How you can help

A.L.F. Inform Yourself

Richard Kahn, Ecopedagogy chair of the UCLA Paulo Freire Institute thinks it's critical to discuss the A.L.F for at least three reasons:

1) Nothing is gained by simply repressing reality -- groups like the A.L.F. have arisen for a real reason and the examination of the REAL is what is now required. Pretending they're not there and so not inviting them to the party might be politically palatable in some ways, for many people, but its neither a holistic approach nor is it meeting the A.L.F. with the same level of courage that they themselves evoke as a matter of principle.



2) The A.L.F. are effective. In a time when many animal rights and environmental organisations are being increasingly co-opted and taken over by some form of technocratic mentality, groups like the A.L.F. evoke a counter-spectacle that can demand media attention, block development and slaughter, and provide an outlet for youth wondering if there is any alternative to the status quo...time and again the A.L.F. have shown that there is.



3) While the cases of sweeping cultural transformation and radical militant coup d'etats that were not also supported by the CIA, or the Soviet Union, and/or the investment classes are rare in history, and while in the present case of this American empire such utopian thoughts tend to evoke the tragicomic, the fact is that history teaches that socio-political change is not effected through well - wishing alone. While we might be hard pressed to come up with an exact formula for a successful social revolution, there is no question that militancy and radicalism have always been important factors towards the goal of redefining normative values. In other words, without a more far-left sector, the liberal left (in America, for instance) becomes a Third-Way Clinton republicrat. To the degree that the far-left can articulate itself as a social force (however marginal ultimately) it helps to force left liberals back towards a more contested stance vis a vis the right wing, and so breaks the large scale social hegemony into divided camps. While there are no guarantees in this process, such contestation at least presents the real possibility for reconstructing a more profoundly democratic and counter-hegemonic left socio-political wing and for ushering in new lifestyle practices into the cultural mainstream as a result. The A.L.F. in this vein, then, is a major utopian social force of the moment and has to be considered alongside and part of the larger counter-hegemonic struggle that has been developing globally over the recent years'.

In this respect, other tactical and ethical questions arise. The most prevalent question is 'What is violence?' The definitional problem surrounding the term 'violence' within the animal rights community, stems from the vagueness of the word and the lack of an adequate definition or supporting references for their use of it. If a definition is cited, it is often quoted out of context. For example, Freeman Wicklund wrote in his article, Strategic Nonviolence for Animal Liberation, 'According to Sharp , behaving in a nonviolent and nonhostile manner is vital to strategic nonviolence for three major reasons: it increases the sympathy and support we receive, it helps induce mutiny among the opposition, and it attracts maximum participation in the struggle.'

While this is partially true, Wicklund leads the reader to believe that Dr. Sharp suggests that property destruction is violent, whereas he actually wrote, 'Sabotage, as used here, refers to acts of demolition and related destruction directed against machinery, transport, buildings, bridges, installations and the like. Because these are acts against property, they are not included in the definition of 'violence' in this book. Such acts would however, become 'violence' if they bring injury or death to persons, or threaten to do so. Certain other types of action fall somewhere between sabotage and nonviolent action, such as removal of key parts from machinery and vehicles, removal or release in nondangerous ways of fuel for machinery and vehicles, removal or records and files for various government departments and offices (as police) and even their destruction by means which could not possibly cause physical injury to any persons.'



Under this definition, the actions of the Animal Liberation Front would fall under the category of sabotage, rather than violence. It is important to emphasise that A.L.F. guidelines explicitly disavow the right to injure any living being including human beings in any action. When the authority of a given definition of a term like 'violence' is questioned, many people immediately turn to the dictionary. Yet, in Webster's Dictionary, violence is defined as 'exertion of physical force so as to injure or abuse.' It is clear, then, that Webster's Dictionary is in agreement with the A.L.F.'s guidelines as well.



Dr. Stephen Kaufman, Co-chair of Christian Vegetarian Association, believes that the movement's message should be about universal compassion and 'that activities that endanger human or animal lives contradict core principles of animal liberation, and, in addition, they are strategically unwise. However, simply because something is illegal does not make it immoral, and indeed we are aware that many laws have been immoral. The Nazi anti-Semitism laws are an extreme example. So, to liberate an animal caught in a leg-hold trap may be illegal, but I don't find the activity immoral, because I believe the leg-hold trap itself should be banned as an evil contraption.'