve in order to reach

our

goals. " But I don't think that's the goal of direct action.

 

Our struggle is a multi-layered one. On the one hand, we seek to create

a

cultural shift towards ethical respect for non-human animals. On the

other

hand, we seek to alleviate the suffering experienced RIGHT NOW by living

 

animals.

 

We work towards the first, long-term goal through education,

legislation,

lawsuits, documentaries, and other mainstream tactics, including Pete's

laudable accomplishments.

 

The second, short-term goal demands less patience and demands DIRECT

action. Sabotage, vandalism, and property destruction will not make

William

Green more compassionate. But they just might encourage him and others

to

stop supporting HLS. The past 5 years have shown how effective these

strategies can be at crippling animal abusers.

 

Of course, we have to be sure that we don't compromise the first goal in

 

pursuing the second. If sabotage and property destruction give us a bad

image, then we should strongly reconsider those tactics. But it's not

clear

that the coverage is always bad press. And it's not clear that bad press

 

can't be helpful. PETA got terrible press in the 80s for supporting the

ALF

rescues, and today it is the dominant voice in popular culture for

mainstream animal rights. The civil rights movement and the Montgomery

Bus

Boycott got terrible press, but we know now that they were right, and

they

succeeded to some degree. Karen Dawn of Dawnwatch.com keeps a close eye

on

the way these issues play out in the popular media, and her webpage is a

 

helpful tool to think about AR media images.

 

I don't believe that sabotage and property destruction are always good

in

and of themselves. They're good to the degree they're effective. This

means

the movement should be very thoughtful about when we use these tactics:

activists can't simply smash stuff when the rage hits them. Thoughtless

destruction can be counter-productive and these activists end up acting

selfishly: they satiate their own feelings while animals suffer as a

result. But this also means that we shouldn't condemn thoughtful

destruction. Destruction that is calculated at strategic targets, as the

 

SHAC campaign is, can be effective. Quoting Shakespeare: " There is

nothing

either good or bad, but thinking makes it so. "

 

Of course some tactics are more effective than others. For me, I think

open

rescues are generally better than lab raids. I think home demos that

last

for 2 hours are generally better than home sabotages that last for 8

minutes. I think arguing against animal abusers is generally better than

 

intimidating them. I think good press is generally better than bad

press.

But these are my preferences, and I'll save my venom for the exploiters,

 

not for those allies who disagree with my preferences.

 

Best,

Matthew

 

 

 

Quoting Pete <plcohon:

 

>

>

>

>

>

> Thanks for your thoughtful response to my post, Matthew. You wrote:

> " The

>

> question is not one of morality, since direct action causes no

physical

>

> suffering, only economic suffering. " I respectfully dissent.

>

>

>

> The cornerstone of all morality is, of course, the Golden Rule. Since

I

>

> moderate the Veggie Jews' , perhaps I should phrase it in

the

>

> negative as Rabbi Hillel did: Do not do unto others that which you

would

> not

>

> want them to do unto you. I understand that it's stated in the

positive

> in

>

> some cultures but the meaning is the same. I don't think any one of

us

>

> would consider it anything less than unacceptable if we were

personally

>

> victimized in a way that caused us only economic but not physical

> suffering,

>

> especially in an effort intended to intimidate.

>

>

>

> I've got a real problem with the " new " definition of violence as

> something

>

> that " can only truly be perpetuated against sentient beings, "

according

> to

>

> Matthew. I'm afraid that not only I but the dictionary as well

disagrees

>

> with you. According to my admittedly not " new " Funk & Wangles,

violence

>

> involves the use of force to achieve ends. It has nothing to do with

the

>

> object of the force or whether it is sentient.

>

>

>

> But I agree that, at least on one level, as you said, " The question IS

> one

>

> of effectiveness. " And by that measure alone, violence should be

> rejected.

>

> If you think that violence will help our AR movement grow into the

mass

>

> movement we must achieve in order to reach our goals, just ask some of

> the

>

> 95% of Americans who eat a standard American diet what they think of

> animal

>

> rights " terrorism, " as the media calls it. I think you'll find that

very

>

> few of them are sympathetic to our cause. The fact is that mainstream

>

> Americans, the very people we have to reach with our message, do not

> approve

>

> of violent tactics to achieve social change, (at least here in the

>

> homeland), and they become more estranged from rather than sympathetic

to

>

> our cause with every new act that they perceive to be " terror. " The

> media,

>

> which represents financial interests tied to animal exploitation, will

> not

>

> miss a chance to portray any small act of isolated violence as typical

of

>

> the AR movement as a whole. They understand the value of making our

>

> movement look extreme by focusing on violence. So should we, and we

> should

>

> learn to avoid that very extremism in order to most quickly defeat the

>

> forces of cruelty arrayed against us.

>

>

>

> I regret that my self-righteousness offends you, Matthew. I freely

admit

> to

>

> having that fault, but as faults go, it's not so bad. It's inspired

me

>

> during my career to provide free legal representation to about 30

animal

>

> rights and peace activists charged with demonstration related crimes

(not

>

> one of whom ever served one minute in jail); I've written the three

> sections

>

> of the California Green Party platform dealing with animal issues, and

> I'm

>

> proud to say it's the most progressive AR platform of any political

party

> on

>

> earth as far as I know; I've organized Greens for the Ethical

Treatment

> of

>

> Animals within the California Green Party to get the AR platform

planks

>

> passed; I organized the University Alumni Campaign Against Vivisection

> for

>

> In Defense of Animals to decrease alumni contributions to universities

>

> involved in animal experimentation (and that's just about all of

them);

> and,

>

> most recently, I've organized Veggie Jews to try to spread the veggie

>

> message into the Jewish community, whose support is needed to end some

>

> slaughterhouse abuses. Now, I know that's not much compared to what

many

>

> professional animal activists have done and do every day, but it's the

> best

>

> that I could squeeze in while earning a living, and it's a lot better

> than

>

> nothing. So, if I am a bit self-righteous at times, at least I do try

to

>

> put it to good and nonviolent use. (Thank goodness you didn't point

out

> how

>

> egotistical I am. Now that would be a lot harder to defend.) ;-)

>

>

>

-

>

> " Matthew G Liebman " <mliebman

>

> " Pete " <plcohon

>

> Cc: " South Bay Veggies " ; " Veggie

Jews "

>

> <VeggieJews >; " " ;

" Freedom

> For

>

> Animals " <freedomforanimals >; " BAARN "

>

> <baarn >

>

> Monday, August 16, 2004 1:11 PM

>

> Re: Top Chiron lawyer's home is vandalized -- Protesters

clothed

> in

>

> black linked to animal-rights group

>

>

>

>

>

> > Pete,

>

> >

>

> > Anger and destruction may make you uncomfortable, and that is fine.

You

>

> may

>

> > choose to be activist in other ways. But don't get self-righteous

> against

>

> > activists that have been successful in bringing HLS attrocities to

> light,

>

> > and in bringing HLS to its knees.

>

> >

>

> > Your inability to distinguish between property destruction and true

>

> > violence demonstrates the degreee to which you've been duped by the

> forces

>

> > that attempt to discredit our movement. Breaking windows that were

> payed

>

> > for with blood money is not violence. Neither is embarassing an

animal

>

> > abuser in front of his/her neighbors by " outting " them. Violence is

>

> > punching a beagle puppy in the face. Violence is dissecting a monkey

> while

>

> > she's still alive. Violence is killing 500 animals every day.

>

> >

>

> > " Violence " can only truly be perpetuated against sentient beings.

While

> I

>

> > do not participate in property destruction, I understand the motives

of

>

> > those who do. Sabotage has been a driving force behind every freedom

>

> > movement, from the Boston Tea Party to the suffragettes to the

Jewish

>

> > resistance fighters. Please reconsider the way you use the term

>

> " violence. "

>

> > I do not support violence in this movement, and I would be

upspeakably

>

> > dissappointed if a living being were hurt or killed as a result of

> these

>

> > actions. But in 20 years of operation, not a single human being has

> been

>

> > harmed by the actions of the Animal Liberation Front. Again, these

> actions

>

> > are not for me; but I understand those who are comfortable with

them.

>

> >

>

> > The question is not one of morality, since direct action causes no

>

> physical

>

> > suffering, only economic suffering. The question IS one of

> effectiveness.

>

> > It's undeniable that the SHAC campaign has struck hard against HLS's

>

> > economic interests. The media image question is a bit more

difficult.

>

> > Whether or not these types of actions give animal rights a good

image

> or

>

> > bad image is an empirical question, and not a simple one. Clearly

these

>

> > things turn some people off. But on the other hand these actions

bring

> the

>

> > issue into the public realm where they can be discussed. If you

believe

> in

>

> > the rightness of our cause, you should be comfortable with that.

>

> >

>

> > Anyone who watched ABC7 news last night saw that for, I believe,

only

> the

>

> > second time, footage of HLS attrocities were showed on prime time

news,

> to

>

> > an audience of thousands. This would not have happened but for a few

>

> broken

>

> > windows.

>

> >

>

> > These actions also help make groups like PETA seem more moderate in

>

> > comparison. They let people know that this is a serious issue that

> people

>

> > feel extremely passionate about. Sure Tribe of Heart does the same

> thing,

>

> > and that's great. The more strategies we use, the more effective

we'll

> be.

>

> >

>

> > I think the strategies we use should be discussed thouroughly, with

a

>

> focus

>

> > on whether or not they WORK. This is a tactical discussion that we

> can't

>

> > ignore. However, holier-than-though assertions of " childishness " and

>

> > " terrorism " are not responsible ways of strategic planning.

>

> >

>

> > For anyone interested in a nuanced and thoughtful discussion of

these

>

> > issues, I highly recommend Steven Best's new book " Terrorists or

> Freedom

>

> > Fighters? " Also, Satya magazine recently did a very balanced 2 issue

>

> series

>

> > on activism, violence, and sabotage.

>

> >

>

> > Finally, for those of you not on the veggiejews list, I thought you

> might

>

> > be interested in seeing what Pete said in a secondary posting:

>

> >

>

> > " When groups known to use violent tactics advertise a demonstration,

we

>

> can

>

> > speak and write to warn folks of the dangers of such tactics. The

> groups

>

> > who engage in such tactics should never be allowed to give the

> impression

>

> > that they speak for our movement.We can avoid all AR actions and

>

> > fundraisers by groups that encourage or use violence. In my opinion,

we

>

> > should even go so far as to inform the authorities about any past or

>

> > planned terror acts in the name of our movement, so as to protect

our

>

> > movement and the animals from the violent backlash that terror

tactics

> can

>

> > cause. "

>

> >

>

> > With friends like this, who needs COINTELPRO?

>

> >

>

> > -Matthew

>

>

>

>

>

" G-d said, 'See, I give you every seed-bearing plant that is upon all

the

> earth, and every tree that has seed-bearing fruit; they shall be yours

> for food. And to all the animals on land, to all the birds of the

sky,

> and to everything that creeps on earth, in which there is the breath

of

> life, [i give] all the green plants for food.' And it was so. And

G-d

> saw all that He had made, and found it very good. " [Genesis, 1:29-31]

>

>

>

> Veggie Jews is an on-line and real world organization with events in

> local communities dedicated to supporting Jewish vegans and

vegetarians

> of all ages and spreading vegan, vegetarian and animal rights values

into

> the Jewish community. Our non-Jewish friends are always welcome.

