click to enlarge
Selected articles from Arkangel No.2
Spring, 1990
Contents:
Animal Liberation But Not Too
Much?
by Ronnie Lee
You will notice that in the National and Local sections of
Arkangel I have included information about environmental
organisations (Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth etc.) as well
as the more usual animal rights/protection ones. I feel this
is very important as, although these environmental groups do
not operate from a strictly "animal rights" standpoint, their
work has a very important part to play in the achievement of
animal liberation.
Too often animal rights campaigners, heavily involved in
their constant battle against vivisection, factory farming,
the fur trade etc, ignore the extent to which animals are
persecuted by the destruction of the environment. Vivisection
labs and factory farms may well be the concentration camps of
the human Reich, but they are, in a sense, only the tip of the
iceberg of animal persecution and getting rid of them would
only go part of the way to giving the animals back their
freedom. More animal suffering and oppression probably arises
from environmental destruction than from any other single
cause.
It would do well for us to speak of human imperialism. Not
content with just having its fair share of the planet, the
human species has everywhere invaded and despoiled territories
which rightfully belong to other creatures. Perhaps the worst
words ever spoken (if, indeed, they were) were "Go forth and
multiply". A call for a human occupation of the world similar
to that of the Nazis for "Lebensraum". Thus the end of
vivisection labs, of factory farms, will never be enough
because it still leaves behind the injustice and oppression of
the original "enemy" occupation. True animal liberation will
not come merely through the destruction of the Dachaus and
Buchenwalds that the occupiers have built for their victims,
but demands nothing less than the driving back of the human
species to pre-invasion boundaries.
So, in practical terms, what does this mean? It means the
end of environmental pollution and the industrial society
which causes it. The end of such things as the private car.
The end of methods of agriculture relying on pesticides,
artificial fertilizers and other poisons. The end of cities
and vast urban conurbations, which are like deserts to most
wild animal species. The end of large-scale farming which
provides little habitat for them either. And perhaps above
all, a drastic cut in the number of the human species. The
radical American environmental group Earth First! has
estimated that the right level of human population world wide
should be about 50 million.Today more than that number live
just in Britain.
Thus true animal liberation doesn't just require a
tinkering with the worst excesses of human oppression but
widespread and radical changes in the very way we live. The
only form of human society conducive to the just treatment of
other creatures is one which is decentralized with people
living in small communities rather than towns or cities,
de-industrialized, employing small scale organic (veganic),
methods of farming and with a vast reductIon in human numbers
(by humane methods of course).
Sadly this may all be too much for many "animal
protectionists" who still want their jobs their cars their
umpteen kids, their domestic appliances. But half a liberation
is no liberation. Animal rights campaigning needs to extend
itself to other areas which hitherto it has hardly touched on.
To fighting against pollution, industrialization and habitat
destruction.
Thus we have to work hand in hand with Green and
environmental organisations, not just (as is their motive) to
create a better world for "our children and our children's
children", but to give freedom, Justice and life itself to
other animals and theirs.
Beyond Non-Violence
by John F. Robins, Organising Secretary - Animal Concern
(Scotland)
Thanks for the copy of Arkangel 1 it was interesting,
informative and thought provoking. I hope it keeps going and
that before long Ronnie is able to work on it without his
current restrictions.
I would, of course, like to comment on Ronnie's piece
'Beyond Nonviolence'. Only a fool would deny the tremendous
advances won for animals by the work of Ronnie and other
direct action activists but I do think Ronnie is being naive
over the issue of incendiaries, bombs and contamination of
'food' stuffs. All the philosophy and soul searching in the
world cannot justify setting in action situations over which
there can be no control, and which put at risk firefighters,
security/cleaning staff, bystanders and animals which live in
or on targeted premises.
To live a cruelty-free life style people look for
alternatives. Are there lower risks (to life if not to
capture) alternative methods for causing economic damage? On
that all I can say is that I have never condemned activists
who have physically caused damage to research, fur or farming
establishments without resorting to uncontrolled tactics such
as fire. Actions which released animals or damning
information, even when causing considerable, physical damage
to property, were effective in causing economic damage to
exploiters and in opening the eyes of the public to the
horrors of the exploitation. Fires and bombs add to the
vivisectors and furriers own smokescreen of secrecy and turn
liberators into terrorists and exploiters into victims. This
was recognised by the Economic League who stated that if the
violence died down the exploiters better start getting some
good PR together because they would have to justify their
case.
