ANIMAL LIBERATION FRONT FILM

January 4, 2007

>Yesterday I received a memorable gift for the New Year that I want

>to share with you. It is a copy of the film entitled BEHIND THE MASK

>that is about Animal Liberation Front activists who believe in

>taking direct action to rescue animals from laboratories.

This is praise for propaganda of the most insidious sort,

the sort of thing that 20 years ago the animal use industries

themselves were actually paying undercover operatives like Mary Lou

Sappone to foment, because they knew that causing the animal rights

movement to embrace domestic terrorism would be to alienate the cause

from mainstream public support.

Let me point out what some of these people have actually been

in trouble for doing, and conclude with a few relevant words from

Paul Watson--

> > *Featuring KEITH MANN

Among other things, Mann has been convicted of possession of

explosive substances, incitement, criminal damage, and escape from

custody.

> ROD CORONADO

Charged with arson, theft, possession of explosives,

extortion, destruction of government property, and illegal

interstate flight, in connection with attacks on four universities

during 1991-1992, Coronado pleaded guilty in 1995 to one count of

aiding and abetting arson of a research facility, plus lesser

offenses. He was sentenced to serve 57 months in prison and make

more than $2.5 million in restitution to Michigan State University,

Oregon State University, Washington State University, and Utah

State University.

Ironically, one of the laboratories destroyed by the

Michigan arsons was engaged in developing the use of sperm cells as

an alternative to using whole animals in toxicology research. It was

located next door to a lab that conducted studies to improve the

efficiency of ranching mink.

>INGRID NEWKIRK

ANIMAL PEOPLE in early 1998 published the allegation of

Norfolk-area cat rescuer John Newton that a hit squad led initially

by PETA cofounder Ingrid Newkirk had for three years trapped cats

from neuter/return colonies supervised by the Meower Power Feral Cat

Coalition and took many to their deaths at animal control shelters.

Newkirk has written that " We do not advocate 'right to life' for

animals, " but PETA has rarely if ever told donors that killing

homeless animals is part of the PETA agenda.

However, Newkirk confirmed to Michael Barakat of Associated

Press in July 2000 that her staff killed 1,325 of the 2,103 dogs and

cats they received in 1999--63%. According to Virginia state

records, PETA in 2003 killed 1,911 of 2,225 animals received: 86%.

Thus PETA killed markedly more animals, and a higher percentage of

animal intake, precisely opposite to the national and regional

trends. Although PETA is not a shelter organization, it killed

more animals each year than 75% of the animal control shelters in

Virginia.

This sort of thing was apparently still going on quite recently.

PETA staffers Adria J. Hinkle, 27, and Andrew B. Cook, 24,

were on June 15, 2005 charged with cruelty in Ahoski, North

Carolina. They have not yet gone to trial. Ahoskie police and

Bertie County sheriff's deputies investigating the discovery of 60 to

70 animal carcasses in dumpsters during the preceding four weeks

testified that they saw Hinkle and Cook dump 18 dead dogs and found

the remains of 13 more in their van. PETA had been taking animals

from Bertie County since 2001 and Northampton County since 2004.

PETA suspended Hinkle for 90 days, but not Cook.

Newkirk and domestic animal rescue chief Daphna Nachminovitch

claimed that PETA never concealed that most of the animals it took

from the North Carolina shelters would be killed, but ANIMAL PEOPLE

in mid-2004 received complaints from North Carolina shelter

volunteers and one ex-PETA employee who stated that PETA was pledging

that the animals it took would be adopted, and was taking animals

who had been sterilized and vaccinated in preparation for adoption.

PETA refused to account for the animals, but the complainants had no

physical evidence at that time that the animals had been killed.

>KEVIN JONAS

Convicted of conspiracy to commit animal enterprise terrorism

and interstate stalking.

Kjonaas, also known as " Jonas, " formed the U.S. branch of SHAC.

The SHAC web site offered personal information about

employees of Huntingdon Life Sciences and companies that did business

with Huntingdon, including not only names, addresses, and home

telephone numbers, but also in some cases the schools that their

children attended, the names of their teachers, and their

after-school activities.

Targeted individuals testified that they " they were besieged

by screaming protesters outside their homes at all hours, deluged by

threatening phone calls, and were sent pornographic magazines they

had not ordered, " summarized Wayne Parry of Associated Press. " One

woman said she received an e-mail threatening to cut her 7-year-old

son open and stuff him with poison. A man said he was showered with

glass as people smashed all the windows of his home and overturned

his wife's car. "

The testimony was supported by videos of some of the home

demonstrations.