Please

> tell a friend about us.

>

>

>

> And remember: It's only kosher if it's cruelty-free.

Pete <plcohon wrote:

 

The following article from today's Chronicle tells the story of an

attack

by supposed animal rights protesters on the home of a lawyer employed by

 

one of Huntingdon Life Sciences corporate clients. Huntingdon, as you

probably know, engages in horribly cruel and unnecessary animal

experiments

for it's clients. It's conduct is totally inexcusable.

 

But so is the conduct of those who attack a home in the name of the AR

movement. Such violent conduct only plays into the hands of those who

call

our movement " terrorist " by taking attention away from the serious work

of

stopping Huntingdon's cruelty and placing it on the tactics of a few

extremists. It is noteworthy that, during the Viet Nam war, U.S.

government

agents infiltrated to anti-war movement (Project Cointelpro) and turned

it

to violent tactics in a successful effort to damage the anti-war

movement.

And it raises serious questions about the motives who would use such

tactics now in the name of our AR movement.

 

Sadly, those same extremists will continue their inexcusably foolish and

 

harmful tactics as long as there are those who will support them. In my

opinion, those who support such tactics by going to violent

demonstration,

even if they do not participate in the violence, condone terror tactics

and

all the harm that such tactics are doing to the AR movement.

 

For an example of just how one can use one's energy and creativity to

help

develop the AR movement into a mass movement that will finally end

cruelty

of the kind practiced against animal victims by Huntingdon, just

consider

the fine work of the folks at Farm Sanctuary or IDA's Project Hope, who

dedicate their lives to saving animals and using them to publicize the

plight of so many others who could not be saved. Consider the work of

Tribe

of Heart, whose new documentary, Peaceable Kingdom, about Farm

Sanctuary,

may well turn the hearts of millions toward a more compassionate

lifestyle.

 

Then ask yourself: Whose work will really make a difference by turning

public sentiment against animal cruelty, those who work in a

compassionate,

intelligent and realistic way to save animal lives and build a movement

or

those who throw childish temper tantrums and commit crimes in the name

of

our movement?

 

Whether we win this struggle for compassion sooner or later will depend

on

the tactics we choose. I, for one, choose to win sooner by rejecting the

 

violent and childish tactics that can only serve to defeat or slow us

down.

For the sake of our movement's success, for the sake of the billions or

trillions of animals who will suffer more every day that our victory is

delayed by extreme and counterproductive tactics, won't you please join

me?

 

Pete

 

_

 

San Francisco Chronicle

Monday, August 16, 2004

 

ORINDA

Top Chiron lawyer's home is vandalized

Protesters clothed in black linked to animal-rights group

 

Henry K. Lee, Chronicle Staff Writer

 

 

 

 

 

Orinda police are investigating the vandalism of the East Bay home of

Chiron Corp.'s top attorney on Sunday, in which a group of people broke

windows and tried to flood his home with water during a noisy protest.

 

Neighbors said the people were animal-rights protesters wearing black

clothing and masks, and carrying signs. The demonstrators converged on

the

home of Chiron's general counsel William Green on Sunnyside Court in

Orinda

abou

t 10:15 a.m. while he was away on vacation, neighbors said.

 

 

The protester

s broke about a dozen windows and turned on his garden hose in his

backya

rd deck, and left after 20 minutes. No arrests were made, but neighbors

provided license plate numbers to Orinda police.

 

" I feel a bit violated

by this, " Green said Sunday evening, minutes after retur

n

ing home to survey the damage. " I think it's beyond the pale of what

should

be permissible in civilized society. "

 

The protest comes six months aft

er Chiron filed a lawsuit against Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty USA. Th

e group's name refers to Huntingdon Life Sciences, a New Jersey company

t

hat performs animal testing for clients, including Chiron.

 

It was n

ot immediately clear Sunday whether the protesters were connected to the

Sto

p Huntingdon group.

 

Green, 60, has previously been the target of protest

ers over at least the past two years, with flyers stuck on telephone

phones

and gravestones placed nearby representing dead ani

m

als. Other employees have also been awakened by late-night visits by

protest

ers with megaphones.

 

Neighbor Jim Abrams, 60, said the Orinda protest b

egan with marching and chanting. But tensions grew when Abrams

tried to block the side gate to Green's home, and some protesters charge

d past him.

 

" They ran toward one of the gates that goes into the ba

ckyard, " A

b

rams said. " They broke some windows, and the hose was running on the

deck

-- I don't know if they intended to throw the hose into the broken

window.

There were some people obviously bent on doing some damage. "

 

Chiron's

lawsuit said that the names, addresses and phone numbers of Chiron empl

oyees have been posted on a Web site and that the group has worked

with a fugitive suspected of planting bombs at the firm and another

busin

ess last year.

 

The suspect, Daniel Andreas San Diego, 25, of Sonoma is ac

cused of planting a pipe bomb on Aug. 28 at Chiron and another on S

ept. 26 at Shaklee Corp., a

P

leasanton firm that makes health, beauty and household products.

 

San

Diego remains at large, Special Agent LaRae Quy, FBI spokeswoman in

San Francisco, said Sunday. A $50,000 reward is being offered for tips

in th

e case.

 

In a June ruling, Alameda County Superior Court Judge Steven Bric

k said Chiron had a chance

 

of prevailing in the lawsuit and denied a request by the animal-rights g

roup to throw out the complaint as a SLAPP suit, or one that restricte

d its free-speech rights.

 

Brick said Chiron's lawsuit had more to do with

" acts of unlawful harassment and threats " rather than the animal-rights

gr

oup's right to free speech. " Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty USA's) free

s

peech rights under the First Amendment do not protect its conduct in

this

situation, " Brick wrote.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

MessageThere's a difference between constructive and destructive direct action,

Julie. Constructive direct action, like rescuing abused animals, helps both the

animals saved and the animal rights movement. Destructive direct action, like

pipe bombings or home invasions, only discredits our movement and takes

attention away from the problems we seek to redress by putting it on extreme

tactics. Thus, in the media, the tactics become the story, not the animals, and

the movement is tarnished.

 

In any campaign against injustice I don't think that the end ever really

justifies the means. That's because the means have a way of becoming the end.

Thus, one unjust society replaces another. But real justice is still nowhere to

be found.

 

In our search for justice, I sure hope we'll avoid creating more injustice along

the way.

 

 

-

Julie Dull

'Matthew G Liebman' ; 'Pete'

Cc: 'South Bay Veggies' ; 'Veggie Jews' ; '' ; 'Freedom For Animals' ;

'BAARN' ;

Wednesday, August 18, 2004 9:30 PM

RE: Re: Top Chiron lawyer's home is vandalized -- Protesters

clothed in black linked to animal-rights group

 

 

All,

 

Anyone disagreeing with direct action by those who have strong feelings about

the injustices faced in the U.S., whether those injustices are against people,

or animals, should refresh their memories about the ability of such direct

action to mobilize the public. The first such direct action that in itself was

considered an enormous patriotic act in this country was against big business

and for small tea farmers, and was known as the " Boston Tea Party " . Those of

you familiar with the reasons of this direct action, I will not bore: for those

others I suggest you refresh your memories. It was the " kickoff " of the

Revolutionary War. I disagree that direct action does not work. While I laud

Gandhi and King's work, and agree it was effective, any student of history knows

that BOTH violence and nonviolence have their place in any effective campaign

against injustice. Further, a careful study and endless conversation about

which is ore appropriate in any given campaingn against injustice was never

performed prior to taking action.

 

More succinctly said: People may or may not agree with you, but sometimes you

have to make your voice heard!!!

 

Just my $0.02!!

 

Julie

 

 

Matthew G Liebman [mliebman]

Monday, August 16, 2004 11:30 PM

Pete

Cc: South Bay Veggies; Veggie Jews; ; Freedom For Animals; BAARN;

 

Re: Top Chiron lawyer's home is vandalized -- Protesters

clothed in black linked to animal-rights group

 

 

[i've added the list to the recipients, because I think this issue

deserves serious attention. Those new to this thread can read from the

bottom up. This thread began this morning on most other bay area AR lists,

and is in regards to the recent property destruction at the Orinda home of

William Green, a lawyer for Chiron and a major supporter of Huntingdon Life

Sciences. Pete Cohon has criticized such tactics, while I disagree with

him.]

 

Pete,

 

First and foremost, I want to say I appreciate the nuance and

constructiveness of your latest email. I think that the more we actually

empirically discuss and evaluate our tactics, the more effective we'll be.

That requires everyone to avoid pigeonholing people as either sell-outs

(mainstream) or terrorists (direct action). There are not two opposing

camps, but rather a spectrum of tactics, most of which will be needed for

animal liberation. As a future animal rights lawyer myself (I'm currently a

student at Stanford Law School), I've chosen to pursue more mainstream

avenues, as you have Pete, but I understand that the battle will not be won

with law alone.

 

Second, I really think you should disavow your earlier statement about

finking on those who advocate direct action. Your suggestion can only fuel

a sense of paranoia and fear among those who work for animal liberation.

The only kind of rats we need more of in this movement are the kind that we

save from HLS.

 

THE MORAL ISSUE:

Regardless of what your dictionary says, violence carries an extremely

strong connotation, especially in the context of animal rights activism and

the Bush/Ashcroft regime. Words mean what they convey, nothing more and

nothing less. When the animal exploitation industries use the word, they

intend to convey an image of animal rights activists as violent towards

humans. It is very important for us to make people realize that in 30 years

(I mistakenly said 20 in my last email), ALF actions have caused hundreds

of millions of dollars in damage, and liberated thousands of animals, but

not one single person has been injured or killed. When you partner up with

William Green (who whined about " animal rights terrorists " in front of the

US Senate Judiciary Committee three months ago, also the man whose house

was trashed yesterday) or Teresa Platt (the executive director of the Fur

Commission) to decry violence, you tacitly accept the connotations that our

enemies ascribe to the term " violence. " AR advocates should tease out the

multiple meanings of words like " terror " and " violence " to point out

crucial differences between what we do and what they do. When you lump SHAC

activists in with violent people, you're doing the oppositions work for

them.

 

As for the Golden Rule, I think it makes for some pretty ineffective

activism. Should we only use tactics that our opponents are HAPPY with?

That seems nonsensical to me. Even mainstream campaigns are not consistent

with the golden rule. I would not want someone to put me out of work (as we

all wish to do with slaughterhouse employees); I would not want someone to

pass a law against my livelihood (as many of us are lobbying for in

California against foie gras); I would not want someone to disturb me with

nightmarish pictures of death (as mainstream pamphlets do), and so on. Do

they ENJOY our tactics? Would we enjoy them if they were done to us? No, of

course not. But that doesn't make these tactics immoral.

 

If property becomes an object of moral consideration, the rich will

continue to hold precedence over the rest of us who own less property. And

since property is only that which the law recognizes as belonging to

someone (as a lawyer, I'm sure you're familiar with legal positivism), any

animal liberation is by definition a property crime, since animals are

nothing more than property in the eyes of the US legal system. Was the ALF

breaking the Golden Rule when they broke into the Penn Head Injury Lab to

liberate tortured primates? Was that not a form of property theft?

 

And while we're quoting our " chosen people, " how about this one, from Dr.