These are not just my words of condemnation nor the words
of the media but the reaction felt from the public on the
street. The public often react in support of what they see as
the underdog and will feel sympathy for a vivisector who finds
a device under her car before they would even bother to think
of the beagles under her scalpel. In December 1989 a woman had
a fur coat torn from her back in the street. It didn't hurt
her and I doubt if it even caused her as much stress as two
minutes in the cages of the coats real owners would have done.
Within days the press were full of comments and letters
supporting the woman with little reference to the real
victims. We must avoid turning the exploiter into the
exploited.
When incidents like the Bristol bomb or Edinburgh fires
occur the media contact the contactable for comment. If I said
"I understand why people do this" I would be lying. I don't
understand why people take uncontrolled action which risks
innocent life. I've been inside factory farms, vivisection
laboratories, fur farms and slaughterhouses. I know where hell
is. I also know you cannot close these hellish places down by
giving the authorities the excuse to further protect the
exploiters and persecute the liberators. If on the other hand
I refused to comment then that would be taken as silent
support for such actions. I should also like to mention that
in some of the live broadcasts I was able to discuss animal
exploitation and make it clear my condemnation was directed at
those using fire or explosives, not at liberators. However, as
expected, recorded and written pieces edited out most of that.
I did not slag the ALF as a whole, I have too much respect for
what they have achieved to do that. All my condemnation has
been directed at the individuals concerned in specific
actions.
Ronnie suggests that condemnation by myself and the many
others who have done so of such actions as, bombing or arson
is counter productive. I would suggest that it is those
actions themselves which are counter-productive and
condemnation limits the damage to our cause as a whole. It is
only a very small minority who carry out such actions and it
must be made clear that such acts do not have the support of
the movement as a whole. The. fact that condemnation has come
in volume from so very many diverse areas within the movement
must surely make those responsible open their minds to the
possibility that their tactics may be wrong?
During my time with Mobilisation for Animals there were
many voices telling us we were wrong in the way we were
tackling the proposals for new legislation. I wish we had
listened. We were wrong and wasted time, effort and resources.
I appeal to those involved in bombing or incendiary actions to
at least listen to their critics. If, as Ronnie suggests,
those involved are genuine animal rights campaigners then I
apologise for calling them scum. I still think they are very,
very wrong and misguided, and causing more damage to our cause
than that of the exploiters.
On the subject of whether or not such people are as much
our enemies as exploiters I think they are. By giving the
exploiters public sympathy and added security they, albeit not
deliberately, are causing the movement harm. Perhaps a better
comparison would be with someone in a liberationist cell who
downs a few pints and starts talking about actions in the
pub.
I would ask you to think about the Fran Trutt case in the
USA. The opposition realised how effective it would be for
their cause to encourage her into violence and even supplied
her with the tools. Had the infiltrators not been uncovered
they could easily have turned the mask of liberation in
America into the helmet of terrorism.
Finally I would suggest that we must all be prepared to
admit our mistakes. We must also be prepared to listen to the
voices of our colleagues in the struggle. I've had what I
thought were terrific ideas for successful campaign tactics
but have had to put them aside when few people agreed with me.
When everyone seems to be telling you that, you are wrong,
human nature often brings your ego to the fore, urging you to
march on regardless. Perhaps that was why mistakes were made
with Mobilisation? if we are a movement and try to accept each
other as part of that movement despite differences of opinion
then surely we can also learn from each others mistakes?
CONTROVERSIAL ACTIONS
by Andrew Fenton
As Ronnie Lee very ably explains, "violence" against
property and against "guilty" people is justified. Unless we
are to adopt a hypocritical and therefore speciesist stance
with regard to violence we must realise that morally there
will always be circumstances where violence is justified. Let
look at an imaginary (though not unlikely) situation: A person
who is physically incapable of defending him/herself is being
violently attacked in the street. Is there one of us who would
not use whatever force was necessary to prevent the attacker
from causing his victim further suffering? Somehow I doubt it.
How is it then logically possible to condemn the actions of a
person who attacks a vivisector in a laboratory? The two
situations are hardly dissimilar. As animal liberationists we
are unable to draw a line between the pain of a human and the
pain of an animal. That is what makes us the way we are.
Ronnie Lee also raised the question of endangering lives
(human and animal) in incendiary attacks and hunt sabotage and
compares this to the possibility of people being injured by
speeding police cars or ambulances. Again, this argument (that
the risk of harming life is so small as to be worth taking) is
faultless in its logic. What we as a movement must consider,
however, is not simply whether violence is justified, but
whether it is valid as an effective campaigning tactic. We are
all involved in the animal rights movement because we want to
bring an end to the abuse and exploitation of animals.