>CHRIS DEROSE

As ANIMAL PEOPLE reported at the time, with extensive quotes

provided in writing by DeRose, in 1993 two volunteers working with

DeRose, posing as Koreans, paid now deceased dog dealer Erwin

Stebane $50 to kill and butcher a dog while DeRose clandestinely

videotaped the action. Felony charges were filed against Stebane,

based on the video, but in June 1993 Calumet County circuit judge

Donald Poppy ruled that the case involved illegal entrapment and

ordered the return of 143 dogs who had been seized from Stebane.

The USDA had fined Stebane in 1987 for repeated violations of

the Animal Welfare Act, appealed seeking stiffer penalties when an

administrative law judge suspended Stebane's operating permit for

only 20 days, and cited him for further violations, but could not

put him out of business until after the Pet Theft Act took effect in

January 1993.

In February 1993, the USDA used information supplied by

ANIMAL PEOPLE to put four Class B dealers out of business. Cases

were opened against many others. Stebane was finally closed down as

part of a February 1994 plea bargain pertaining to multiple

accumulated alleged AWA violations.

>JERRY VLASAK

Vlasek was barred in 2004 from visiting England to address an

animal rights conference, because of remarks he made in 2003 that

seemed to endorse killing vivisectors. In April 2005, while a

member of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society board of directors,

Vlasak allegedly said similar things about sealers in a radio

interview, and was removed from the Sea Shepherd board after

allegedly posting personal details about a sealer on the Sea Shepherd

web site.

>RONNIE LEE

I believe his convictions--more than 30 years ago--were for

arson and vandalism. Since then, he has mainly issued statements

encouraging others to do similar things.

> AND PAUL WATSON

(From ANIMAL PEOPLE, March 1994.)

Reject, isolate, abandon undisciplined ALF

by Paul Watson

Captain, Sea Shepherd Conservation Society

[EXCERPTS]

Much controversy has been generated over the last few years

by the Animal Liberation Front and most recently by the attacks on

the fur departments of major department stores in Chicago. The ALF

has been condemned for terrorism and has made itself a primary target

for investigation by the FBI. It is only a matter of time until some

serious arrests are made and perhaps it is only a matter of time

until the now unblemished record of the animal and conservation

movements is irreparably tarnished.

To date, there has not been a single human being injured or

slain by an animal rights, animal welfare, or conservation movement

person or organization. Perhaps it is inevitable that such a thing

will some day happen, but I believe that we should do everything in

our power to keep that day far into the future. Our strength lies in

our morality and in the ethical advantage of remaining steadfast in

our respect for life. All life must always be of paramount concern.

I have met some people who have participated in ALF projects.

For the most part with a few notable exceptions, I was not impressed

with their lack of discipline and security, lack of strategy and a

lack of understanding of tactics. The various ALF hits that have

been reported also display inadequate discipline, tactics, strategy

and security.

Some people have seen no difference between the sinking of

whaling ships by the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society and the

actions of the ALF. In fact there are many important strategic

differences. First and most importantly, we target whaling ships or

driftnet fishing operations that have been outlawed by an

international regulatory agency. Secondly, we engineer an attack

which takes great pains to avoid any possibility of injury to our

opposition, targeting only ships and machinery. Third, our

objectives are meant to increase insurance and security costs

overall--the actual target ship is secondary to this. Fourth, we

take responsibility, we cooperate with the appropriate authorities

on any investigations, and we accept the legal and moral

consequences for our actions.

There is no profit to be gained for the cause by intimidating

department stores to not sell fur coats at the cost of negating years

of hard-won gains in legislation. There is no profit in destroying

an animal lab with fire if it blackens the entire movement as

criminal and irresponsible.

Our movement needs humor, it needs imagination, it needs

evolution, and it needs flexibility. We do not need the shroud of

violence and dark, evil associations with the tactics of the Irish

Republican Army, the CIA, and the Red Brigade. A movement of life

promotes life and utilizes vibrant ideas to engineer strategies

within which to develop tactics that are positively effective and at

the same time inspiring to others. Leave the bombs and the torches

to those who would negate life by taking it.

--

Merritt Clifton

Editor, ANIMAL PEOPLE

P.O. Box 960

Clinton, WA 98236

Telephone: 360-579-2505

Fax: 360-579-2575

E-mail: anmlpepl

Web: www.animalpeoplenews.org

[ANIMAL PEOPLE is the leading independent newspaper providing

original investigative coverage of animal protection worldwide,

founded in 1992. Our readership of 30,000-plus includes the

decision-makers at more than 10,000 animal protection organizations.

We have no alignment or affiliation with any other entity. $24/year;

for free sample, send address.]