Maxwell Schnurer:

" The ALF and Holocaust resistance represent a method of bringing about new

understanding that challenges these mental habits [of objectification,

fragmentation, and consumption]. The actions of these militants blaze new

paths of meaning far beyond the direct action they participate in. The

meaning of active militant resistance can pervade the popular consciousness

of entire societies, and in the case of the ALF and of the Holocaust

resistance, their actions work to make mindlessness more difficult. "

 

The world might be a very different place had these Holocaust resistance

fighters treated the Nazis as they would have wanted to be treated.

 

If we could win liberation for animals through sanctuaries and compassion

alone, not a single person would participate in militant direct action.

Everyone wishes it were that simple. It's not.

 

THE EFFECTIVENESS ISSUE:

As I said in my last email, this is the issue I'm less comfortable with.

Pete, you say that these tactics will not win over the hearts and minds of

the average American. I think you're right. Sabotage cannot " help our AR

movement grow into the mass movement we must achieve in order to reach our

goals. " But I don't think that's the goal of direct action.

 

Our struggle is a multi-layered one. On the one hand, we seek to create a

cultural shift towards ethical respect for non-human animals. On the other

hand, we seek to alleviate the suffering experienced RIGHT NOW by living

animals.

 

We work towards the first, long-term goal through education, legislation,

lawsuits, documentaries, and other mainstream tactics, including Pete's

laudable accomplishments.

 

The second, short-term goal demands less patience and demands DIRECT

action. Sabotage, vandalism, and property destruction will not make William

Green more compassionate. But they just might encourage him and others to

stop supporting HLS. The past 5 years have shown how effective these

strategies can be at crippling animal abusers.

 

Of course, we have to be sure that we don't compromise the first goal in

pursuing the second. If sabotage and property destruction give us a bad

image, then we should strongly reconsider those tactics. But it's not clear

that the coverage is always bad press. And it's not clear that bad press

can't be helpful. PETA got terrible press in the 80s for supporting the ALF

rescues, and today it is the dominant voice in popular culture for

mainstream animal rights. The civil rights movement and the Montgomery Bus

Boycott got terrible press, but we know now that they were right, and they

succeeded to some degree. Karen Dawn of Dawnwatch.com keeps a close eye on

the way these issues play out in the popular media, and her webpage is a

helpful tool to think about AR media images.

 

I don't believe that sabotage and property destruction are always good in

and of themselves. They're good to the degree they're effective. This means

the movement should be very thoughtful about when we use these tactics:

activists can't simply smash stuff when the rage hits them. Thoughtless

destruction can be counter-productive and these activists end up acting

selfishly: they satiate their own feelings while animals suffer as a

result. But this also means that we shouldn't condemn thoughtful

destruction. Destruction that is calculated at strategic targets, as the

SHAC campaign is, can be effective. Quoting Shakespeare: " There is nothing

either good or bad, but thinking makes it so. "

 

Of course some tactics are more effective than others. For me, I think open

rescues are generally better than lab raids. I think home demos that last

for 2 hours are generally better than home sabotages that last for 8

minutes. I think arguing against animal abusers is generally better than

intimidating them. I think good press is generally better than bad press.

But these are my preferences, and I'll save my venom for the exploiters,

not for those allies who disagree with my preferences.

 

Best,

Matthew

 

 

 

Quoting Pete <plcohon:

 

>

>

>

>

>

> Thanks for your thoughtful response to my post, Matthew. You wrote:

> " The

>

> question is not one of morality, since direct action causes no physical

>

> suffering, only economic suffering. " I respectfully dissent.

>

>

>

> The cornerstone of all morality is, of course, the Golden Rule. Since I

>

> moderate the Veggie Jews' , perhaps I should phrase it in the

>

> negative as Rabbi Hillel did: Do not do unto others that which you would

> not

>

> want them to do unto you. I understand that it's stated in the positive

> in

>

> some cultures but the meaning is the same. I don't think any one of us

>

> would consider it anything less than unacceptable if we were personally

>

> victimized in a way that caused us only economic but not physical

> suffering,

>

> especially in an effort intended to intimidate.

>

>

>

> I've got a real problem with the " new " definition of violence as

> something

>

> that " can only truly be perpetuated against sentient beings, " according

> to

>

> Matthew. I'm afraid that not only I but the dictionary as well disagrees

>

> with you. According to my admittedly not " new " Funk & Wangles, violence

>

> involves the use of force to achieve ends. It has nothing to do with the

>

> object of the force or whether it is sentient.

>

>

>

> But I agree that, at least on one level, as you said, " The question IS

> one

>

> of effectiveness. " And by that measure alone, violence should be

> rejected.

>

> If you think that violence will help our AR movement grow into the mass

>

> movement we must achieve in order to reach our goals, just ask some of

> the

>

> 95% of Americans who eat a standard American diet what they think of

> animal

>

> rights " terrorism, " as the media calls it. I think you'll find that very

>

> few of them are sympathetic to our cause. The fact is that mainstream

>

> Americans, the very people we have to reach with our message, do not

> approve

>

> of violent tactics to achieve social change, (at least here in the

>

> homeland), and they become more estranged from rather than sympathetic to

>

> our cause with every new act that they perceive to be " terror. " The

> media,

>

> which represents financial interests tied to animal exploitation, will

> not

>

> miss a chance to portray any small act of isolated violence as typical of

>

> the AR movement as a whole. They understand the value of making our

>

> movement look extreme by focusing on violence. So should we, and we

> should

>

> learn to avoid that very extremism in order to most quickly defeat the

>

> forces of cruelty arrayed against us.

>

>

>

> I regret that my self-righteousness offends you, Matthew. I freely admit

> to

>

> having that fault, but as faults go, it's not so bad. It's inspired me

>

> during my career to provide free legal representation to about 30 animal

>

> rights and peace activists charged with demonstration related crimes (not

>

> one of whom ever served one minute in jail); I've written the three

> sections

>

> of the California Green Party platform dealing with animal issues, and

> I'm

>

> proud to say it's the most progressive AR platform of any political party

> on

>

> earth as far as I know; I've organized Greens for the Ethical Treatment

> of

>

> Animals within the California Green Party to get the AR platform planks

>

> passed; I organized the University Alumni Campaign Against Vivisection

> for

>

> In Defense of Animals to decrease alumni contributions to universities

>

> involved in animal experimentation (and that's just about all of them);

> and,

>

> most recently, I've organized Veggie Jews to try to spread the veggie

>

> message into the Jewish community, whose support is needed to end some

>

> slaughterhouse abuses. Now, I know that's not much compared to what many

>

> professional animal activists have done and do every day, but it's the

> best

>

> that I could squeeze in while earning a living, and it's a lot better

> than

>

> nothing. So, if I am a bit self-righteous at times, at least I do try to

>

> put it to good and nonviolent use. (Thank goodness you didn't point out

> how

>

> egotistical I am. Now that would be a lot harder to defend.) ;-)

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> -

>

> " Matthew G Liebman " <mliebman

>

> " Pete " <plcohon

>

> Cc: " South Bay Veggies " ; " Veggie Jews "

>

> <VeggieJews >; " " ; " Freedom

> For

>

> Animals " <freedomforanimals >; " BAARN "

>

> <baarn >

>

> Monday, August 16, 2004 1:11 PM

>

> Re: Top Chiron lawyer's home is vandalized -- Protesters clothed

> in

>

> black linked to animal-rights group

>

>

>

>

>

> > Pete,

>

> >

>

> > Anger and destruction may make you uncomfortable, and that is fine. You

>

> may

>

> > choose to be activist in other ways. But don't get self-righteous

> against

>

> > activists that have been successful in bringing HLS attrocities to

> light,

>

> > and in bringing HLS to its knees.

>

> >

>

> > Your inability to distinguish between property destruction and true

>

> > violence demonstrates the degreee to which you've been duped by the

> forces

>

> > that attempt to discredit our movement. Breaking windows that were

> payed

>

> > for with blood money is not violence. Neither is embarassing an animal

>

> > abuser in front of his/her neighbors by " outting " them. Violence is

>

> > punching a beagle puppy in the face. Violence is dissecting a monkey

> while

>

> > she's still alive. Violence is killing 500 animals every day.

>

> >

>

> > " Violence " can only truly be perpetuated against sentient beings. While

> I

>

> > do not participate in property destruction, I understand the motives of

>

> > those who do. Sabotage has been a driving force behind every freedom

>

> > movement, from the Boston Tea Party to the suffragettes to the Jewish

>

> > resistance fighters. Please reconsider the way you use the term

>

> " violence. "

>

> > I do not support violence in this movement, and I would be upspeakably

>

> > dissappointed if a living being were hurt or killed as a result of

> these

>

> > actions. But in 20 years of operation, not a single human being has

> been

>

> > harmed by the actions of the Animal Liberation Front. Again, these

> actions

>

> > are not for me; but I understand those who are comfortable with them.

>

> >

>

> > The question is not one of morality, since direct action causes no

>

> physical

>

> > suffering, only economic suffering. The question IS one of

> effectiveness.

>

> > It's undeniable that the SHAC campaign has struck hard against HLS's

>

> > economic interests. The media image question is a bit more difficult.

>

> > Whether or not these types of actions give animal rights a good image

> or

>

> > bad image is an empirical question, and not a simple one. Clearly these

>

> > things turn some people off. But on the other hand these actions bring

> the

>

> > issue into the public realm where they can be discussed. If you believe

> in

>

> > the rightness of our cause, you should be comfortable with that.

>

> >

>

> > Anyone who watched ABC7 news last night saw that for, I believe, only

> the

>

> > second time, footage of HLS attrocities were showed on prime time news,

> to

>

> > an audience of thousands. This would not have happened but for a few

>

> broken

>

> > windows.

>

> >

>

> > These actions also help make groups like PETA seem more moderate in

>

> > comparison. They let people know that this is a serious issue that

> people

>

> > feel extremely passionate about. Sure Tribe of Heart does the same

> thing,

>

> > and that's great. The more strategies we use, the more effective we'll

> be.

>

> >

>

> > I think the strategies we use should be discussed thouroughly, with a

>

> focus

>

> > on whether or not they WORK. This is a tactical discussion that we

> can't

>

> > ignore. However, holier-than-though assertions of " childishness " and

>

> > " terrorism " are not responsible ways of strategic planning.

>

> >

>

> > For anyone interested in a nuanced and thoughtful discussion of these

>

> > issues, I highly recommend Steven Best's new book " Terrorists or

> Freedom

>

> > Fighters? " Also, Satya magazine recently did a very balanced 2 issue

>

> series

>

> > on activism, violence, and sabotage.

>

> >

>

> > Finally, for those of you not on the veggiejews list, I thought you

> might

>

> > be interested in seeing what Pete said in a secondary posting:

>

> >

>

> > " When groups known to use violent tactics advertise a demonstration, we

>

> can

>

> > speak and write to warn folks of the dangers of such tactics. The

> groups

>

> > who engage in such tactics should never be allowed to give the

> impression

>

> > that they speak for our movement.We can avoid all AR actions and

>

> > fundraisers by groups that encourage or use violence. In my opinion, we

>

> > should even go so far as to inform the authorities about any past or

>

> > planned terror acts in the name of our movement, so as to protect our

>

> > movement and the animals from the violent backlash that terror tactics

> can

>

> > cause. "

>

> >

>

> > With friends like this, who needs COINTELPRO?

