From the UCSC Tree Sit: Statement on Feb. 24 Incident

It is easy to believe that the people sitting in the trees never imagined the violence, but from the beginning they have used the "animal testing" issue as a tool to rally a broader group to their LRDP cause than they could have gotten if they were only talking about land use planning. The same people were in the supporting crowds under the trees, wearing the same masks, pushing the same anti-science rhetoric. The tree-sit newsletter was filled with animal rights rhetoric. And now that they've reaped the whirlwind, it is a little late to claim they didn't sow the seeds.

I fully agree with the post by campus resident. From the start of the tree sit, a percentage of the rhetoric has been about animal rights and animal testing. Maybe the folks making those comments were never part of your group, but this appears to be the first time you've attempted to publicly disassociate yourselves from them. I'm not buying it.

Dave,
Thank you for your comment. I will pass on your gratitude to the people who wrote the statement, as well as your suggestion. In the mean time, I look forward to seeing the University administration publicly condemn the use of pepper spray, pressure point pain-compliance, and baton-beating used by the UC Police against non-violent campus protests since 2005, preferably with a list of the law enforcement officers involved in those events.

Jennifer Charles
Tree Sit Media Support
LRDPaction.media [at] gmail.com



On Sun, Mar 9, 2008 at 11:03 AM, Dave Kliger wrote:
Thank you for this clarification. I look forward to seeing a public condemnation of the events that took place on the 24th from you, preferably with a list of names of people for whom you are speaking.



Dave Kliger

David S. Kliger
Campus Provost and
Executive Vice Chancellor
University of California, Santa Cruz
1156 High Street
Santa Cruz, CA 95064
831-459-3885 (voice)
831-459-2760 (fax)
kliger [at] ucsc.edu

Sounds fair.

So good Jennifer.

Thank you, tree-people, for this important clarification.

Many people in this community seem to label everyone who cares enough to try to change the status quo as "activists" and assumes that they are all in cohoots. Campus resident, I hope you can appreciate the diversity of opinions and tactics even within the "activist" circles.

Whether this is genuine or not I wonder why it took you two weeks to come out with this. If you truly condemn the actions your response should have been immediate.

One reason so many people are against the development plans are because of how many boundaries the plan will cross. It is safe to say that everyone has their own problems with the plan. This isn't limited to animal rights, and definitely was not the explicit reasoning, which was very clear through all of the rallies and literature.

Nowhere in that post do they condemn the home invasion tactics. They simply disassociate them from the group. This is part of overall ALP/ELP tactics: decentralize. That way, larger groups cannot be blamed for the more radical actions of their members. It is a cell-based strategy.

There is no reason the TREE-SIT needs to condemn or condone this action. The only reason this statement was released was because the media and administration hype that occurred around it trying to vaguely associate the two. The tree-sit is not required to make statements on all news or activism that happens in Santa Cruz. You Trolls come here posting trying to create divisions, but your shallow tactics are see-through. Go post on the protest warriors website.

Perhaps the reason folks feel the tree sitters should condem the actions of the lunatic frings is because their message is so diluted many people are not sure exactly what the the protest is about. During the peak of the protest there were signs about animal experimnets, biomed, the war, and oh yeah the LRPD was thrown in there. In order to get the kind of turn out needed for a noticable protest the tree sitters got in bed with animal activists. In order for people to believe that they are not still in bed with them and that they truly support only civil disobedience they need to denounce the actions of the fanatical elements. However at this point it will be too little too late.

the tree sit separated itself from the home demo by dissociating itself from it. They are not the same people; end of story. There is no reason to condemn it to "prove" they are not affiliated. Your argument makes no sense.

It's kind of like when John McCain goes after the endorsement of ultra fanatical religious groups and then when they make "hate" statements about specific groups of people expecting him to condemn those kinds of statements. Activism is politics. When you decide to align yourself with a group you have to expect that people will believe you stand for the actions of that group. When you don't condemn certain behavior, in effect, you endorse it.

"When you don't condemn certain behavior, in effect, you endorse it."

Guilty by association? The problem is there is no association. The tree sit is not aligned with them. The tree sit did not take donations from them. The tree sit did not endorse them. The tree sit didn't get any campaign contributions from them. You are trying to make connections that don't exist.

The tree sit people went out of their way to make the distinction. They didn't have to, they just wanted to clear up that they didn't have anything to do with it. To claim that they have some obligation to condemn it doesn't make sense.

What a load of bullshit.

I've never personally spoke out on say, Mogadishu. Therefore, I endorse the human rights abuses there. Totally absurd.

Regarding the topic at hand, there may be people involved in the tree-sit who were not directly involved in the animal rights protest. Personally, they may believe in a variety of tactics and so agree with the protester's point-of-view. Or they may not. But in any case, they chose to speak out to say, we weren't involved in response to the UC administration's syllogistic attempts to conflate the two.

Bullshit political punditry aside, taking no position on something is still neutral.

Unless you, like many here, go for that cheapest of all current witch hunt tactics, guilty by association.

Yet in the press release, by Jennifer Charles, on Nov 7th 2007, animal testing was used as a call to arms in support of the tree sit, thus inviting these groups to be a part of the protest. It's like inviting people to your house, that you know have a history of trouble, and then being surprised when they act up in your living room.

Wow, being concerned about the university replacing animal habitats with animal testing is like inviting terrorists to your house? Is that actually what you are suggesting, Ben? As with so many issues, there are a lot of people from a lot of different backgrounds willing to use a lot of different tactics who are concerned about animal testing issues. Issues and people are complex, especially issues around the LRDP. Stop simplifying them.

So you're saying that the tree-sit IS linked to the animal rights protesters.

Here are a few facts regarding the tree sit and animal rights.
Fact. Jennifer Charles discussed the animal facility that would be in the basement of the new building and the horrors of animal research during her press conference on the first day of the tree sit. I was there.
Fact. On the first day of the tree sit and therafter there were signs protesting the use of animals in research. (On a side note this is what confused many onlookers because there were signs for everything from fight the LRDP, save the trailer park, save the animals, etc. nobody knew what was being protested.)
Fact during the occupation of the parking lot there were numerous flyers on the information table about the horrors of animal research.
If you lay down with dogs you will get fleas. Even if the organizers did not "invite" the animal rights people by allowing their message to be delivered along side with the tree sit message they implicitly endorsed the animal rights message. This is the same problem amny people have with all extreme fundamentalist groups. The group says they do not condone violence but when a splinter group burns or blows up something there is no cry of outrage from the main group. If such cries of outrage were forth coming and sincere I can tell you a lot more people would take your causes more seriously and stop lumping you in with the fanatics.
But hey what do I know? I am just a middle aged white guys whose heros were guys in Zodiacs getting in between a cannon and a 20 ton whale, and they did it without masks.