militant animal rights activism

The Monday, May 9, Washington Post includes a story (Page A03) headed, "Animal Rights Activists Step Up Attacks in N.Y. Families of Drug Executives Are Harassed." (It is also in The Charlotte Observer, the Washington University Daily, and New Hampshire's Concord Monitor -- links below.)

It opens:
"Early one recent morning, the wife of a pharmaceutical executive was followed to her workplace, her car was broken into and her credit cards were stolen; later $20,000 in unauthorized charitable donations were billed on the cards.

"It was the latest in a series of attacks by the Animal Liberation Front on the Long Island family. The activists, who have asserted responsibility, once scrawled 'Puppy Killer' in red paint on the executive's house and have posted the couple's phone, license plate and bank account numbers on the Internet, along with this threat: "If we find a dime of that money granted to those charities was taken back, we will strip you bare."

"The Animal Liberation Front has targeted the executive's employer, Forest Laboratories Inc., as part of a six-year campaign against one of the company's contractors, Huntingdon Life Sciences. Huntingdon, a British-based firm, uses animals to test household products and medications.

"'Anybody who does business with this company, they become a legitimate target for the campaign,' Jerry Vlasak, an ALF spokesman and a physician in Los Angeles, said in a telephone interview."

The article includes the following quotes from the executive's wife:

"You feel powerless against what's going on around you....We are victims; we are innocent. These people have no clue what they do...We all have things we believe in, but do we set bombs and light cars on fire?....We live in a country where people shouldn't live like that."

The article does tell us that the ALF does not condone violence against people. And it includes an interesting quote from Vlasak:
"The above-ground campaign writes letters, and it's the underground actions that capture the interest."

But the quotes from the executive's wife reveal the significant trade-off for the attention brought to the cause. Direct action, and SHAC style harassment in particular (SHAC = Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty) can make those who abuse animals, or support that industry, look like the victims. Activists familiar with the SHAC campaign know about the type of horrendous cruelty that gave it momentum -- they have seen footage from HLS laboratories showing a scientist punching a beagle puppy in the face, and a primate, conscious on an operating, lifting her head with her chest cut wide open. (You can view that footage and learn more about the campaign at http://www.SHAC.net ). But Washington Post readers haven't seen that footage or even heard about it. They read only about the "victimization" of those in the biomedical industry as activists attempt to put HLS out of business.

Many mainstream groups condemn militant tactics -- and I agree that the mainstream of our movement should not be associated with this sort of activity. Some activists feel the methods are unethical, and some feel they are bad for the cause. But condemning militant activism is not going to make it go away -- no social justice movement has been without it. So activists must, rather than simply condemning militant tactics, do whatever is in our power to shift the focus of the discussion to the animals and the ways they are victimized for trivial purposes by the biomedical industry and Huntingdon Life Sciences. Activists who oppose militant tactics will do well to express their opposition but should not miss the opportunity to point to some of the absurd and horrendous uses of animals by the biomedical industry and to discuss the need for a shift to alternatives.

You can read the whole Washington Post article on line at:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/08/AR2005050800793.html
OR http://tinyurl.com/8pcap

You can email letters to letters [at] washpost.com. The paper advises, "Please do not send attachments; they will not be read.
...Letters must be exclusive to The Washington Post, and must include the writer's home address and home and business telephone numbers. Because of space limitations, those published are subject to abridgment. Although we are unable to acknowledge those letters we cannot publish, we appreciate the interest and value the views of those who take the time to send us their comments."

The article is on The Charlotte Observer website under the heading "Animal Rights Group Adds Bite to its Bark" at:
http://www.charlotte.com/mld/charlotte/news/11599570.htm?source=rss&channel=charlotte_news
The Charlotte Observer takes letters at: http://www.charlotte.com/mld/charlotte/contact_us/feedback/

"The Daily" of the University of Washington, Seattle has the story headed, "Militant Animal Liberation Front Escalate Attacks" at http://tinyurl.com/cxgtn
The Daily takes "Letters to the editor and opinion info" at: opinion [at] thedaily.washington.edu

And New Hampshire's Concord Monitor has the story, headed, "Animal rights group escalating attacks" on line at:
http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050509/REPOSITORY/505090347/1013/NEWS03
http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/misc?Url=/forms/opinion/letter_to_editor.pbs
The Concord Monitor takes letters at: letters [at] cmonitor.com

Always include your full name, address, and daytime phone number when sending a letter to the editor. Shorter letters are more likely to be published.


(DawnWatch is an animal advocacy media watch that looks at animal issues in the media and facilitates one-click responses to the relevant media outlets. You can learn more about it, and sign up for alerts at http://www.DawnWatch.com. If you forward or reprint DawnWatch alerts, please do so unedited -- leave DawnWatch in the title and include this tag line.)