Therefore we surely have a duty to do what will be most
effective in bringing about animal liberation. The fact that a
bombing or other violent act is morally justifiable does not
mean that we, as a movement , should necessarily indulge in
such acts. We have to do what is best for the cause and what
will most quickly bring about a situation where animal abuse
comes to an end.
I believe that, at the moment, most violent acts are
counter productive. The only thing which will, in the long
run, bring about animal liberation is a massive change in the
way people view animals. When the majority of people see
things our way then, perhaps, violence could be used as a
campaign tactic to hammer the last nail into the coffin. This
situation has already occurred with the campaign against the
fur trade. The majority of people agree with our views on fur
and when a furrier's window gets smashed the media generally
use the label "animal rights activists" or, at worst.
"extremists". There is no mention of loonies, maniacs or
terrorists. Behind this media reaction must be a subliminal
approval of the attack, or at least a disapproval of the fur
trade. I also believe that the public are not alienated by
such attacks simply because the majority of them, like us,
want to see the fur trade dead and buried.
If, however, violent attacks are carried out on medical
research laboratories, cancer research shops etc. we will be
labelled by the media as cranks, loonies, terrorists etc. etc.
The way the public and the media react to violent acts depends
more or less totally on how they view the victim of the
violence. Imagine this situation: Someone rapes and murders
Mother Theresa of Calcutta. On the following day someone does
the same to Myra Hindley. Public and media reactions would
obviously be vastly different. One murder would be widely
condemned, the other would, more than likely, be seen as some
kind of poetic justice.
The ALF should be aware that just because violence is
morally justifiable, it is not necessarily acceptable to carry
out such acts due to their possibly negative effects on the
progress of our movement. I believe that some acts of violence
are acceptable now. Setting fire to the local hunt's hound van
or smashing a furrier's window puts pressure on those animal
abusers and these sort of attacks have, without doubt, saved
the lives of many animals. What is equally important is that
these sort of attacks don't alienate the public. How many
people are bothered that the hunt has folded or that the
furrier has closed down? Equally the destruction of equipment
used for testing cosmetics on animals would probably be
widely, though perhaps not vociferously, supported. It must be
realised that where the public feels their own lifestyles
and/or well being are being threatened, violent acts will
almost always be counter-productive. Attacks on factory farms,
medical research labs etc. will only lead to alienation. When
people share our views on the barbarity and senselessness of
vivisection and animal farming, then acts of violence against
property (though never against people) will be wide1y
supported and worthwhile. If we are to gain any credibility as
a humanitarian movement we must reject personal violence as an
offensive tactic now and forever.
As regards the rantings of various parts of the movement in
response to certain acts (particularly the Bristol explosion)
I have to agree with almost everything Ronnie Lee says. Surely
we have all felt the anger and frustration which must have
been behind the planting of the Bristol bomb and other more
extreme actions. And let's not kid ourselves, it was a bomb
and no amount of wordplay can, or indeed should attempt to
disguise the fact. Whether or not we agree with such acts, the
only way to deal with much of the outrage surrounding them is
to attempt to explain the deep feelings which motivate people
to commit these acts.
Frustrating though it is, there are no short cuts along the
road to animal liberation. Ours will be a long, long fight,
but we owe it to our fe1low animals to consider very carefully
exactly what we are doing in their name and how we are going
to do it. There is no room for acts of self-indulgence, for
doing anything just so we feel as if we've done something.
Their freedom is more important than our self
gratification.
THE LEATHER ISSUE
by David Lane
A friend once asked me why the animal rights movement are
anti-fur but not anti-leather. He said he couldn't understand
why we, are violently opposed to the use of fur, yet seem
unconcerned by the use of leather. He argued that they are
basically the same, thing animal skins. My friend isn't
particularly sympathetic to our aims and the question was a
thinly disguised accusation of double standards. But it
troubled me because I couldn't give a satisfactory answer.
It's quite true, we have ignored the leather issue and it is
time we woke up to the fact. Have you ever wondered why our
towns are full of shops selling leather while everywhere fur
shops and fur departments are closing down? Or wondered why
there is no "leather" equivalent of Lynx? Or why so many
people in the animal rights movement actually wear the
stuff?
The By-product Myth
There are severa1 answers to these questions but the most
popular one invariably involves the term "by-product", as in
"animals are killed for their flesh, not their skin, so
leather is a by-product of the meat industry" and if leather
is only a by-product then we might as well use it because it
would only be thrown away otherwise and anyway, not using it
does nothing to save the lives of animals or that is how the
reasoning goes.