January 5, 2007

*Dear colleagues,*

* I have said the film is memorable and

remarkable. Memorable according to the Oxford English Dictionary means

'worth remembering', it does not imply praise or condemnation. And the

footage in the film is most certainly extraordinary and remarkable. *

* I am well aware of the information furnished and would like to point out

that historically the use of violence for attainment of wider goals has

always been controversial which is what the film is all about. One man's

terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. USA had Martin Luther King

Junior, but also Malcolm X. Ireland had Eamon De Valera but also Gerry

Adams. India had Mahatma Gandhi but also Subhash Chandra Bose(who joined

hands with Hitler and Mussolini to form the Indian National Army to fight

the British in the Second World War). Nelson Mandela and Steve Biko were

categorised as terrorists by the Afrikaaner government but were hailed as

heroes among black people(even some white people) in South Africa. *

* Mr Clifton has provided a lot of information on the people who feature in

the film and they are worthy of serious discussion. I appreciate his efforts

to encourage more debate on this. The issue at hand certainly merits it.*

* But a lot of animal rights activists also question the modalities of how

Mr Clifton functions. I am attaching some information that they have

provided on his work. *

* Direct action has also been praised by Peter Singer in his book 'ANIMAL

LIBERATION'. Mr Clifton himself, in an interview, has acknowledged that the

Animal Liberation Front has gathered information in some cases that would

otherwise have stayed hidden, albeit in the past(

http://articles.animalconcerns.org/ar-voices/archive/nabr.html). *

* As for my personal views, I am a pacifist but I do believe there are

occasions when pacifism can be tested to the limit which is why I want to

know more about extremist groups. I have had one to one and face to face

discussions with sympathisers of the British Nationalist Party and the

National Front and I see no reason why I should not be able to talk to

animal rights activists who believe in direct action. I am a firm believer

in the principle, " I may disagree with you but I will defend your right to

say it. " . *

* Mr Clifton thinks direct action is deplorable. He also thinks Elephant

Polo is acceptable and commendable. The consensus of international expert

opinion clearly shows that many experts assert elephant polo is deplorable.

His article criticising elephant polo opponents in ANIMAL PEOPLE has

elicited very sharp reactions from experts. His article on animal sacrifice

also seems flawed and I will provide details on that shortly.*

* Whatever information Mr Clifton has provided is easily available on

Wikipedia and I am conversant with it which is why I want the film to be

screened so that people can watch it and question the tactics involved about

whether ends justify means. I have mentioned quite clearly on this list

before that these issues need more discussion. *

* Throughout the film, an emphasis is given on direct action coming into

place when normal means cease to work. The film uses a quote by John F

Kennedy that says, " Those who make non violent revolution impossible, will

make violent revolution inevitable. " This is a thought provoking remark

since it is questionable if slavery and other forms of abuse could have been

abolished without violence.*

* Please also keep in mind that 'BEHIND THE MASK' was made so that the

animal liberationists could have a platform to speak and present their side

of the story. The film presents their views and opinions just like a film in

defence of animal research would present the merits of animal

experimentation. There is considerable evidence that the mainstream media

has shown signs of bias against the animal rights activists in general,

including the BBC. Surely that kind of media approach could be described as

propagandist as well?*

* In conclusion, I emphasise that ethics as a concept is not a mantra

carved in stone. There has not been and never can be a universal set of

ethics, perhaps at best some generalisations. In a debate all sides have a

right to present their views. Even a criminal rapist gets a chance to defend

himself. Which is why I am of the firm conviction that the film should be

screened in Madras. Watching a film and discussing a film does not

necessarily mean one has to endorse its content.*

* I reiterate that people who are using bombs and torches have a right to

speak and I I would thus encourage people to see the film. I am quite

prepared to discuss this topic comprehensively in Madras with Mr Clifton and

others who disagree with direct action as a tool in animal rights/welfare.*

* Best wishes and kind regards,*

**

*

**

*http://www.nocompromise.org/issues/04obs.html*

Obstructionists: Identifying and Handling Them from *No Compromise* Issue

4

* " First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely

disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable

conclusion that the Negro's greatest stumbling block in the stride toward

freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the

white moderate who is more devoted to 'order' than to justice; who prefers a

negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is

the presence of justice; who constantly says, 'I agree with you in the goal

you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action'; who

paternalistically feels that he can set the timetable for another man's

freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advised the Negro

to wait until a 'more convenient season.' Shallow understanding from people

of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people

of ill will. "

- Martin Luther King Jr., excerpt from his April 16, 1963 letter from

Birmingham City Jail.*

Infiltrators, informers, and agent provocateurs are not the only threats our

movement faces. There's also the obstructionists: activists who prevent

others from doing the actions necessary to bring about real and significant

change.

Obstructionists can be found in every movement. Martin Luther King Jr.

called them " moderates " and Malcolm X called them " Uncle Toms. " As King's

quote from above says, obstructionists hinder the movement more than its

opponents.

