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

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

Expand Messages
  • Matthew G Liebman
    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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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.