Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

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

Expand Messages
  • Pete
    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
    Message 1 of 9 , Aug 16, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      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.



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Pete
      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,
      Message 2 of 9 , Aug 16, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        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' Yahoo group, 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.) ;-)




        ----- Original Message -----
        From: "Matthew G Liebman" <mliebman@...>
        To: "Pete" <plcohon@...>
        Cc: "South Bay Veggies" <southbayveggies@yahoogroups.com>; "Veggie Jews"
        <VeggieJews@yahoogroups.com>; "SFVeg" <SFVeg@yahoogroups.com>; "Freedom For
        Animals" <freedomforanimals@yahoogroups.com>; "BAARN"
        <baarn@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Monday, August 16, 2004 1:11 PM
        Subject: 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
      • Paris Harvey
        Great dialogue! thanks for sharing..both of you... I think you are both right!! This issue is so important. And so all encompassing. Pete
        Message 3 of 9 , Aug 16, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          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' Yahoo group, 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.) ;-)




          ----- Original Message -----
          From: "Matthew G Liebman" <mliebman@...>
          To: "Pete" <plcohon@...>
          Cc: "South Bay Veggies" <southbayveggies@yahoogroups.com>; "Veggie Jews"
          <VeggieJews@yahoogroups.com>; "SFVeg" <SFVeg@yahoogroups.com>; "Freedom For
          Animals" <freedomforanimals@yahoogroups.com>; "BAARN"
          <baarn@yahoogroups.com>
          Sent: Monday, August 16, 2004 1:11 PM
          Subject: 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



          Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT


          ---------------------------------
          Yahoo! Groups Links

          To visit your group on the web, go to:
          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SFVeg/

          To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
          SFVeg-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

          Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



          Paris Harvey
          Bite Back Vegan Society
          925 788 8296 (PST)
          Join bitebackvegan@yahoogroups.com for updates, calendars, articles
          If you love animals...check this out...http://tinyurl.com/2xkmc
          Now look at this...no frills site.. http://www.factoryfarming.com/gallery.htm and keep looking! "but, I don't want to look at that" you say?....but you must!











          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Matthew G Liebman
          [I ve added the sfbaveg list to the recipients, because I think this issue deserves serious attention. Those new to this thread can read from the bottom up.
          Message 4 of 9 , Aug 16, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            [I've added the sfbaveg 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' Yahoo group, 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.)  ;-)
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > ----- Original Message -----
            >
            > From: "Matthew G Liebman" <mliebman@...>
            >
            > To: "Pete" <plcohon@...>
            >
            > Cc: "South Bay Veggies" <southbayveggies@yahoogroups.com>; "Veggie Jews"
            >
            > <VeggieJews@yahoogroups.com>; "SFVeg" <SFVeg@yahoogroups.com>; "Freedom
            > For
            >
            > Animals" <freedomforanimals@yahoogroups.com>; "BAARN"
            >
            > <baarn@yahoogroups.com>
            >
            > Sent: Monday, August 16, 2004 1:11 PM
            >
            > Subject: 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.
          • 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
            Message 5 of 9 , Aug 17, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              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 sfbaveg 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' Yahoo group, 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.) ;-)
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > ----- Original Message -----
              >
              > From: "Matthew G Liebman" <mliebman@...>
              >
              > To: "Pete" <plcohon@...>
              >
              > Cc: "South Bay Veggies" <southbayveggies@yahoogroups.com>; "Veggie Jews"
              >
              > <VeggieJews@yahoogroups.com>; "SFVeg" <SFVeg@yahoogroups.com>; "Freedom
              > For
              >
              > Animals" <freedomforanimals@yahoogroups.com>; "BAARN"
              >
              > <baarn@yahoogroups.com>
              >
              > Sent: Monday, August 16, 2004 1:11 PM
              >
              > Subject: 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.




              Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT


              ---------------------------------
              Yahoo! Groups Links

              To visit your group on the web, go to:
              http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SFVeg/

              To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
              SFVeg-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

              Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



              ---------------------------------
              Do you Yahoo!?
              New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!

              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Matthew G Liebman
              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
              Message 6 of 9 , Aug 17, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                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
                >
              • Julie Dull
                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
                Message 7 of 9 , Aug 18, 2004
                • 0 Attachment
                  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



                  -----Original Message-----
                  From: Matthew G Liebman [mailto:mliebman@...]
                  Sent: Monday, August 16, 2004 11:30 PM
                  To: Pete
                  Cc: South Bay Veggies; Veggie Jews; SFVeg; Freedom For Animals; BAARN;
                  sfbaveg@yahoogroups.com
                  Subject: [SFVeg] Re: Top Chiron lawyer's home is vandalized --
                  Protesters clothed in black linked to animal-rights group


                  [I've added the sfbaveg 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' Yahoo group, 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.) ;-)
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > ----- Original Message -----
                  >
                  > From: "Matthew G Liebman" <mliebman@...>
                  >
                  > To: "Pete" <plcohon@...>
                  >
                  > Cc: "South Bay Veggies" <southbayveggies@yahoogroups.com>; "Veggie
                  Jews"
                  >
                  > <VeggieJews@yahoogroups.com>; "SFVeg" <SFVeg@yahoogroups.com>;
                  "Freedom
                  > For
                  >
                  > Animals" <freedomforanimals@yahoogroups.com>; "BAARN"
                  >
                  > <baarn@yahoogroups.com>
                  >
                  > Sent: Monday, August 16, 2004 1:11 PM
                  >
                  > Subject: 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.