Their harm arises out of the fact that they are " one of us. " Because of

this, good activists often capitulate to the obstructionist's demands of

inaction or ineffective action to maintain movement unity. Movement unity is

an important goal to strive for, but it should not be achieved at the

expense of the animals. In opposing most actions, obstructionists also tie

up good activists' time and energy in argument. These repeated and

unproductive verbal fights frustrate and dishearten the good activists, and

can drive them to burnout.

Because of the harms obstructionists cause, it is important we recognize

them and deal with them appropriately. The following is a list of

characteristic traits of an obstructionist.

CHARACTERISTICS OF AN OBSTRUCTIONIST

1. Despise many non-violent tactics. Obstructionists pretend to hate

controversy and ill-will leading them to argue against direct action like

civil disobedience. They fear protests might get " out-of-control " so they

take precautions to ensure it doesn't. They might not allow chanting, or

they might appoint protest monitors to keep activists " orderly " . The police

and other authorities are often their best friends. Obstructionists obey all

commands of the police and have no problem giving them whatever information

they request.

Strangely enough, although obstructionists act like they oppose controversy

and ill-will, they only seem to hate it when directed at animal abusers, for

they typically have no problem verbally thrashing good activists who suggest

the group take other, more effective actions.

2. Overly concerned with image. One of the obstructionists main arguments

against effective actions includes their desire to maintain a " good " image.

They fear direct action makes them look " extreme " , and " radical. " They have

volumes of anecdotal evidence which they recite to show that direct action

harms our image.

Certainly there is some room and need to discuss image. We don't want us, as

messengers, to distract from the message. But at the same time, we must not

let concerns of image unnecessarily waste precious time. When considering

the impact of an action on our image, we should ask the question: Does this

action make us look committed, determined, sincere, and unwilling to

tolerate animal abuse? or does it make us look weak, apathetic, and

apologetic? By answering this simple question we can determine whether to do

the action, or work on organizing a better one.

Furthermore, the animal rights movement is not a public relations firms. We

are educators, and in order to educate we need to agitate. Only by waking

people out of their slumber of complacency will we be able to get their

attention and show them the horrors of animal abuse. Large animal-abusing,

environment-raping, human-oppressing companies need P.R. Firms because they

have to cover-up their destructive practices and sugar-coat their

atrocities. We, on the other hand, have nothing to hide. So don't spend too

much time worrying about image, and be wary of those who do.

3. Must have total control. Obstructionists must always have their way.

Non-participation with actions they disagree with is not good enough for

them. They have a burning desire to ensure those actions don't happen.

Yelling, crying, guilt-trips, abuse of power, lies, back-stabbing and

playing on your sympathy are some of the artillery obstructionists use to

get you to obey their will.

Certainly everyone has a right to their opinion, but compromise between

activists should be a give and take proposition. You will find

obstructionists always take and never give.

4. Sabotage good activists. Obstructionists often try to minimize the

effectiveness of good activists. They do this for a variety of reasons. Good

activists make them look bad by making more sacrifices for animal, which

results in more positive change for animals. Unfortunately, instead of

trying to do more to help animals, obstructionists prefer to degrade good

activists in an attempt to make themselves look better. Other reasons for

obstructionists to sabotage good activists includes they are jealous,

power-hungry, or have an overly-developed ego.

Obstructionists attack good activists in many ways. They prevent them from

getting the resources they need to be effective, kick them out of the

organization, paint their successes as tragedies that hurt the movement,

spread damaging rumors about them, and use other under-handed ploys to

regain control and get their way.

5. Weak on issues. Although this is not always the case, they are often weak

on the issues. They argue against veganism, make excuses for animal abusers,

and despise direct action activists more than animal abusers.

Unfortunately, not all obstructionists are as clearly defined as the

descriptions given above. They definitely work on a continuum and sometimes

it is hard to tell if they are an obstructionist or just a naive activist.

Therefore, the below rules on handling obstructionists can be applied when

working with all activists. These simple rules will help minimize the

negative effects of obstructionists, while encouraging movement unity.

RULES FOR DEALING WITH OBSTRUCTIONISTS

1. Work together when possible. Work with other activists -- obstructionists

or not -- on issues and actions that you agree with. Don't be afraid to work

with them and support their actions which help animals. Hard-core

obstructionists will often refuse to work with you, treating you like some

kind of slime mold instead of graciously accepting your help. Regardless of

their unwillingness to work with you, continue to offer your help and

support for their effective activities. It should be the obstructionists who

prevent movement unity, not you.

2. Expect compromise to go both ways. As animal activists in a diverse

movement, we must realize that not every activist can get their way all the

time. When working with other activists be prepared to make compromises (on

actions NOT Animals!!!), but make sure they are willing to reciprocate. If

they are unwilling to do this, it might be time to part ways.