>

> >

>

> > -Matthew

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> " G-d said, 'See, I give you every seed-bearing plant that is upon all the

> earth, and every tree that has seed-bearing fruit; they shall be yours

> for food. And to all the animals on land, to all the birds of the sky,

> and to everything that creeps on earth, in which there is the breath of

> life, [i give] all the green plants for food.' And it was so. And G-d

> saw all that He had made, and found it very good. " [Genesis, 1:29-31]

>

>

>

> Veggie Jews is an on-line and real world organization with events in

> local communities dedicated to supporting Jewish vegans and vegetarians

> of all ages and spreading vegan, vegetarian and animal rights values into

> the Jewish community. Our non-Jewish friends are always welcome. Please

> tell a friend about us.

>

>

>

> And remember: It's only kosher if it's cruelty-free.

Pete <plcohon wrote:

 

The following article from today's Chronicle tells the story of an attack

by supposed animal rights protesters on the home of a lawyer employed by

one of Huntingdon Life Sciences corporate clients. Huntingdon, as you

probably know, engages in horribly cruel and unnecessary animal experiments

for it's clients. It's conduct is totally inexcusable.

 

But so is the conduct of those who attack a home in the name of the AR

movement. Such violent conduct only plays into the hands of those who call

our movement " terrorist " by taking attention away from the serious work of

stopping Huntingdon's cruelty and placing it on the tactics of a few

extremists. It is noteworthy that, during the Viet Nam war, U.S. government

agents infiltrated to anti-war movement (Project Cointelpro) and turned it

to violent tactics in a successful effort to damage the anti-war movement.

And it raises serious questions about the motives who would use such

tactics now in the name of our AR movement.

 

Sadly, those same extremists will continue their inexcusably foolish and

harmful tactics as long as there are those who will support them. In my

opinion, those who support such tactics by going to violent demonstration,

even if they do not participate in the violence, condone terror tactics and

all the harm that such tactics are doing to the AR movement.

 

For an example of just how one can use one's energy and creativity to help

develop the AR movement into a mass movement that will finally end cruelty

of the kind practiced against animal victims by Huntingdon, just consider

the fine work of the folks at Farm Sanctuary or IDA's Project Hope, who

dedicate their lives to saving animals and using them to publicize the

plight of so many others who could not be saved. Consider the work of Tribe

of Heart, whose new documentary, Peaceable Kingdom, about Farm Sanctuary,

may well turn the hearts of millions toward a more compassionate lifestyle.

 

Then ask yourself: Whose work will really make a difference by turning

public sentiment against animal cruelty, those who work in a compassionate,

intelligent and realistic way to save animal lives and build a movement or

those who throw childish temper tantrums and commit crimes in the name of

our movement?

 

Whether we win this struggle for compassion sooner or later will depend on

the tactics we choose. I, for one, choose to win sooner by rejecting the

violent and childish tactics that can only serve to defeat or slow us down.

For the sake of our movement's success, for the sake of the billions or

trillions of animals who will suffer more every day that our victory is

delayed by extreme and counterproductive tactics, won't you please join me?

 

Pete

 

_

 

San Francisco Chronicle

Monday, August 16, 2004

 

ORINDA

Top Chiron lawyer's home is vandalized

Protesters clothed in black linked to animal-rights group

 

Henry K. Lee, Chronicle Staff Writer

 

 

 

 

 

Orinda police are investigating the vandalism of the East Bay home of

Chiron Corp.'s top attorney on Sunday, in which a group of people broke

windows and tried to flood his home with water during a noisy protest.

 

Neighbors said the people were animal-rights protesters wearing black

clothing and masks, and carrying signs. The demonstrators converged on the

home of Chiron's general counsel William Green on Sunnyside Court in Orinda

abou

t 10:15 a.m. while he was away on vacation, neighbors said.

 

 

The protester

s broke about a dozen windows and turned on his garden hose in his backya

rd deck, and left after 20 minutes. No arrests were made, but neighbors

provided license plate numbers to Orinda police.

 

" I feel a bit violated

by this, " Green said Sunday evening, minutes after retur

n

ing home to survey the damage. " I think it's beyond the pale of what should

be permissible in civilized society. "

 

The protest comes six months aft

er Chiron filed a lawsuit against Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty USA. Th

e group's name refers to Huntingdon Life Sciences, a New Jersey company t

hat performs animal testing for clients, including Chiron.

 

It was n

ot immediately clear Sunday whether the protesters were connected to the Sto

p Huntingdon group.

 

Green, 60, has previously been the target of protest

ers over at least the past two years, with flyers stuck on telephone phones

and gravestones placed nearby representing dead ani

m

als. Other employees have also been awakened by late-night visits by protest

ers with megaphones.

 

Neighbor Jim Abrams, 60, said the Orinda protest b

egan with marching and chanting. But tensions grew when Abrams

tried to block the side gate to Green's home, and some protesters charge

d past him.

 

" They ran toward one of the gates that goes into the ba

ckyard, " A

b

rams said. " They broke some windows, and the hose was running on the deck

-- I don't know if they intended to throw the hose into the broken window.

There were some people obviously bent on doing some damage. "

 

Chiron's

lawsuit said that the names, addresses and phone numbers of Chiron empl

oyees have been posted on a Web site and that the group has worked

with a fugitive suspected of planting bombs at the firm and another busin

ess last year.

 

The suspect, Daniel Andreas San Diego, 25, of Sonoma is ac

cused of planting a pipe bomb on Aug. 28 at Chiron and another on S

ept. 26 at Shaklee Corp., a

P

leasanton firm that makes health, beauty and household products.

 

San

Diego remains at large, Special Agent LaRae Quy, FBI spokeswoman in

San Francisco, said Sunday. A $50,000 reward is being offered for tips in th

e case.

 

In a June ruling, Alameda County Superior Court Judge Steven Bric

k said Chiron had a chance

 

of prevailing in the lawsuit and denied a request by the animal-rights g

roup to throw out the complaint as a SLAPP suit, or one that restricte

d its free-speech rights.

 

Brick said Chiron's lawsuit had more to do with

" acts of unlawful harassment and threats " rather than the animal-rights gr

oup's right to free speech. " Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty USA's) free s

peech rights under the First Amendment do not protect its conduct in this

situation, " Brick wrote.

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Pete,

 

I respectfully disagree. I doubt that the folks in Mass and along the

eastern seaboard ultimately believed en masse that the destruction of

the East Indian Tea Company's tea on those ships created were victims

nor that those folks ultimately discredited the revolutionary movement.

While there may have been folks that disagreed with the tactics (and by

analogy, you join their ranks), others were alerted to the issue and it

gave them food for thought. So while your opinion, while interesting,

is one of many, others have an opportunity to take notice and determine

what they think.Many, once they learn of this issue, ultimately agree

with the cause, if not the means by which they were alerted to it.

 

In effect, in this way, the ends did justify the means.

 

Julie

 

 

 

*****************************

 

" If not me, who? If not now, when?

We are here on Earth to do good to others. What the others are here for,

I don't know.

-- W.H. Auden

 

 

*****************************

" I like pigs. Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us. Pigs treat us

as equals. "

- Sir Winston Churchill

**********************************************************************

Free Farm Animals from Cruelty, Cannibalism, Confinement and Drugs:

<http://www.factoryfarming.com/gallery.htm>

http://www.factoryfarming.com/gallery.htm

 

The worst sin toward our fellow creatures is not to hate them, but to be

indifferent to them: that's the essence of inhumanity. " -----George

Bernard Shaw

*******************************************************************

Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. -

Albert Einstein

*******************************************************************

Peace cannot be kept by force; it can only be achieved by understanding.

- Albert Einstein

 

 

 

 

Pete [plcohon]

Wednesday, August 18, 2004 10:00 PM

Julie Dull;

Re: Re: Top Chiron lawyer's home is vandalized --

Protesters clothed in black linked to animal-rights group

 

 

There's a difference between constructive and destructive direct action,

Julie. Constructive direct action, like rescuing abused animals, helps

both the animals saved and the animal rights movement. Destructive

direct action, like pipe bombings or home invasions, only discredits our

movement and takes attention away from the problems we seek to redress

by putting it on extreme tactics. Thus, in the media, the tactics

become the story, not the animals, and the movement is tarnished.

 

In any campaign against injustice I don't think that the end ever really

justifies the means. That's because the means have a way of becoming

the end. Thus, one unjust society replaces another. But real justice

is still nowhere to be found.

 

In our search for justice, I sure hope we'll avoid creating more

injustice along the way.

 

 

 

-

Julie Dull <dullcats

'Matthew G Liebman' <mliebman ; 'Pete'

<plcohon

Cc: 'South Bay Veggies' ;

'Veggie Jews' <VeggieJews > ; ''

; 'Freedom For Animals'

<freedomforanimals > ; 'BAARN'

<baarn > ;

Wednesday, August 18, 2004 9:30 PM

RE: Re: Top Chiron lawyer's home is vandalized --

Protesters clothed in black linked to animal-rights group

 

All,

 

Anyone disagreeing with direct action by those who have strong feelings

about the injustices faced in the U.S., whether those injustices are

against people, or animals, should refresh their memories about the

ability of such direct action to mobilize the public. The first such

direct action that in itself was considered an enormous patriotic act in

this country was against big business and for small tea farmers, and was

known as the " Boston Tea Party " . Those of you familiar with the reasons

of this direct action, I will not bore: for those others I suggest you

refresh your memories. It was the " kickoff " of the Revolutionary War.

I disagree that direct action does not work. While I laud Gandhi and

King's work, and agree it was effective, any student of history knows

that BOTH violence and nonviolence have their place in any effective

campaign against injustice. Further, a careful study and endless

conversation about which is ore appropriate in any given campaingn

against injustice was never performed prior to taking action.

 

More succinctly said: People may or may not agree with you, but

sometimes you have to make your voice heard!!!

 

Just my $0.02!!

 

Julie

 

 

 

 

Matthew G Liebman [mliebman]

Monday, August 16, 2004 11:30 PM

Pete

Cc: South Bay Veggies; Veggie Jews; ; Freedom For Animals; BAARN;

 

Re: Top Chiron lawyer's home is vandalized --

Protesters clothed in black linked to animal-rights group

 

 

[i've added the list to the recipients, because I think this

issue

deserves serious attention. Those new to this thread can read from the

bottom up. This thread began this morning on most other bay area AR

lists,

and is in regards to the recent property destruction at the Orinda home

of

William Green, a lawyer for Chiron and a major supporter of Huntingdon

Life

Sciences. Pete Cohon has criticized such tactics, while I disagree with

 

him.]

 

Pete,

 

First and foremost, I want to say I appreciate the nuance and

constructiveness of your latest email. I think that the more we actually

 

empirically discuss and evaluate our tactics, the more effective we'll

be.

That requires everyone to avoid pigeonholing people as either sell-outs

(mainstream) or terrorists (direct action). There are not two opposing

camps, but rather a spectrum of tactics, most of which will be needed

for

animal liberation. As a future animal rights lawyer myself (I'm

currently a

student at Stanford Law School), I've chosen to pursue more mainstream

avenues, as you have Pete, but I understand that the battle will not be

won

with law alone.

 

Second, I really think you should disavow your earlier statement about

finking on those who advocate direct action. Your suggestion can only

fuel

a sense of paranoia and fear among those who work for animal liberation.

