Re: [HLSsucks] The Shaklee bombing: How should the animal rights movement respond?
- I would like to say thank you to everyone who has enough courage to actually stand up for the animals and do something NOW.
Writing letters never freed a black slave.
Thank you for having nerve that most of us don't.
----- Original Message -----
Date: Thursday, October 2, 2003 7:23 pm
Subject: [HLSsucks] The Shaklee bombing: How should the animal rights movement respond?
> According to yesterday's San Francisco Chronicle,
> bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/10/01/BA252071.DTL), an "animal
> rights" group calling itself Revolutionary Cells sent an anonymous
> claiming that it perpetrated last Friday's bombing at the Shaklee
> company offices
> in Pleasanton, California as well as last month's bombing of
> California biotech firm Chiron. Both companies are owned by
> Yamanouchi Consumer
> Inc., which does business with Huntingdon Life Sciences, a New
> Jersey research
> firm that experiments on animals. The Revolutionary Cells' motive
> is to drive
> Huntingdon Life Sciences out of business by threatening the lives
> of its
> customers' employees and their families, referred to as "targets"
> by the group's
> e-mail. The message included a specific threat to double the size
> of the bombs
> used in each future attack. No one was hurt in either bombing.
> The FBI is
> I am not writing now to argue against the use of violent tactics
> by our
> movement as I have done in the past. Given that those who use
> such tactics push
> our movement further away from those in the cultural mainstream
> whose hearts and
> minds we must win to achieve our goals; given that violent tactics
> smear all
> law-abiding activists with the wide brush of negative stereotyping
> all terrorists!"); and given that terrorism will only increase the
> time it will
> take to achieve our goals, thus costing billions or trillions of
> infinitely more suffering, by creating an enormous backlash
> against our movement's
> goals; I cannot imagine any situation in which violence could be
> justified as
> a worthwhile tactic to further our goal of animal liberation.
> The issue about which I am writing now takes the question of
> tactics to the
> next level: What is the ethical duty of animal rights supporters
> who have
> information about the perpetrators of such violent and
> counterproductive actions
> done in the name of our movement? Are we to remain silent in the
> face of
> terror tactics, which will surely, sooner or later, result in
> maimings and deaths
> that will create widows and orphans? Are we to protect those
> whose tactics
> will ultimately cost countless more innocent animals their lives
> and seriously
> set back our movement's progress? Are some of us, by providing
> secrecy to those
> who made themselves terrorists by their choice of terror tactics,
> condoning such terror tactics and assuming ethical responsibility
> for those
> violent actions?
> Or are we, by protecting our movement's tiny, violent fringe,
> helping to
> defeat dominionism and speciesism by protecting those whom some
> call heroes for
> undertaking highly visible and extreme forms of activism that are
> guaranteed to
> get media coverage?
> It is worth remembering that, during the 1960's Vietnam War, the
> Project Cointelpro used people on the FBI payroll to literally
> take-over anti-war
> groups and steer them to violence in an attempt to discredit the
> movement and divide it from the mainstream of Americans. The
> government understood
> that turning a movement for change to violence could be the
> quickest way to
> destroy the movement. I am not accusing those who have committed
> these bombings
> of being government agents but, after Cointelpro, we would be most
> unwise to
> forget that those who will benefit most from violence are those
> who most want
> to stop us from gaining our goals. Thus, those who use terror
> tactics must
> understand that they will find no support, comfort, respect, or
> friendship of
> any kind from those of us who are truly committed to animal
> liberation, not
> In my opinion, when so-called "activists" attempt to gain
> compassionate goals through the use of terror tactics, they choose
> to leave not only
> the community of animal activists but the community of civilized
> human beings
> as well. Those who use extortion enforced by violence to achieve
> their goals,
> no matter how humane those goals, are racketeers, pure and simple.
> can those who, by their silence, implicitly condone the violence
> extortion used by these extremists be any less culpable than those
> who actually
> perform the acts of terror?
> I don't see how.
> Tell of your passion of the causes you fight for!
> "Hunting ... the least honorable form of war on the weak".
> - Paul Richard
> Don't just question animal abuse. Interrogate it, impugn it, tear
> it down,
> dismember it, bury it, and when the mood strikes you, dance on its
> "My doctrine is this: that if we see cruelty or wrong that we have
> the power
> to stop, and we do nothing, we make ourselves sharers in the
> - Anna Sewell, (English Novelist)