My dictionary defines "by-product" as a "substance produced
incidentally in the making of something else". But leather is
not a by-product of the meat industry, and it is not produced
incidentally. Every .part of an animal killed in a
slaughterhouse can be sold. Its muscles, fat and most of its
internal organs are sold for meat. Its blood goes to make pet
food and fertiliser. Its horns, hooves and bones are used to
make gelatine. Its eyes may go to a school for dissection. Its
hair is used to make brushes and to stuff furniture. Its skin
is made into suede, sheepskin or leather. The skin of an
animal represents something like 10 per cent of its value at
the abattoir. As Peter Singer writes in 'Animal Liberation',
"The sale of hides for leather plays a significant role in the
profitability of the meat industry". Just as the body of an
animal is treated as a raw material to be broken down into a
variety of useful products, so crude oil is broken down into
petrol, kerosine, bitumen, butane gas and so on. Kerosine
accounts for roughly 10 per cent of the value of crude oil. It
is used for jet fuel and as paraffin, but kerosine is not a
by-product of petrol. Like leather, it is a valuable product
in its own right.
The Old Cow Myth
All right, so leather isn't a by-product of meat, but
surely the fur trade inflicts far more suffering on animals
than the meat and leather industry. After all, doesn't most
leather come from old dairy cows who have spent a relatively
comfortable life down on the farm?
The myth here is that the production of leather involves
significantly less cruelty than the production of fur. Even if
it were true it would not excuse the use of leather, since
being less cruel doesn't make something acceptable. But it is
not true. - The difference in suffering is one of kind not
severity. Most of the leather that people buy is soft leather,
the softer the better. Soft leather is luxurious leather. Shoe
uppers, handbags, wallets, briefcases, sofas, armchairs and
jackets are all made from soft leather. But soft leather
doesn't come from old cows. It comes from young calves. The
very softest, most luxurious leather comes from the unborn
calf of a pregnant cow at the slaughterhouse. Many meat-eaters
refuse to eat veal because of the blatant cruelty to calves,
so why is it that most vegetarians and many animal rights
campaigners continue to wear their skins?
A Question of Money?
Is the difference between leather and fur one of money? I
hope not, but this possibility has occurred to me. It is a
very obvious fact that fur has only ever been available to the
privileged few. On the other hand, most people can afford
leather goods. I know it sounds cynical, but it's easy to
despise an activity that you can't afford to indulge in
anyway. Probably some equally cynical person will add that
foxhunting seems to attract rather more attention than the far
more widespread bloodsport of angling!
It might be argued that it is better to concentrate our
efforts on areas where there is a greater chance of success.
We are more likely to abolish foxhunting than fishing, and it
will be easier to close down the fur trade than the meat and
leather trade. Of course that's true, but you don't have to
choose between two evils, simply reject both. Don't buy a fur
coat, and don't buy a leather coat either!
No Alternative?
There will be many who accept much of what I say about the
leather issue, but who continue to use it anyway. They usually
claim not to like, wearing leather but say they have no
choice. Isn't the "no choice" excuse the one used by
vivisectors? Don't they claim that they have to use animals in
experiments because there are no alternatives? There are
always alternatives to leather, and the alternatives are
generally cheaper than the "real thing". How often have you
heard the claim that there are no alternatives to meat, eggs,
cow's milk and other animal products? Of course no one needs
to consume animal products but many people like to. But what
people want should never be confused with what people need,
and quite clearly nobody needs to use leather.
The Problem Within
Anything that anybody does to reduce animal suffering is a
good and positive thing. A meat-eater who cuts down on meat
should be praised, and encouraged to eat still less. But
anyone claiming to work for animal rights must be prepared to
free themselves from any possible charge of hypocrisy. If we
are to be successful in our attempts to persuade others to
adopt a cruelty-free lifestyle, we have to be seen to be doing
everything possible to live up to our own aims. How can
anybody, wearing leather shoes or a leather jacket hope to
persuade another person not to buy a fur coat? They don't have
the moral right to even try. It is a sad fact that far too
many people in the animal rights movement are not prepared to
free themselves from animal abuse. They, like those they hope
to influence, prefer to remain ignorant of the cruelty
involved in areas such as dairy farming and leather
production. They like their milk and their leather shoes and
would rather not be asked awkward questions. But the use of
animal skins for clothing, luxury goods or furniture involves
animal suffering comparable in scale to that caused by any
other form of animal abuse. We can't ignore the problem any
longer.
Get Informed!
There are two things you can do to help change things.
First. do not buy anything made from leather. Second, get
informed! The Campaign Against Leather and Fur (CALF!) is a
new group which aims to educate both the general public and
the animal rights movement about the leather issue. CALF can
be contacted at: BM 8889, London WC1N 3XX
|
