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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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.