 

The only kind of rats we need more of in this movement are the kind that

we

save from HLS.

 

THE MORAL ISSUE:

Regardless of what your dictionary says, violence carries an extremely

strong connotation, especially in the context of animal rights activism

and

the Bush/Ashcroft regime. Words mean what they convey, nothing more and

nothing less. When the animal exploitation industries use the word, they

 

intend to convey an image of animal rights activists as violent towards

humans. It is very important for us to make people realize that in 30

years

(I mistakenly said 20 in my last email), ALF actions have caused

hundreds

of millions of dollars in damage, and liberated thousands of animals,

but

not one single person has been injured or killed. When you partner up

with

William Green (who whined about " animal rights terrorists " in front of

the

US Senate Judiciary Committee three months ago, also the man whose house

 

was trashed yesterday) or Teresa Platt (the executive director of the

Fur

Commission) to decry violence, you tacitly accept the connotations that

our

enemies ascribe to the term " violence. " AR advocates should tease out

the

multiple meanings of words like " terror " and " violence " to point out

crucial differences between what we do and what they do. When you lump

SHAC

activists in with violent people, you're doing the oppositions work for

them.

 

As for the Golden Rule, I think it makes for some pretty ineffective

activism. Should we only use tactics that our opponents are HAPPY with?

That seems nonsensical to me. Even mainstream campaigns are not

consistent

with the golden rule. I would not want someone to put me out of work (as

we

all wish to do with slaughterhouse employees); I would not want someone

to

pass a law against my livelihood (as many of us are lobbying for in

California against foie gras); I would not want someone to disturb me

with

nightmarish pictures of death (as mainstream pamphlets do), and so on.

Do

they ENJOY our tactics? Would we enjoy them if they were done to us? No,

of

course not. But that doesn't make these tactics immoral.

 

If property becomes an object of moral consideration, the rich will

continue to hold precedence over the rest of us who own less property.

And

since property is only that which the law recognizes as belonging to

someone (as a lawyer, I'm sure you're familiar with legal positivism),

any

animal liberation is by definition a property crime, since animals are

nothing more than property in the eyes of the US legal system. Was the

ALF

breaking the Golden Rule when they broke into the Penn Head Injury Lab

to

liberate tortured primates? Was that not a form of property theft?

 

And while we're quoting our " chosen people, " how about this one, from

Dr.

Maxwell Schnurer:

" The ALF and Holocaust resistance represent a method of bringing about

new

understanding that challenges these mental habits [of objectification,

fragmentation, and consumption]. The actions of these militants blaze

new

paths of meaning far beyond the direct action they participate in. The

meaning of active militant resistance can pervade the popular

consciousness

of entire societies, and in the case of the ALF and of the Holocaust

resistance, their actions work to make mindlessness more difficult. "

 

The world might be a very different place had these Holocaust resistance

 

fighters treated the Nazis as they would have wanted to be treated.

 

If we could win liberation for animals through sanctuaries and

compassion

alone, not a single person would participate in militant direct action.

Everyone wishes it were that simple. It's not.

 

THE EFFECTIVENESS ISSUE:

As I said in my last email, this is the issue I'm less comfortable with.

 

Pete, you say that these tactics will not win over the hearts and minds

of

the average American. I think you're right. Sabotage cannot " help our AR

 

movement grow into the mass movement we must achieve in order to reach

our

goals. " But I don't think that's the goal of direct action.

 

Our struggle is a multi-layered one. On the one hand, we seek to create

a

cultural shift towards ethical respect for non-human animals. On the

other

hand, we seek to alleviate the suffering experienced RIGHT NOW by living

 

animals.

 

We work towards the first, long-term goal through education,

legislation,

lawsuits, documentaries, and other mainstream tactics, including Pete's

laudable accomplishments.

 

The second, short-term goal demands less patience and demands DIRECT

action. Sabotage, vandalism, and property destruction will not make

William

Green more compassionate. But they just might encourage him and others

to

stop supporting HLS. The past 5 years have shown how effective these

strategies can be at crippling animal abusers.

 

Of course, we have to be sure that we don't compromise the first goal in

 

pursuing the second. If sabotage and property destruction give us a bad

image, then we should strongly reconsider those tactics. But it's not

clear

that the coverage is always bad press. And it's not clear that bad press

 

can't be helpful. PETA got terrible press in the 80s for supporting the

ALF

rescues, and today it is the dominant voice in popular culture for

mainstream animal rights. The civil rights movement and the Montgomery

Bus

Boycott got terrible press, but we know now that they were right, and

they

succeeded to some degree. Karen Dawn of Dawnwatch.com keeps a close eye

on

the way these issues play out in the popular media, and her webpage is a

 

helpful tool to think about AR media images.

 

I don't believe that sabotage and property destruction are always good

in

and of themselves. They're good to the degree they're effective. This

means

the movement should be very thoughtful about when we use these tactics:

activists can't simply smash stuff when the rage hits them. Thoughtless

destruction can be counter-productive and these activists end up acting

selfishly: they satiate their own feelings while animals suffer as a

result. But this also means that we shouldn't condemn thoughtful

destruction. Destruction that is calculated at strategic targets, as the

 

SHAC campaign is, can be effective. Quoting Shakespeare: " There is

nothing

either good or bad, but thinking makes it so. "

 

Of course some tactics are more effective than others. For me, I think

open

rescues are generally better than lab raids. I think home demos that

last

for 2 hours are generally better than home sabotages that last for 8

minutes. I think arguing against animal abusers is generally better than

 

intimidating them. I think good press is generally better than bad

press.

But these are my preferences, and I'll save my venom for the exploiters,

 

not for those allies who disagree with my preferences.

 

Best,

Matthew

 

 

 

Quoting Pete <plcohon:

 

>

>

>

>

>

> Thanks for your thoughtful response to my post, Matthew. You wrote:

> " The

>

> question is not one of morality, since direct action causes no

physical

>

> suffering, only economic suffering. " I respectfully dissent.

>

>

>

> The cornerstone of all morality is, of course, the Golden Rule. Since

I

>

> moderate the Veggie Jews' , perhaps I should phrase it in

the

>

> negative as Rabbi Hillel did: Do not do unto others that which you

would

> not

>

> want them to do unto you. I understand that it's stated in the

positive

> in

>

> some cultures but the meaning is the same. I don't think any one of

us

>

> would consider it anything less than unacceptable if we were

personally

>

> victimized in a way that caused us only economic but not physical

> suffering,

>

> especially in an effort intended to intimidate.

>

>

>

> I've got a real problem with the " new " definition of violence as

> something

>

> that " can only truly be perpetuated against sentient beings, "

according

> to

>

> Matthew. I'm afraid that not only I but the dictionary as well

disagrees

>

> with you. According to my admittedly not " new " Funk & Wangles,

violence

>

> involves the use of force to achieve ends. It has nothing to do with

the

>

> object of the force or whether it is sentient.

>

>

>

> But I agree that, at least on one level, as you said, " The question IS

> one

>

> of effectiveness. " And by that measure alone, violence should be

> rejected.

>

> If you think that violence will help our AR movement grow into the

mass

>

> movement we must achieve in order to reach our goals, just ask some of

> the

>

> 95% of Americans who eat a standard American diet what they think of

> animal

>

> rights " terrorism, " as the media calls it. I think you'll find that

very

>

> few of them are sympathetic to our cause. The fact is that mainstream

>

> Americans, the very people we have to reach with our message, do not

> approve

>

> of violent tactics to achieve social change, (at least here in the

>

> homeland), and they become more estranged from rather than sympathetic

to

>

> our cause with every new act that they perceive to be " terror. " The

> media,

>

> which represents financial interests tied to animal exploitation, will

> not

>

> miss a chance to portray any small act of isolated violence as typical

of

>

> the AR movement as a whole. They understand the value of making our

>

> movement look extreme by focusing on violence. So should we, and we

> should

>

> learn to avoid that very extremism in order to most quickly defeat the

>

> forces of cruelty arrayed against us.

>

>

>

> I regret that my self-righteousness offends you, Matthew. I freely

admit

> to

>

> having that fault, but as faults go, it's not so bad. It's inspired

me

>

> during my career to provide free legal representation to about 30

animal

>

> rights and peace activists charged with demonstration related crimes

(not

>

> one of whom ever served one minute in jail); I've written the three

> sections

>

> of the California Green Party platform dealing with animal issues, and

> I'm

>

> proud to say it's the most progressive AR platform of any political

party

> on

>

> earth as far as I know; I've organized Greens for the Ethical

Treatment

> of

>

> Animals within the California Green Party to get the AR platform

planks

>

> passed; I organized the University Alumni Campaign Against Vivisection

> for

>

> In Defense of Animals to decrease alumni contributions to universities

>

> involved in animal experimentation (and that's just about all of

them);

> and,

>

> most recently, I've organized Veggie Jews to try to spread the veggie

>

> message into the Jewish community, whose support is needed to end some

>

> slaughterhouse abuses. Now, I know that's not much compared to what

many

>

> professional animal activists have done and do every day, but it's the

> best

>

> that I could squeeze in while earning a living, and it's a lot better

> than

>

> nothing. So, if I am a bit self-righteous at times, at least I do try

to

>

> put it to good and nonviolent use. (Thank goodness you didn't point

out

> how

>

> egotistical I am. Now that would be a lot harder to defend.) ;-)

>

>

>

-

>

> " Matthew G Liebman " <mliebman

>

> " Pete " <plcohon

>

> Cc: " South Bay Veggies " ; " Veggie

Jews "

>

> <VeggieJews >; " " ;

" Freedom

> For

>

> Animals " <freedomforanimals >; " BAARN "

>

> <baarn >

>

> Monday, August 16, 2004 1:11 PM

>

> Re: Top Chiron lawyer's home is vandalized -- Protesters

clothed

> in

>

> black linked to animal-rights group

>

>

>

>

>

> > Pete,

>

> >

>

> > Anger and destruction may make you uncomfortable, and that is fine.

You

>

> may

>

> > choose to be activist in other ways. But don't get self-righteous

> against

>

> > activists that have been successful in bringing HLS attrocities to

> light,

>

> > and in bringing HLS to its knees.

>

> >

>

> > Your inability to distinguish between property destruction and true

>

> > violence demonstrates the degreee to which you've been duped by the

> forces

>

> > that attempt to discredit our movement. Breaking windows that were

> payed

>

> > for with blood money is not violence. Neither is embarassing an

animal

>

> > abuser in front of his/her neighbors by " outting " them. Violence is

>

> > punching a beagle puppy in the face. Violence is dissecting a monkey

> while

>

> > she's still alive. Violence is killing 500 animals every day.

>

> >

>

> > " Violence " can only truly be perpetuated against sentient beings.

While

> I

>

> > do not participate in property destruction, I understand the motives

of

>

> > those who do. Sabotage has been a driving force behind every freedom

>

> > movement, from the Boston Tea Party to the suffragettes to the

Jewish

>

> > resistance fighters. Please reconsider the way you use the term

>

> " violence. "

>

> > I do not support violence in this movement, and I would be

upspeakably

>

> > dissappointed if a living being were hurt or killed as a result of

> these

>

> > actions. But in 20 years of operation, not a single human being has

> been

>

> > harmed by the actions of the Animal Liberation Front. Again, these

> actions

>

> > are not for me; but I understand those who are comfortable with

them.

