When I first began to learn about the animal rights movement, the people who were commonly held up to the most esteem were those who snuck in under the cover of darkness to ‘liberate’ abused animals at factory farms and laboratories. They pose in balaclavas with fluffy bunnies in their arms, and testify to the brutal conditions in which they find the animals. They sometimes get light sentences for their ‘property crimes’; some would invite a large media presence and openly trespass, break and enter and steal these beings which had been made into abused property, daring the court systems to be hypocritical enough to send them to jail for rectifying an obviously horrific situation.
For a while I fell under the romance of these mystery figures, admiring their willingness to stand up for what they thought was right, and rescue animals from an uncontestedly brutal situation. I thought that the highest goal I could have would be to create an animal sanctuary where I could house animals brought in by these covert animal rescuers.
Yet more and more I have come to find these animal rescues problematic – as well as the other illegal actions which tend towards intimidation, threats and violence in the name of animal rights. Foremost in perpetrating these sorts of actions is the Animal Liberation Front, passively supported by PeTA; there are other groups I’m sure. Some striking problems with animal rescue:
-while it may take some animals out of danger, animal rescue does not shut down the businesses that abuse animals, and for every animal that is rescued a new animal will be brought in for experiments
-the rescues will alienate whoever owns, works in, or invests in the business that has had animals removed; these people will not change their minds about the cruelty they inflict, or about the necessity of using animals for profit and experimentation
-prison sentences are becoming more serious for acts of ‘eco-terrorism’, and it is often the youngest members of an organization who will be sent out on these missions.
Then there are the more violent types of actions, which really appall me. The online ‘Bite Back’ magazine posts communiques from cells of animal so-called activists, whose most recent ‘victories’ include releasing tens of thousands of farmed salmon into the ecosystem in Sweden, or using an incendiary device to blow up the car of an animal experimenter from UCLA (they say they hope the experimenter is in the car next time).
I’ve written about them before and I still believe that:
“This is not activism at all, but sociopathic behaviour which destroys any claim to credibility which the ALF’s message might have, and damages the sympathies of the general public towards the notion of animal liberation. It seems that these sorts of activists would rather act out their feelings of helplessness by attempting to bully and coerce people into complying with their agenda than to act on any truly radical conviction …. Meanwhile, many others from all walks of activism are seeking a holistic approach to mend the world, attempting in the face of conflict and hysteria to rebuild the communities that we have almost lost, to re-create human relationships and connectedness to the environment. To act out conflict is to perpetuate it; to seek a new way is to re-build creatively and with patience for slow, sustainable change. The truly radical position here is to have faith in people, not to blow things (or people!) up.
“I don’t want to live in a society where anyone is trying to beat their message into myself or anyone else by force – even if I agree with their cause. I hate to see sensitive, sympathetic animal rights activists feel so impotent to change anything that they lash out with any means available to them: the most destructive, antisocial and unproductive of means being those which resort to violence. This sort of behaviour is the opposite of advocacy for animals, since it (understandably) influences public opinion towards supporting measures like the AETA, which will muzzle others who are thoughtfully and civic-mindedly striving for the liberation of animals from their suffering and their enslavement to human desires. A diversity of tactics is wonderful and essential to any movement, but those tactics should be based on rational aims and mutual aid, not moral superiority and violent enforcement.
“Neither do I want to live in a world where profit is the primary objective, where conscientious objectors to industries which perpetuate cruelty and abuse can be persecuted (and now, prosecuted) for exercising peaceful means of protest. I denounce the terrorization of individuals and their families at their homes, whether or not I deem them guilty of perpetuating the abuse of animals; I reject all means of intimidation, harassment, and threats of violence, whatever side of the issue they come from. To act out rage and helplessness is to show weakness; when instead we should be acting with strength to build community amongst activists, and sympathy for the cause amidst the general public. In a time when the actions of the worst animal rights extremists range from the ridiculous to the reprehensible, the rest of us must seek even harder to act with dignity and consistency within an ethical framework which seeks to respect all beings, and to compassionately educate others about the problems of animal treatment in our society” ( from an article published in PEJ News).
How can we sit around debating whether or not animal rights activists should engage in dangerous, law-breaking activities which leave them open to arrest and prosecution, when the prison-industrial complex is sending more and more people to jail? In the United States, 2.3 million people are behind bars – which means that while the U.S.A. only has 5% of the global population, it has 25% of the global prison population (see this article published in the International Herald Tribune). Further, more than 60% of the prison population now comprises ethnic and racial minorities, while 1 in 8 black men in their twenties are in prison on any given day (see The Sentencing Project website).
In Canada, 20% of adult inmates are aboriginal (from Statistics Canada report, cited in this CBC article) – while aboriginal people comprise only 3.8% of the total Canadian population according to Statistics Canada. And an increasing amount of women are being sent to jail in Canada for crimes which are not violent or property-related – while the only minimum-security prison for women in Kingston, Ontario was shut down this year, forcing low-risk offenders to move to higher-security prisons with more violent prisoners. The prison system is not a just one; why would we voluntarily send more people there to be caged and dominated?
Is it any wonder that people of color would refuse to participate in a movement that’s willing to send its young, impressionable members to prison – when so many of their own in the United States are imprisoned for trivial offences like marijuana possession or writing bad cheques – and frequently executed by the state for violent offences? While the white, rich politicians bask in their oil-soaked money, never being taken to task for the blood on their hands?
Or when activists paint themselves in tiger stripes or wear monkey masks, put themselves in cages, when black people have endured centuries of being referred to as, and treated like animals? Or when the female members of the movement are required by a so-called ‘animal rights’ group to take off bra and panties, ‘bare all’ for the animals, and act happy about it too?
No. I reject all this. I believe as Lee Hall does that animal rights at its core is about respect, and to engender that respect is to create a non-violent peace movement which can reach out to all possible allies, build bridges and communities, at the same time that it opposes and blocks and boycotts all forms of animal and human exploitation. Animal rights must be non-violent, because we don’t have the luxury of knowing what the animals would say or do if they could stage a violent insurrection against us – which except in isolated cases (where they are immediately euthanized) cannot happen. A friend of mine said, “Dogs cannot make fists” in response to the ALF logo which poses an animal paw against a human’s upraised fist.
Since the animals cannot advocate for themselves, we have to do the best we can to change people’s minds within our culture. Surely the best way to do this is through non-violent means, which do not burn bridges or alienate potential allies. And personally, I could never bring myself to utter hateful slurs against those who profit from the animal industries; to use bullhorns outside the homes of vivisectioners, blow up their cars, or threaten their children. I don’t think this is a personal failing of mine, but evidence of some sort of humanity. I respect humans and animals, and I take the long view that things will change, that we are not so powerless that we must “Do something – do anything.” I choose to recognize the power that I have to change things, and to retain my ability to communicate with others instead of lashing out in rage and helplessness.
Let us instead dwell in hope and joy at the number of people who are ‘getting it’, the number of converts to veganism, the turning tide of public opinion which is starting to recognize the injustices of the global food system, of agribusiness, of our impact on other species and the environment. Let us reach out to these people who are discovering the horrors of human and animal slavery within the food trade, and the waste and pollution which accompany animal agribusiness and long-distance shipping, and point out the alternatives – fresh, local, organic produce and a plant-based diet. And point out the ecosystems that can be rehabilitated, if we remove our pressures on them; the species that can recover, if the cattle-ranchers withdraw from the lands. Activism is hard work; but with optimism and enthusiasm we can continue doing the work that must be done, and be inspired by the notion that we are helping to change the tides.
Pingback: Anti-Alf abolitionists « ANTI-SPECIESISM IS JUSTICE