3. Follow your conscience. The best advice when dealing with activists is to

follow your conscience. Even if it leads you in directions that are

uncharted or scary, it will not lead you astray. If the group you started

has been infiltrated by obstructionists, your conscience might tell you to

leave it and start over. It might not always lead you in an easy direction,

but it will lead you down rewarding paths. Don't fear following its lead.

4. Speak the truth, but don't get hostile. Obstructionists are quick to

anger. Respond to their yelling by calmly stating your ideas, arguments, and

opinions. Their inaccuracies and distorted half-truths must be confronted

and corrected, but don't meet their hostility with similar anger. Our

actions need to show that any disunity in the movement is not caused by

direct action activists. We must always be willing to work with others, even

those we disagree with. However, we cannot let ourselves become

obstructionists' doormats.

5. If you are an obstructionist . . . Some people reading this might

recognize some or all of the traits of an obstructionist in themselves. If

this is the case, it is a good time to evaluate your involvement in the

movement and your relationship with other activists. However, since all

activists should strive to better themselves, I invite all readers to take

some time and answer the following questions:

What are your priorities? Where do the animals fall into those priorities?

How much are you willing to sacrifice for the animals? Do you treat other

activists with respect? Why or why not? Does your involvement with the

movement stem from ulterior motives? What personal fears do you have about

your involvement with the movement or direct action? If your fears are

realized, would life really end? Do you spread damaging gossip about other

activists? What three promises could you make or actions could you do to

become a better activist?

After taking some time to answer these questions, please take action to make

yourself a selfless activist for animals who treats other activists with the

respect they deserve.

Merritt Clifton: Obstructionist Extraordinaire

Merritt Clifton is a perfect example of an obstructionist. He vehemently

denounces being an animal rights activist (which is true), even though he

has no problem giving activists " pointers " and explaining to them their

" mistakes " . Instead of an activist, he claims to be an unbiased " journalist "

who believes in the humane ethic.

Clifton's paper Animal People has spread his obstructionist ideas to all

corners of North America's animal movement. In it, he defends businesses

like Proctor & Gamble, McDonalds, and Sea World; rants about the " psychotic "

A.L.F. activists; and pleads for activists to work with abusers to bring

about change for the animals.

Clifton, with the help of his paper, has helped lull the movement into a

complacent slumber -- our outrage was pacified, ineffective campaigns were

looked upon as the animals' salvation, and direct action was dismissed as

extremist and ineffective. This is a good example of the potential dangers

that obstructionists pose to our movement.

In accordance with obstructionist tendencies, Clifton opposes the

non-violent direct action of the A.L.F. Clifton's fanatical hatred of the

Animal Liberation Front is legendary. He considers the A.L.F. to be

" nightriders " , " psychopaths " , and " terrorists " . He compares them to the Ku

Klux Klan, saying they operate on the same principle that " might makes

right " .

He down-plays the A.L.F.'s successes and assumes the worst. When the A.L.F.

liberated 1,200 animals from the University of Arizona in 1989, he argues

that the A.L.F. torched the labs -- mice and all! Not even the vivisectors

entertain such a ridiculous idea. Clifton still doesn't seem to understand

that members of the A.L.F. believe in animal rights, and would not harm

animals.

True to obstructionist's principles, Clifton's main argument against the

A.L.F. is that they hurt our image. Clifton argues this image problem makes:

abusers less willing to implement humane changes, the media less willing to

run stories on animal issues, and the public less willing to adopt a humane

lifestyle. In Clifton's words, " [coverage of A.L.F. activities] tends to

increase the perception that animal rights activists are terrorists, crazy,

and dangerous. "

Clifton, although willing to bend over back-wards to speak well of the

abusers, apparently has no problem trying to destroy good direct action

activists. As any educated activist knows, you do not spread rumors that

other activists are infiltrators without hard evidence (read War at Home;

Covert Actions Against U.S. Activists and What We Can Do About It by Brian

Glick), or rumors linking people with illegal activities. However, he has

publicly argued on the internet that two people involved with the production

of No Compromise are agent provocateurs on the basis that they support

direct action. Clifton has also publicly suggested that three No Compromise

activists, whom he mentioned by name, were involved in certain specific

A.L.F. actions which none of them had been arrested or convicted for. I have

not repeated the names of the people he has tried to denigrate because those

rumors are nothing more than damaging lies which must be buried.

As someone who claims to have been involved with environmental, peace, and

animal issues for over two decades, Clifton should know better. I think he

does know better. And it is precisely because he knows how harmful these

rumors can be that he uses them. Direct action threatens his perceived

" empire " that he has created with Animal People and he wants radical actions

stopped. Since he doesn't recognize the fact that direct action stems from

committed people who demand change now, he is attacks the messenger that

reports on direct action, No Compromise, by attacking those people involved

in its production.