>

> >

>

> > The question is not one of morality, since direct action causes no

>

> physical

>

> > suffering, only economic suffering. The question IS one of

> effectiveness.

>

> > It's undeniable that the SHAC campaign has struck hard against HLS's

>

> > economic interests. The media image question is a bit more

difficult.

>

> > Whether or not these types of actions give animal rights a good

image

> or

>

> > bad image is an empirical question, and not a simple one. Clearly

these

>

> > things turn some people off. But on the other hand these actions

bring

> the

>

> > issue into the public realm where they can be discussed. If you

believe

> in

>

> > the rightness of our cause, you should be comfortable with that.

>

> >

>

> > Anyone who watched ABC7 news last night saw that for, I believe,

only

> the

>

> > second time, footage of HLS attrocities were showed on prime time

news,

> to

>

> > an audience of thousands. This would not have happened but for a few

>

> broken

>

> > windows.

>

> >

>

> > These actions also help make groups like PETA seem more moderate in

>

> > comparison. They let people know that this is a serious issue that

> people

>

> > feel extremely passionate about. Sure Tribe of Heart does the same

> thing,

>

> > and that's great. The more strategies we use, the more effective

we'll

> be.

>

> >

>

> > I think the strategies we use should be discussed thouroughly, with

a

>

> focus

>

> > on whether or not they WORK. This is a tactical discussion that we

> can't

>

> > ignore. However, holier-than-though assertions of " childishness " and

>

> > " terrorism " are not responsible ways of strategic planning.

>

> >

>

> > For anyone interested in a nuanced and thoughtful discussion of

these

>

> > issues, I highly recommend Steven Best's new book " Terrorists or

> Freedom

>

> > Fighters? " Also, Satya magazine recently did a very balanced 2 issue

>

> series

>

> > on activism, violence, and sabotage.

>

> >

>

> > Finally, for those of you not on the veggiejews list, I thought you

> might

>

> > be interested in seeing what Pete said in a secondary posting:

>

> >

>

> > " When groups known to use violent tactics advertise a demonstration,

we

>

> can

>

> > speak and write to warn folks of the dangers of such tactics. The

> groups

>

> > who engage in such tactics should never be allowed to give the

> impression

>

> > that they speak for our movement.We can avoid all AR actions and

>

> > fundraisers by groups that encourage or use violence. In my opinion,

we

>

> > should even go so far as to inform the authorities about any past or

>

> > planned terror acts in the name of our movement, so as to protect

our

>

> > movement and the animals from the violent backlash that terror

tactics

> can

>

> > cause. "

>

> >

>

> > With friends like this, who needs COINTELPRO?

>

> >

>

> > -Matthew

>

>

>

>

>

" G-d said, 'See, I give you every seed-bearing plant that is upon all

the

> earth, and every tree that has seed-bearing fruit; they shall be yours

> for food. And to all the animals on land, to all the birds of the

sky,

> and to everything that creeps on earth, in which there is the breath

of

> life, [i give] all the green plants for food.' And it was so. And

G-d

> saw all that He had made, and found it very good. " [Genesis, 1:29-31]

>

>

>

> Veggie Jews is an on-line and real world organization with events in

> local communities dedicated to supporting Jewish vegans and

vegetarians

> of all ages and spreading vegan, vegetarian and animal rights values

into

> the Jewish community. Our non-Jewish friends are always welcome.

Please

> tell a friend about us.

>

>

>

> And remember: It's only kosher if it's cruelty-free.

Pete <plcohon wrote:

 

The following article from today's Chronicle tells the story of an

attack

by supposed animal rights protesters on the home of a lawyer employed by

 

one of Huntingdon Life Sciences corporate clients. Huntingdon, as you

probably know, engages in horribly cruel and unnecessary animal

experiments

for it's clients. It's conduct is totally inexcusable.

 

But so is the conduct of those who attack a home in the name of the AR

movement. Such violent conduct only plays into the hands of those who

call

our movement " terrorist " by taking attention away from the serious work

of

stopping Huntingdon's cruelty and placing it on the tactics of a few

extremists. It is noteworthy that, during the Viet Nam war, U.S.

government

agents infiltrated to anti-war movement (Project Cointelpro) and turned

it

to violent tactics in a successful effort to damage the anti-war

movement.

And it raises serious questions about the motives who would use such

tactics now in the name of our AR movement.

 

Sadly, those same extremists will continue their inexcusably foolish and

 

harmful tactics as long as there are those who will support them. In my

opinion, those who support such tactics by going to violent

demonstration,

even if they do not participate in the violence, condone terror tactics

and

all the harm that such tactics are doing to the AR movement.

 

For an example of just how one can use one's energy and creativity to

help

develop the AR movement into a mass movement that will finally end

cruelty

of the kind practiced against animal victims by Huntingdon, just

consider

the fine work of the folks at Farm Sanctuary or IDA's Project Hope, who

dedicate their lives to saving animals and using them to publicize the

plight of so many others who could not be saved. Consider the work of

Tribe

of Heart, whose new documentary, Peaceable Kingdom, about Farm

Sanctuary,

may well turn the hearts of millions toward a more compassionate

lifestyle.

 

Then ask yourself: Whose work will really make a difference by turning

public sentiment against animal cruelty, those who work in a

compassionate,

intelligent and realistic way to save animal lives and build a movement

or

those who throw childish temper tantrums and commit crimes in the name

of

our movement?

 

Whether we win this struggle for compassion sooner or later will depend

on

the tactics we choose. I, for one, choose to win sooner by rejecting the

 

violent and childish tactics that can only serve to defeat or slow us

down.

For the sake of our movement's success, for the sake of the billions or

trillions of animals who will suffer more every day that our victory is

delayed by extreme and counterproductive tactics, won't you please join

me?

 

Pete

 

_

 

San Francisco Chronicle

Monday, August 16, 2004

 

ORINDA

Top Chiron lawyer's home is vandalized

Protesters clothed in black linked to animal-rights group

 

Henry K. Lee, Chronicle Staff Writer

 

 

 

 

 

Orinda police are investigating the vandalism of the East Bay home of

Chiron Corp.'s top attorney on Sunday, in which a group of people broke

windows and tried to flood his home with water during a noisy protest.

 

Neighbors said the people were animal-rights protesters wearing black

clothing and masks, and carrying signs. The demonstrators converged on

the

home of Chiron's general counsel William Green on Sunnyside Court in

Orinda

abou

t 10:15 a.m. while he was away on vacation, neighbors said.

 

 

The protester

s broke about a dozen windows and turned on his garden hose in his

backya

rd deck, and left after 20 minutes. No arrests were made, but neighbors

provided license plate numbers to Orinda police.

 

" I feel a bit violated

by this, " Green said Sunday evening, minutes after retur

n

ing home to survey the damage. " I think it's beyond the pale of what

should

be permissible in civilized society. "

 

The protest comes six months aft

er Chiron filed a lawsuit against Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty USA. Th

e group's name refers to Huntingdon Life Sciences, a New Jersey company

t

hat performs animal testing for clients, including Chiron.

 

It was n

ot immediately clear Sunday whether the protesters were connected to the

Sto

p Huntingdon group.

 

Green, 60, has previously been the target of protest

ers over at least the past two years, with flyers stuck on telephone

phones

and gravestones placed nearby representing dead ani

m

als. Other employees have also been awakened by late-night visits by

protest

ers with megaphones.

 

Neighbor Jim Abrams, 60, said the Orinda protest b

egan with marching and chanting. But tensions grew when Abrams

tried to block the side gate to Green's home, and some protesters charge

d past him.

 

" They ran toward one of the gates that goes into the ba

ckyard, " A

b

rams said. " They broke some windows, and the hose was running on the

deck

-- I don't know if they intended to throw the hose into the broken

window.

There were some people obviously bent on doing some damage. "

 

Chiron's

lawsuit said that the names, addresses and phone numbers of Chiron empl

oyees have been posted on a Web site and that the group has worked

with a fugitive suspected of planting bombs at the firm and another

busin

ess last year.

 

The suspect, Daniel Andreas San Diego, 25, of Sonoma is ac

cused of planting a pipe bomb on Aug. 28 at Chiron and another on S

ept. 26 at Shaklee Corp., a

P

leasanton firm that makes health, beauty and household products.

 

San

Diego remains at large, Special Agent LaRae Quy, FBI spokeswoman in

San Francisco, said Sunday. A $50,000 reward is being offered for tips

in th

e case.

 

In a June ruling, Alameda County Superior Court Judge Steven Bric

k said Chiron had a chance

 

of prevailing in the lawsuit and denied a request by the animal-rights g

roup to throw out the complaint as a SLAPP suit, or one that restricte

d its free-speech rights.

 

Brick said Chiron's lawsuit had more to do with

" acts of unlawful harassment and threats " rather than the animal-rights

gr

oup's right to free speech. " Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty USA's) free

s

peech rights under the First Amendment do not protect its conduct in

this

situation, " Brick wrote.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

p.s. by the way, i used to agree with you but no longer do. Appreciate

the dialogue, but sometimes only by raising the issue into the media

does it get the attention the movement or any issue ultimately deserves.

 

best,

 

Julie

 

 

 

*****************************

 

" If not me, who? If not now, when?

We are here on Earth to do good to others. What the others are here for,

I don't know.

-- W.H. Auden

 

 

*****************************

" I like pigs. Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us. Pigs treat us

as equals. "

- Sir Winston Churchill

**********************************************************************

Free Farm Animals from Cruelty, Cannibalism, Confinement and Drugs:

<http://www.factoryfarming.com/gallery.htm>

http://www.factoryfarming.com/gallery.htm

 

The worst sin toward our fellow creatures is not to hate them, but to be

indifferent to them: that's the essence of inhumanity. " -----George

Bernard Shaw

*******************************************************************

Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. -

Albert Einstein

*******************************************************************

Peace cannot be kept by force; it can only be achieved by understanding.

- Albert Einstein

 

 

 

 

Pete [plcohon]

Wednesday, August 18, 2004 10:00 PM

Julie Dull;

Re: Re: Top Chiron lawyer's home is vandalized --

Protesters clothed in black linked to animal-rights group

 

 

MessageThere's a difference between constructive and destructive direct

action, Julie. Constructive direct action, like rescuing abused

animals, helps both the animals saved and the animal rights movement.

Destructive direct action, like pipe bombings or home invasions, only

discredits our movement and takes attention away from the problems we

seek to redress by putting it on extreme tactics. Thus, in the media,

the tactics become the story, not the animals, and the movement is

tarnished.

 

In any campaign against injustice I don't think that the end ever really

justifies the means. That's because the means have a way of becoming

the end. Thus, one unjust society replaces another. But real justice

is still nowhere to be found.

 

In our search for justice, I sure hope we'll avoid creating more

injustice along the way.