                  Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

                  ADVERTISEMENT

                  <http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=129imutj7/M=298184.5285298.6392945.3001176/
                  D=groups/S=1705171641:HM/EXP=1092810608/A=2164331/R=0/SIG=11eaelai9/*htt
                  p://www.netflix.com/Default?mqso=60183351> click here

                  <http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=298184.5285298.6392945.3001176/D=group
                  s/S=:HM/A=2164331/rand=628757691>


                  _____

                  Yahoo! Groups Links


                  * To visit your group on the web, go to:
                  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SFVeg/


                  * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                  SFVeg-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                  <mailto:SFVeg-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>


                  * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
                  Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .




                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • Pete
                  MessageThere s a difference between constructive and destructive direct action, Julie. Constructive direct action, like rescuing abused animals, helps both
                  Message 8 of 9 , Aug 18, 2004
                  • 0 Attachment
                    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.


                    ----- Original Message -----
                    From: Julie Dull
                    To: 'Matthew G Liebman' ; 'Pete'
                    Cc: 'South Bay Veggies' ; 'Veggie Jews' ; 'SFVeg' ; 'Freedom For Animals' ; 'BAARN' ; sfbaveg@yahoogroups.com
                    Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2004 9:30 PM
                    Subject: RE: [SFVeg] 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


                    -----Original Message-----
                    From: Matthew G Liebman [mailto:mliebman@...]
                    Sent: Monday, August 16, 2004 11:30 PM
                    To: Pete
                    Cc: South Bay Veggies; Veggie Jews; SFVeg; Freedom For Animals; BAARN; sfbaveg@yahoogroups.com
                    Subject: [SFVeg] Re: Top Chiron lawyer's home is vandalized -- Protesters clothed in black linked to animal-rights group


                    [I've added the sfbaveg 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' Yahoo group, 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.) ;-)
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > ----- Original Message -----
                    >
                    > From: "Matthew G Liebman" <mliebman@...>
                    >
                    > To: "Pete" <plcohon@...>
                    >
                    > Cc: "South Bay Veggies" <southbayveggies@yahoogroups.com>; "Veggie Jews"
                    >
                    > <VeggieJews@yahoogroups.com>; "SFVeg" <SFVeg@yahoogroups.com>; "Freedom
                    > For
                    >
                    > Animals" <freedomforanimals@yahoogroups.com>; "BAARN"
                    >
                    > <baarn@yahoogroups.com>
                    >
                    > Sent: Monday, August 16, 2004 1:11 PM
                    >
                    > Subject: 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.




                    Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                    ADVERTISEMENT





                    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Yahoo! Groups Links

                    a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
                    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SFVeg/

                    b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                    SFVeg-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                    c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • Julie Dull
                    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
                    Message 9 of 9 , Aug 18, 2004
                    • 0 Attachment
                      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



                      -----Original Message-----
                      From: Pete [mailto:plcohon@...]
                      Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2004 10:00 PM
                      To: Julie Dull; SFVeg
                      Subject: Re: [SFVeg] 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.



                      ----- Original Message -----
                      From: Julie Dull <mailto:dullcats@...>
                      To: 'Matthew G Liebman' <mailto:mliebman@...> ; 'Pete'
                      <mailto:plcohon@...>
                      Cc: 'South Bay Veggies' <mailto:southbayveggies@yahoogroups.com> ;
                      'Veggie Jews' <mailto:VeggieJews@yahoogroups.com> ; 'SFVeg'
                      <mailto:SFVeg@yahoogroups.com> ; 'Freedom For Animals'
                      <mailto:freedomforanimals@yahoogroups.com> ; 'BAARN'
                      <mailto:baarn@yahoogroups.com> ; sfbaveg@yahoogroups.com
                      Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2004 9:30 PM
                      Subject: RE: [SFVeg] 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



                      -----Original Message-----
                      From: Matthew G Liebman [mailto:mliebman@...]
                      Sent: Monday, August 16, 2004 11:30 PM
                      To: Pete
                      Cc: South Bay Veggies; Veggie Jews; SFVeg; Freedom For Animals; BAARN;
                      sfbaveg@yahoogroups.com
                      Subject: [SFVeg] Re: Top Chiron lawyer's home is vandalized --
                      Protesters clothed in black linked to animal-rights group


                      [I've added the sfbaveg 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' Yahoo group, 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.) ;-)
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > ----- Original Message -----
                      >
                      > From: "Matthew G Liebman" <mliebman@...>
                      >
                      > To: "Pete" <plcohon@...>
                      >
                      > Cc: "South Bay Veggies" <southbayveggies@yahoogroups.com>; "Veggie
                      Jews"
                      >
                      > <VeggieJews@yahoogroups.com>; "SFVeg" <SFVeg@yahoogroups.com>;
                      "Freedom
                      > For
                      >
                      > Animals" <freedomforanimals@yahoogroups.com>; "BAARN"
                      >
                      > <baarn@yahoogroups.com>
                      >
                      > Sent: Monday, August 16, 2004 1:11 PM
                      >
                      > Subject: 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.





                      Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

                      ADVERTISEMENT

                      <http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=129imutj7/M=298184.5285298.6392945.3001176/
                      D=groups/S=1705171641:HM/EXP=1092810608/A=2164331/R=0/SIG=11eaelai9/*htt
                      p://www.netflix.com/Default?mqso=60183351> click here

                      <http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=298184.5285298.6392945.3001176/D=group
                      s/S=:HM/A=2164331/rand=628757691>


                      _____

                      Yahoo! Groups Links


                      * To visit your group on the web, go to:
                      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SFVeg/


                      * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                      SFVeg-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                      <mailto:SFVeg-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>


                      * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
                      Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .




                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.