Clifton is also weak on the issues. For starters, he admits to not being

vegan while traveling. Equally egregious, he defends Sea World, Proctor &

Gamble, and McDonalds. He argues that Sea World has the world's largest

tanks, rescues dolphins, promotes environmental education, and has not

captured animals from the wild for over a decade. I guess we should just

ignore the fact that the animals are still imprisoned and that any tank, no

matter how large, is still a toilet when compared to the ocean.

When defending the vivisectors, Proctor & Gamble, Clifton argues that P & G

have donated $45 million to developing alternatives to animal tests, reduced

animal use by 56%, and in 1984 made a corporate commitment to phase out all

animal tests as quickly as possible. But if P & G is so good why is it that

more than a decade after their " corporate commitment " , they continue to

slice, dice, and sacrifice animals for profit?

And how could Clifton possibly defend McDonalds? Because the golden arches

signed an agreement to only purchase brutalized carcasses from factory

farmers that meet the humane standards set up by some meat promoting

organization. Well, hooray for the largest animal killer in the world! Hey

Merritt, sign me up for the Humane Auschwitz Now campaign!

With friends like Clifton, the animals don't need enemies. There are many

obstacles in our way towards animal liberation -- the abusers, the

authorities, infiltrators, and agents. But we must also remember that even

those who claim to be friends of the animals can also be obstacles. Just be

sure to always place the interests of animals foremost in your mind and

follow your conscience when determining what is right and wrong. Think for

yourself and don't be afraid to rock the boat if that's where your

conscience dictates.

On 1/4/07, Merritt Clifton <anmlpepl wrote:

>

> >Yesterday I received a memorable gift for the New Year that I want

> >to share with you. It is a copy of the film entitled BEHIND THE MASK

> >that is about Animal Liberation Front activists who believe in

> >taking direct action to rescue animals from laboratories.

>

> This is praise for propaganda of the most insidious sort,

> the sort of thing that 20 years ago the animal use industries

> themselves were actually paying undercover operatives like Mary Lou

> Sappone to foment, because they knew that causing the animal rights

> movement to embrace domestic terrorism would be to alienate the cause

> from mainstream public support.

>

> Let me point out what some of these people have actually been

> in trouble for doing, and conclude with a few relevant words from

> Paul Watson--

>

> > > *Featuring KEITH MANN

>

> Among other things, Mann has been convicted of possession of

> explosive substances, incitement, criminal damage, and escape from

> custody.

>

> > ROD CORONADO

>

> Charged with arson, theft, possession of explosives,

> extortion, destruction of government property, and illegal

> interstate flight, in connection with attacks on four universities

> during 1991-1992, Coronado pleaded guilty in 1995 to one count of

> aiding and abetting arson of a research facility, plus lesser

> offenses. He was sentenced to serve 57 months in prison and make

> more than $2.5 million in restitution to Michigan State University,

> Oregon State University, Washington State University, and Utah

> State University.

>

> Ironically, one of the laboratories destroyed by the

> Michigan arsons was engaged in developing the use of sperm cells as

> an alternative to using whole animals in toxicology research. It was

> located next door to a lab that conducted studies to improve the

> efficiency of ranching mink.

>

> >INGRID NEWKIRK

>

> ANIMAL PEOPLE in early 1998 published the allegation of

> Norfolk-area cat rescuer John Newton that a hit squad led initially

> by PETA cofounder Ingrid Newkirk had for three years trapped cats

> from neuter/return colonies supervised by the Meower Power Feral Cat

> Coalition and took many to their deaths at animal control shelters.

> Newkirk has written that " We do not advocate 'right to life' for

> animals, " but PETA has rarely if ever told donors that killing

> homeless animals is part of the PETA agenda.

>

> However, Newkirk confirmed to Michael Barakat of Associated

> Press in July 2000 that her staff killed 1,325 of the 2,103 dogs and

> cats they received in 1999--63%. According to Virginia state

> records, PETA in 2003 killed 1,911 of 2,225 animals received: 86%.

> Thus PETA killed markedly more animals, and a higher percentage of

> animal intake, precisely opposite to the national and regional

> trends. Although PETA is not a shelter organization, it killed

> more animals each year than 75% of the animal control shelters in

> Virginia.

>

> This sort of thing was apparently still going on quite recently.

>

> PETA staffers Adria J. Hinkle, 27, and Andrew B. Cook, 24,

> were on June 15, 2005 charged with cruelty in Ahoski, North

> Carolina. They have not yet gone to trial. Ahoskie police and

> Bertie County sheriff's deputies investigating the discovery of 60 to

> 70 animal carcasses in dumpsters during the preceding four weeks

> testified that they saw Hinkle and Cook dump 18 dead dogs and found

> the remains of 13 more in their van. PETA had been taking animals

> from Bertie County since 2001 and Northampton County since 2004.