 

 

-

Julie Dull

'Matthew G Liebman' ; 'Pete'

Cc: 'South Bay Veggies' ; 'Veggie Jews' ; '' ; 'Freedom For

Animals' ; 'BAARN' ;

Wednesday, August 18, 2004 9:30 PM

RE: Re: Top Chiron lawyer's home is vandalized --

Protesters clothed in black linked to animal-rights group

 

 

All,

 

Anyone disagreeing with direct action by those who have strong

feelings about the injustices faced in the U.S., whether those

injustices are against people, or animals, should refresh their memories

about the ability of such direct action to mobilize the public. The

first such direct action that in itself was considered an enormous

patriotic act in this country was against big business and for small tea

farmers, and was known as the " Boston Tea Party " . Those of you familiar

with the reasons of this direct action, I will not bore: for those

others I suggest you refresh your memories. It was the " kickoff " of the

Revolutionary War. I disagree that direct action does not work. While

I laud Gandhi and King's work, and agree it was effective, any student

of history knows that BOTH violence and nonviolence have their place in

any effective campaign against injustice. Further, a careful study and

endless conversation about! which is ore appropriate in any given

campaingn against injustice was never performed prior to taking action.

 

 

More succinctly said: People may or may not agree with you, but

sometimes you have to make your voice heard!!!

 

Just my $0.02!!

 

Julie

 

 

Matthew G Liebman [mliebman]

Monday, August 16, 2004 11:30 PM

Pete

Cc: South Bay Veggies; Veggie Jews; ; Freedom For Animals;

BAARN;

Re: Top Chiron lawyer's home is vandalized --

Protesters clothed in black linked to animal-rights group

 

 

[i've added the list to the recipients, because I think this

issue

deserves serious attention. Those new to this thread can read from

the

bottom up. This thread began this morning on most other bay area AR

lists,

and is in regards to the recent property destruction at the Orinda

home of

William Green, a lawyer for Chiron and a major supporter of

Huntingdon Life

Sciences. Pete Cohon has criticized such tactics, while I disagree

with

him.]

 

Pete,

 

First and foremost, I want to say I appreciate the nuance and

constructiveness of your latest email. I think that the more we

actually

empirically discuss and evaluate our tactics, the more effective

we'll be.

That requires everyone to avoid pigeonholing people as either

sell-outs

(mainstream) or terrorists (direct action). There are not two

opposing

camps, but rather a spectrum of tactics, most of which will be

needed for

animal liberation. As a future animal rights lawyer myself (I'm

currently a

student at Stanford Law School), I've chosen to pursue more

mainstream

avenues, as you have Pete, but I understand that the battle will not

be won

with law alone.

 

Second, I really think you should disavow your earlier statement

about

finking on those who advocate direct action. Your suggestion can

only fuel

a sense of paranoia and fear among those who work for animal

liberation.

The only kind of rats we need more of in this movement are the kind

that we

save from HLS.

 

THE MORAL ISSUE:

Regardless of what your dictionary says, violence carries an

extremely

strong connotation, especially in the context of animal rights

activism and

the Bush/Ashcroft regime. Words mean what they convey, nothing more

and

nothing less. When the animal exploitation industries use the word,

they

intend to convey an image of animal rights activists as violent

towards

humans. It is very important for us to make people realize that in

30 years

(I mistakenly said 20 in my last email), ALF actions have caused

hundreds

of millions of dollars in damage, and liberated thousands of

animals, but

not one single person has been injured or killed. When you partner

up with

William Green (who whined about " animal rights terrorists " in front

of the

US Senate Judiciary Committee three months ago, also the man whose

house

was trashed yesterday) or Teresa Platt (the executive director of

the Fur

Commission) to decry violence, you tacitly accept the connotations

that our

enemies ascribe to the term " violence. " AR advocates should tease

out the

multiple meanings of words like " terror " and " violence " to point out

 

crucial differences between what we do and what they do. When you

lump SHAC

activists in with violent people, you're doing the oppositions work

for

them.

 

As for the Golden Rule, I think it makes for some pretty ineffective

 

activism. Should we only use tactics that our opponents are HAPPY

with?

That seems nonsensical to me. Even mainstream campaigns are not

consistent

with the golden rule. I would not want someone to put me out of work

(as we

all wish to do with slaughterhouse employees); I would not want

someone to

pass a law against my livelihood (as many of us are lobbying for in

California against foie gras); I would not want someone to disturb

me with

nightmarish pictures of death (as mainstream pamphlets do), and so

on. Do

they ENJOY our tactics? Would we enjoy them if they were done to us?

No, of

course not. But that doesn't make these tactics immoral.

 

If property becomes an object of moral consideration, the rich will

continue to hold precedence over the rest of us who own less

property. And

since property is only that which the law recognizes as belonging to

 

someone (as a lawyer, I'm sure you're familiar with legal

positivism), any

animal liberation is by definition a property crime, since animals

are

nothing more than property in the eyes of the US legal system. Was

the ALF

breaking the Golden Rule when they broke into the Penn Head Injury

Lab to

liberate tortured primates? Was that not a form of property theft?

 

And while we're quoting our " chosen people, " how about this one,

from Dr.

Maxwell Schnurer:

" The ALF and Holocaust resistance represent a method of bringing

about new

understanding that challenges these mental habits [of

objectification,

fragmentation, and consumption]. The actions of these militants

blaze new

paths of meaning far beyond the direct action they participate in.

The

meaning of active militant resistance can pervade the popular

consciousness

of entire societies, and in the case of the ALF and of the Holocaust

 

resistance, their actions work to make mindlessness more difficult. "

 

The world might be a very different place had these Holocaust

resistance

fighters treated the Nazis as they would have wanted to be treated.

 

If we could win liberation for animals through sanctuaries and

compassion

alone, not a single person would participate in militant direct

action.

Everyone wishes it were that simple. It's not.

 

THE EFFECTIVENESS ISSUE:

As I said in my last email, this is the issue I'm less comfortable

with.

Pete, you say that these tactics will not win over the hearts and

minds of

the average American. I think you're right. Sabotage cannot " help

our AR

movement grow into the mass movement we must achieve in order to

reach our

goals. " But I don't think that's the goal of direct action.

 

Our struggle is a multi-layered one. On the one hand, we seek to

create a

cultural shift towards ethical respect for non-human animals. On the

other

hand, we seek to alleviate the suffering experienced RIGHT NOW by

living

animals.

 

We work towards the first, long-term goal through education,

legislation,

lawsuits, documentaries, and other mainstream tactics, including

Pete's

laudable accomplishments.

 

The second, short-term goal demands less patience and demands DIRECT

 

action. Sabotage, vandalism, and property destruction will not make

William

Green more compassionate. But they just might encourage him and

others to

stop supporting HLS. The past 5 years have shown how effective these

 

strategies can be at crippling animal abusers.

 

Of course, we have to be sure that we don't compromise the first

goal in

pursuing the second. If sabotage and property destruction give us a

bad

image, then we should strongly reconsider those tactics. But it's

not clear

that the coverage is always bad press. And it's not clear that bad

press

can't be helpful. PETA got terrible press in the 80s for supporting

the ALF

rescues, and today it is the dominant voice in popular culture for

mainstream animal rights. The civil rights movement and the

Montgomery Bus

Boycott got terrible press, but we know now that they were right,

and they

succeeded to some degree. Karen Dawn of Dawnwatch.com keeps a close

eye on

the way these issues play out in the popular media, and her webpage

is a

helpful tool to think about AR media images.

 

I don't believe that sabotage and property destruction are always

good in

and of themselves. They're good to the degree they're effective.

This means

the movement should be very thoughtful about when we use these

tactics:

activists can't simply smash stuff when the rage hits them.

Thoughtless

destruction can be counter-productive and these activists end up

acting

selfishly: they satiate their own feelings while animals suffer as a

 

result. But this also means that we shouldn't condemn thoughtful

destruction. Destruction that is calculated at strategic targets, as

the

SHAC campaign is, can be effective. Quoting Shakespeare: " There is

nothing

either good or bad, but thinking makes it so. "

 

Of course some tactics are more effective than others. For me, I

think open

rescues are generally better than lab raids. I think home demos that

last

for 2 hours are generally better than home sabotages that last for 8

 

minutes. I think arguing against animal abusers is generally better

than

intimidating them. I think good press is generally better than bad

press.

But these are my preferences, and I'll save my venom for the

exploiters,

not for those allies who disagree with my preferences.

 

Best,

Matthew

 

 

 

Quoting Pete <plcohon:

 

>

>

>

>

>

> Thanks for your thoughtful response to my post, Matthew. You

wrote:

> " The

>

> question is not one of morality, since direct action causes no

physical

>

> suffering, only economic suffering. " I respectfully dissent.

>

>

>

> The cornerstone of all morality is, of course, the Golden Rule.

Since I

>

> moderate the Veggie Jews' , perhaps I should phrase it

in the

>

> negative as Rabbi Hillel did: Do not do unto others that which you

would

> not

>

> want them to do unto you. I understand that it's stated in the

positive

> in

>

> some cultures but the meaning is the same. I don't think any one

of us

>

> would consider it anything less than unacceptable if we were

personally

>

> victimized in a way that caused us only economic but not physical

> suffering,

>

> especially in an effort intended to intimidate.

>

>

>

> I've got a real problem with the " new " definition of violence as

> something

>

> that " can only truly be perpetuated against sentient beings, "

according

> to

>

> Matthew. I'm afraid that not only I but the dictionary as well

disagrees

>

> with you. According to my admittedly not " new " Funk & Wangles,

violence

>

> involves the use of force to achieve ends. It has nothing to do

with the

>

> object of the force or whether it is sentient.

>

>

>

> But I agree that, at least on one level, as you said, " The

question IS

> one

>

> of effectiveness. " And by that measure alone, violence should be

> rejected.

>

> If you think that violence will help our AR movement grow into the

mass

>

> movement we must achieve in order to reach our goals, just ask

some of

> the

>

> 95% of Americans who eat a standard American diet what they think

of

> animal

>

> rights " terrorism, " as the media calls it. I think you'll find

that very

>

> few of them are sympathetic to our cause. The fact is that

mainstream

>

> Americans, the very people we have to reach with our message, do

not

> approve

>

> of violent tactics to achieve social change, (at least here in the

>

> homeland), and they become more estranged from rather than

sympathetic to

>

> our cause with every new act that they perceive to be " terror. "

The

> media,

>

> which represents financial interests tied to animal exploitation,

will

> not

>

> miss a chance to portray any small act of isolated violence as

typical of

>

> the AR movement as a whole. They understand the value of making

our

>

> movement look extreme by focusing on violence. So should we, and

we

> should

>

> learn to avoid that very extremism in order to most quickly defeat

the

>

> forces of cruelty arrayed against us.

