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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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.