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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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.