>

>

>

> I regret that my self-righteousness offends you, Matthew. I

freely admit

> to

>

> having that fault, but as faults go, it's not so bad. It's

inspired me

>

> during my career to provide free legal representation to about 30

animal

>

> rights and peace activists charged with demonstration related

crimes (not

>

> one of whom ever served one minute in jail); I've written the

three

> sections

>

> of the California Green Party platform dealing with animal issues,

and

> I'm

>

> proud to say it's the most progressive AR platform of any

political party

> on

>

> earth as far as I know; I've organized Greens for the Ethical

Treatment

> of

>

> Animals within the California Green Party to get the AR platform

planks

>

> passed; I organized the University Alumni Campaign Against

Vivisection

> for

>

> In Defense of Animals to decrease alumni contributions to

universities

>

> involved in animal experimentation (and that's just about all of

them);

> and,

>

> most recently, I've organized Veggie Jews to try to spread the

veggie

>

> message into the Jewish community, whose support is needed to end

some

>

> slaughterhouse abuses. Now, I know that's not much compared to

what many

>

> professional animal activists have done and do every day, but it's

the

> best

>

> that I could squeeze in while earning a living, and it's a lot

better

> than

>

> nothing. So, if I am a bit self-righteous at times, at least I do

try to

>

> put it to good and nonviolent use. (Thank goodness you didn't

point out

> how

>

> egotistical I am. Now that would be a lot harder to defend.) ;-)

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> -

>

> " Matthew G Liebman " <mliebman

>

> " Pete " <plcohon

>

> Cc: " South Bay Veggies " ; " Veggie

Jews "

>

> <VeggieJews >; " " ;

" Freedom

> For

>

> Animals " <freedomforanimals >; " BAARN "

>

> <baarn >

>

> Monday, August 16, 2004 1:11 PM

>

> Re: Top Chiron lawyer's home is vandalized -- Protesters

clothed

> in

>

> black linked to animal-rights group

>

>

>

>

>

> > Pete,

>

> >

>

> > Anger and destruction may make you uncomfortable, and that is

fine. You

>

> may

>

> > choose to be activist in other ways. But don't get

self-righteous

> against

>

> > activists that have been successful in bringing HLS attrocities

to

> light,

>

> > and in bringing HLS to its knees.

>

> >

>

> > Your inability to distinguish between property destruction and

true

>

> > violence demonstrates the degreee to which you've been duped by

the

> forces

>

> > that attempt to discredit our movement. Breaking windows that

were

> payed

>

> > for with blood money is not violence. Neither is embarassing an

animal

>

> > abuser in front of his/her neighbors by " outting " them. Violence

is

>

> > punching a beagle puppy in the face. Violence is dissecting a

monkey

> while

>

> > she's still alive. Violence is killing 500 animals every day.

>

> >

>

> > " Violence " can only truly be perpetuated against sentient

beings. While

> I

>

> > do not participate in property destruction, I understand the

motives of

>

> > those who do. Sabotage has been a driving force behind every

freedom

>

> > movement, from the Boston Tea Party to the suffragettes to the

Jewish

>

> > resistance fighters. Please reconsider the way you use the term

>

> " violence. "

>

> > I do not support violence in this movement, and I would be

upspeakably

>

> > dissappointed if a living being were hurt or killed as a result

of

> these

>

> > actions. But in 20 years of operation, not a single human being

has

> been

>

> > harmed by the actions of the Animal Liberation Front. Again,

these

> actions

>

> > are not for me; but I understand those who are comfortable with

them.

>

> >

>

> > The question is not one of morality, since direct action causes

no

>

> physical

>

> > suffering, only economic suffering. The question IS one of

> effectiveness.

>

> > It's undeniable that the SHAC campaign has struck hard against

HLS's

>

> > economic interests. The media image question is a bit more

difficult.

>

> > Whether or not these types of actions give animal rights a good

image

> or

>

> > bad image is an empirical question, and not a simple one.

Clearly these

>

> > things turn some people off. But on the other hand these actions

bring

> the

>

> > issue into the public realm where they can be discussed. If you

believe

> in

>

> > the rightness of our cause, you should be comfortable with that.

>

> >

>

> > Anyone who watched ABC7 news last night saw that for, I believe,

only

> the

>

> > second time, footage of HLS attrocities were showed on prime

time news,

> to

>

> > an audience of thousands. This would not have happened but for a

few

>

> broken

>

> > windows.

>

> >

>

> > These actions also help make groups like PETA seem more moderate

in

>

> > comparison. They let people know that this is a serious issue

that

> people

>

> > feel extremely passionate about. Sure Tribe of Heart does the

same

> thing,

>

> > and that's great. The more strategies we use, the more effective

we'll

> be.

>

> >

>

> > I think the strategies we use should be discussed thouroughly,

with a

>

> focus

>

> > on whether or not they WORK. This is a tactical discussion that

we

> can't

>

> > ignore. However, holier-than-though assertions of " childishness "

and

>

> > " terrorism " are not responsible ways of strategic planning.

>

> >

>

> > For anyone interested in a nuanced and thoughtful discussion of

these

>

> > issues, I highly recommend Steven Best's new book " Terrorists or

> Freedom

>

> > Fighters? " Also, Satya magazine recently did a very balanced 2

issue

>

> series

>

> > on activism, violence, and sabotage.

>

> >

>

> > Finally, for those of you not on the veggiejews list, I thought

you

> might

>

> > be interested in seeing what Pete said in a secondary posting:

>

> >

>

> > " When groups known to use violent tactics advertise a

demonstration, we

>

> can

>

> > speak and write to warn folks of the dangers of such tactics.

The

> groups

>

> > who engage in such tactics should never be allowed to give the

> impression

>

> > that they speak for our movement.We can avoid all AR actions and

>

> > fundraisers by groups that encourage or use violence. In my

opinion, we

>

> > should even go so far as to inform the authorities about any

past or

>

> > planned terror acts in the name of our movement, so as to

protect our

>

> > movement and the animals from the violent backlash that terror

tactics

> can

>

> > cause. "

>

> >

>

> > With friends like this, who needs COINTELPRO?

>

> >

>

> > -Matthew

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> " G-d said, 'See, I give you every seed-bearing plant that is upon

all the

> earth, and every tree that has seed-bearing fruit; they shall be

yours

> for food. And to all the animals on land, to all the birds of the

sky,

> and to everything that creeps on earth, in which there is the

breath of

> life, [i give] all the green plants for food.' And it was so.

And G-d

> saw all that He had made, and found it very good. " [Genesis,

1:29-31]

>

>

>

> Veggie Jews is an on-line and real world organization with events

in

> local communities dedicated to supporting Jewish vegans and

vegetarians

> of all ages and spreading vegan, vegetarian and animal rights

values into

> the Jewish community. Our non-Jewish friends are always welcome.

Please

> tell a friend about us.

>

>

>

> And remember: It's only kosher if it's cruelty-free.

Pete <plcohon wrote:

 

The following article from today's Chronicle tells the story of an

attack

by supposed animal rights protesters on the home of a lawyer

employed by

one of Huntingdon Life Sciences corporate clients. Huntingdon, as

you

probably know, engages in horribly cruel and unnecessary animal

experiments

for it's clients. It's conduct is totally inexcusable.

 

But so is the conduct of those who attack a home in the name of the

AR

movement. Such violent conduct only plays into the hands of those

who call

our movement " terrorist " by taking attention away from the serious

work of

stopping Huntingdon's cruelty and placing it on the tactics of a few

 

extremists. It is noteworthy that, during the Viet Nam war, U.S.

government

agents infiltrated to anti-war movement (Project Cointelpro) and

turned it

to violent tactics in a successful effort to damage the anti-war

movement.

And it raises serious questions about the motives who would use such

 

tactics now in the name of our AR movement.

 

Sadly, those same extremists will continue their inexcusably foolish

and

harmful tactics as long as there are those who will support them. In

my

opinion, those who support such tactics by going to violent

demonstration,

even if they do not participate in the violence, condone terror

tactics and

all the harm that such tactics are doing to the AR movement.

 

For an example of just how one can use one's energy and creativity

to help

develop the AR movement into a mass movement that will finally end

cruelty

of the kind practiced against animal victims by Huntingdon, just

consider

the fine work of the folks at Farm Sanctuary or IDA's Project Hope,

who

dedicate their lives to saving animals and using them to publicize

the

plight of so many others who could not be saved. Consider the work

of Tribe

of Heart, whose new documentary, Peaceable Kingdom, about Farm

Sanctuary,

may well turn the hearts of millions toward a more compassionate

lifestyle.

 

Then ask yourself: Whose work will really make a difference by

turning

public sentiment against animal cruelty, those who work in a

compassionate,

intelligent and realistic way to save animal lives and build a

movement or

those who throw childish temper tantrums and commit crimes in the

name of

our movement?

 

Whether we win this struggle for compassion sooner or later will

depend on

the tactics we choose. I, for one, choose to win sooner by rejecting

the

violent and childish tactics that can only serve to defeat or slow

us down.

For the sake of our movement's success, for the sake of the billions

or

trillions of animals who will suffer more every day that our victory

is

delayed by extreme and counterproductive tactics, won't you please

join me?

 

Pete

 

_

 

San Francisco Chronicle

Monday, August 16, 2004

 

ORINDA

Top Chiron lawyer's home is vandalized

Protesters clothed in black linked to animal-rights group

 

Henry K. Lee, Chronicle Staff Writer

 

 

 

 

 

Orinda police are investigating the vandalism of the East Bay home

of

Chiron Corp.'s top attorney on Sunday, in which a group of people

broke

windows and tried to flood his home with water during a noisy

protest.

 

Neighbors said the people were animal-rights protesters wearing

black

clothing and masks, and carrying signs. The demonstrators converged

on the

home of Chiron's general counsel William Green on Sunnyside Court in

Orinda

abou

t 10:15 a.m. while he was away on vacation, neighbors said.

 

 

The protester

s broke about a dozen windows and turned on his garden hose in his

backya

rd deck, and left after 20 minutes. No arrests were made, but

neighbors

provided license plate numbers to Orinda police.

 

" I feel a bit violated

by this, " Green said Sunday evening, minutes after retur

n

ing home to survey the damage. " I think it's beyond the pale of what

should

be permissible in civilized society. "

 

The protest comes six months aft

er Chiron filed a lawsuit against Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty

USA. Th

e group's name refers to Huntingdon Life Sciences, a New Jersey

company t

hat performs animal testing for clients, including Chiron.

 

It was n

ot immediately clear Sunday whether the protesters were connected to

the Sto

p Huntingdon group.

 

Green, 60, has previously been the target of protest

ers over at least the past two years, with flyers stuck on telephone

phones

and gravestones placed nearby representing dead ani

m

als. Other employees have also been awakened by late-night visits by

protest

ers with megaphones.

 

Neighbor Jim Abrams, 60, said the Orinda protest b

egan with marching and chanting. But tensions grew when Abrams

tried to block the side gate to Green's home, and some protesters

charge

d past him.

 

" They ran toward one of the gates that goes into the ba

ckyard, " A

b

rams said. " They broke some windows, and the hose was running on the

deck

-- I don't know if they intended to throw the hose into the broken

window.

There were some people obviously bent on doing some damage. "

 

Chiron's

lawsuit said that the names, addresses and phone numbers of Chiron

empl

oyees have been posted on a Web site and that the group has worked

with a fugitive suspected of planting bombs at the firm and another

busin

ess last year.

 

The suspect, Daniel Andreas San Diego, 25, of Sonoma is ac

cused of planting a pipe bomb on Aug. 28 at Chiron and another on S

ept. 26 at Shaklee Corp., a

P

leasanton firm that makes health, beauty and household products.

 

San

Diego remains at large, Special Agent LaRae Quy, FBI spokeswoman in

San Francisco, said Sunday. A $50,000 reward is being offered for

tips in th

e case.

 

In a June ruling, Alameda County Superior Court Judge Steven Bric

k said Chiron had a chance

 

of prevailing in the lawsuit and denied a request by the

animal-rights g

roup to throw out the complaint as a SLAPP suit, or one that

restricte

d its free-speech rights.

 

Brick said Chiron's lawsuit had more to do with

" acts of unlawful harassment and threats " rather than the

animal-rights gr

oup's right to free speech. " Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty USA's)

free s

peech rights under the First Amendment do not protect its conduct in

this

situation, " Brick wrote.