> PETA suspended Hinkle for 90 days, but not Cook.

>

> Newkirk and domestic animal rescue chief Daphna Nachminovitch

> claimed that PETA never concealed that most of the animals it took

> from the North Carolina shelters would be killed, but ANIMAL PEOPLE

> in mid-2004 received complaints from North Carolina shelter

> volunteers and one ex-PETA employee who stated that PETA was pledging

> that the animals it took would be adopted, and was taking animals

> who had been sterilized and vaccinated in preparation for adoption.

> PETA refused to account for the animals, but the complainants had no

> physical evidence at that time that the animals had been killed.

>

> >KEVIN JONAS

>

> Convicted of conspiracy to commit animal enterprise terrorism

> and interstate stalking.

>

> Kjonaas, also known as " Jonas, " formed the U.S. branch of SHAC.

>

> The SHAC web site offered personal information about

> employees of Huntingdon Life Sciences and companies that did business

> with Huntingdon, including not only names, addresses, and home

> telephone numbers, but also in some cases the schools that their

> children attended, the names of their teachers, and their

> after-school activities.

>

> Targeted individuals testified that they " they were besieged

> by screaming protesters outside their homes at all hours, deluged by

> threatening phone calls, and were sent pornographic magazines they

> had not ordered, " summarized Wayne Parry of Associated Press. " One

> woman said she received an e-mail threatening to cut her 7-year-old

> son open and stuff him with poison. A man said he was showered with

> glass as people smashed all the windows of his home and overturned

> his wife's car. "

>

> The testimony was supported by videos of some of the home

> demonstrations.

>

> >CHRIS DEROSE

>

> As ANIMAL PEOPLE reported at the time, with extensive quotes

> provided in writing by DeRose, in 1993 two volunteers working with

> DeRose, posing as Koreans, paid now deceased dog dealer Erwin

> Stebane $50 to kill and butcher a dog while DeRose clandestinely

> videotaped the action. Felony charges were filed against Stebane,

> based on the video, but in June 1993 Calumet County circuit judge

> Donald Poppy ruled that the case involved illegal entrapment and

> ordered the return of 143 dogs who had been seized from Stebane.

>

> The USDA had fined Stebane in 1987 for repeated violations of

> the Animal Welfare Act, appealed seeking stiffer penalties when an

> administrative law judge suspended Stebane's operating permit for

> only 20 days, and cited him for further violations, but could not

> put him out of business until after the Pet Theft Act took effect in

> January 1993.

>

> In February 1993, the USDA used information supplied by

> ANIMAL PEOPLE to put four Class B dealers out of business. Cases

> were opened against many others. Stebane was finally closed down as

> part of a February 1994 plea bargain pertaining to multiple

> accumulated alleged AWA violations.

>

> >JERRY VLASAK

>

> Vlasek was barred in 2004 from visiting England to address an

> animal rights conference, because of remarks he made in 2003 that

> seemed to endorse killing vivisectors. In April 2005, while a

> member of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society board of directors,

> Vlasak allegedly said similar things about sealers in a radio

> interview, and was removed from the Sea Shepherd board after

> allegedly posting personal details about a sealer on the Sea Shepherd

> web site.

>

> >RONNIE LEE

>

> I believe his convictions--more than 30 years ago--were for

> arson and vandalism. Since then, he has mainly issued statements

> encouraging others to do similar things.

>

> > AND PAUL WATSON

>

> (From ANIMAL PEOPLE, March 1994.)

>

> Reject, isolate, abandon undisciplined ALF

> by Paul Watson

> Captain, Sea Shepherd Conservation Society

>

> [EXCERPTS]

>

> Much controversy has been generated over the last few years

> by the Animal Liberation Front and most recently by the attacks on

> the fur departments of major department stores in Chicago. The ALF

> has been condemned for terrorism and has made itself a primary target

> for investigation by the FBI. It is only a matter of time until some

> serious arrests are made and perhaps it is only a matter of time

> until the now unblemished record of the animal and conservation

> movements is irreparably tarnished.

>

> To date, there has not been a single human being injured or

> slain by an animal rights, animal welfare, or conservation movement

> person or organization. Perhaps it is inevitable that such a thing

> will some day happen, but I believe that we should do everything in

> our power to keep that day far into the future. Our strength lies in

> our morality and in the ethical advantage of remaining steadfast in

> our respect for life. All life must always be of paramount concern.

>

> I have met some people who have participated in ALF projects.

> For the most part with a few notable exceptions, I was not impressed

> with their lack of discipline and security, lack of strategy and a

> lack of understanding of tactics. The various ALF hits that have

> been reported also display inadequate discipline, tactics, strategy

> and security.

