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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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.