>

> Some people have seen no difference between the sinking of

> whaling ships by the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society and the

> actions of the ALF. In fact there are many important strategic

> differences. First and most importantly, we target whaling ships or

> driftnet fishing operations that have been outlawed by an

> international regulatory agency. Secondly, we engineer an attack

> which takes great pains to avoid any possibility of injury to our

> opposition, targeting only ships and machinery. Third, our

> objectives are meant to increase insurance and security costs

> overall--the actual target ship is secondary to this. Fourth, we

> take responsibility, we cooperate with the appropriate authorities

> on any investigations, and we accept the legal and moral

> consequences for our actions.

>

> There is no profit to be gained for the cause by intimidating

> department stores to not sell fur coats at the cost of negating years

> of hard-won gains in legislation. There is no profit in destroying

> an animal lab with fire if it blackens the entire movement as

> criminal and irresponsible.

>

> Our movement needs humor, it needs imagination, it needs

> evolution, and it needs flexibility. We do not need the shroud of

> violence and dark, evil associations with the tactics of the Irish

> Republican Army, the CIA, and the Red Brigade. A movement of life

> promotes life and utilizes vibrant ideas to engineer strategies

> within which to develop tactics that are positively effective and at

> the same time inspiring to others. Leave the bombs and the torches

> to those who would negate life by taking it.

>

> --

> Merritt Clifton

> Editor, ANIMAL PEOPLE

> P.O. Box 960

> Clinton, WA 98236

>

> Telephone: 360-579-2505

> Fax: 360-579-2575

> E-mail: anmlpepl <anmlpepl%40whidbey.com>

> Web: www.animalpeoplenews.org

>

> [ANIMAL PEOPLE is the leading independent newspaper providing

> original investigative coverage of animal protection worldwide,

> founded in 1992. Our readership of 30,000-plus includes the

> decision-makers at more than 10,000 animal protection organizations.

> We have no alignment or affiliation with any other entity. $24/year;

> for free sample, send address.]

>

January 5, 2007

Hmmmm....this is getting more and more exciting !

As the countdown to the AFAC` 2007 begins, with a couple of days only

to go, I can see that the mud wrestling amongst AAPN colleagues

refuses to die down.

Thats nice, there should always be more and more scope for healthy

arguments. But its fair only if it is limited to arguments alone and

not FIGHTS.

Let me make my point clear, YES, I am looking forward to seeing the

film screened and if possible meeting the fimlmaker too someday.

People should be given a fair chance to view things on their own and

pass comments and feedbacks.

Restricting or advicing people concerned with animals to stay away

from watching films on animal liberation is a desperate attempt, and

should not be permitted to be practiced.

I am sure no one attending the conference is gonna be a MINOR, neither

do they need a BIG DADDY to decide the Do`s and Dont`s.

It is very typical of Merritt Clifton to attack people trying to do

something.

It is worth really to make an effort to stay away from that man.

My advice to would be : don't take any notice and stay

away from responding to such remarks, some people to be happy when

they can attack colleagues.

It is not worth the bother, these people need to be ignored and with

time they`ll find themselves isolated.

Let people do what best they feel as long as it is for the benefit of

animals. They may do it anyway they find best.

Even Merritt does it the COPY / PASTE style jourlism for 'Animal

People' at times, lifting statements from AAPN and elsewhere. I guess,

that is his style.

Even that requires some effort, and as long as it is done ethically

for the interest of animals it is good.

As long as it sells, and makes him happy, let him be.

In his recent EXCLUSIVE front page EDITORIAL he has adressed me as

Assam Journalist, well I am not.I am just a technical guy whose job is

to wield the camera. But yes, I voiced against elephant polo because I

have the authoroty to do so as as someone who has undergone 'Orphaned

Elephant Management " under dame Daphne`s supervision and am a

qualified Master Trainer in Animal Welfare of the same AWBI whose

Chairperson shamelessly was watching 'Cartier Elephant Polo Cup " .

So a reader reading his article gets the idea that a dumb Journalist

from a remote place is fighting against elite people who understand

elephants and is therefore creating a ruckus.

Mr. Merritt also gets my name wrong always when he prints anything on

me " Azam Siddique " is wrong !

I am afraid we waste too much of time infighting amongst ourselves.

Let us end it once and for all, lets end it for GOOD.

I dont know how many people at AAPN enjoy getting kicked in the teeth.

Perhaps none !

Let us all be careful not to get too involved debating opponents over

and over again, for this diversionary tactic takes time and energy

away from being pro-creatively active.

We only have a finite amount of energy that can go into different

activities, and collectively it could result better.

Will a fight between humans help? Or, will reasoning with those

responsible for the issues be more helpful ?

Azam Siddiqui

aapn , Merritt Clifton <anmlpepl wrote: