PETA Classified as a “Terrorist Threat” by the USDA

PETA listed as terrorists by USDA.People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals has been classified as as a “terrorist threat” in a document created by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

The USDA created a new “APHIS Facility Security Profile” form to send to animal experimentation facilities. Recipients were asked to answer about their experiences, and return the form to the government so the USDA can better meet their needs. [Update: After this article was posted, the USDA took down the form. Here is a link to a pdf of the APHIS form.]

In one section of the form, on p4, item #2 B and C, PETA is listed as a “domestic special interest terrorist”:

B. Terrorist Threat. What terrorist activities have occurred in or around your building/facility in the past 5 years (documented cases)? Please check all that apply.

[ ] Attack from international terrorists
[ ] Attack from domestic special interest terrorists
-[ ] Earth Liberation Front (ELF)
-[ ] Animal Liberation Front (ALF)
-[ ] People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA)
-[ ] Animal Defense League (ADL)
-[ ] Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC)
-[ ] Formal hate group(s) (please specify):
-[ ] Other (please specify): ____________________
[ ] Cyber Attack from a known or unknown source.

I have written extensively on this site about how the ELF and ALF have become the number one domestic terrorism threat, even though they have targeted property and not people. And Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty activists were convicted on “terrorism” charges for running a website that vocally supported the actions of those groups. The listing of PETA and the Animal Defense League is something else entirely.

PETA is perhaps the most recognized organization in the animal rights movement. They are known for their undercover investigations, and their use of celebrities and outlandish media stunts to draw attention to factory farming, fur, circuses and animal experimentation.

Regardless of how you feel about PETA and their tactics, they are a lawful, above-ground, national non-profit.

So why in another section of the USDA form, are they listed as a possible answer under “Greatest Threat or Danger. What do you consider the greatest source of danger to your organization and/or fellow workers?”

Because they expose what goes on behind closed doors.

Justin Goodman, research associate supervisor for PETA, had a fantastic oped in the Sacramento Bee about the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act and the misuses of the “terrorism” label against non-violent activists. In California, four activists are facing terrorism charges for protesting at individuals homes and allegedly creating fliers with names and addresses on them.

From Goodman’s oped:

This should give all Americans pause. People who engage in nonviolent protests and civil disobedience are sitting in jail cells, stigmatized by one of the most politically charged and discrediting labels of our time, while people who wake up every morning and go to jobs in which they torment and kill animals in laboratories continue to enjoy their freedom, paychecks, social lives and families.

Animal industries are quite open about their desire to use terrorism laws to keep their practices out of the public spotlight. I recently posted about the Animal Agriculture Alliance calling for federal prosecution of undercover investigators. It’s not because the investigators are violent. It is because they pose an even greater threat: educating the public.

As Goodman wrote: “To shield them from public opinion and discussion and to protect them from peaceful and heretofore lawful pickets by locking up those who dare to challenge the suffering that occurs inside laboratories is an attack on every American’s right of protest.”

  • Kain_bloodfang
    how can they possibly say that they are non-violent protestors? They come up and PHYSICALLY ASSAULT people they disagree with rather than just shout their piece? They threw a pie laced with CAYANNE PEPPER in some poor author's face just because she was speaking on her book about vegans/vegetarians in March 2010! I pray she presses charges. FFS throwing a pie in the face or damaging someone's fur?! Gues what people...that's ASSAULT! That's not peaceful protest. I say throw the dumb bastards in prison for doing such acts. Better yet, I'd love to read how someone didn't take too kindly to the "prank" and whupped the ignorant screwhead's ass. Maybe if they got more violent/legal response they'd be a bit more fearful of doing something stupid.
  • I lol'd.
    Obsessive, lying, sabotaging, fearmongering, furries.

    Yeah, not terrorists.
  • Nicola
    Thank you for your good article. The AETA, Animal Enterprises Terrorism Act, signed into effect during the last year of the Bush Administration, is one of the most dangerous civil rights violations since the seventies. This resembles the beginning stages of Nazi Germany. The problem is, who reads our comments? Most likely only those who already care. How can we get our messages across to those who believe the corporate propaganda? We need sponsors who will pay for educational advertisements to inform all people about what the corporate agenda is doing, about the cruelty going on, and about better consumer choices.
  • eli
    "I have written extensively on this site about how the ELF and ALF have become the number one domestic terrorism threat, even though they have targeted property and not people."

    It doesn't matter whether they are targeting property or people. Violence is violence and it still directly affects people. If somebody burns down multi-million dollar homes that haven't been sold yet, people are still directly, negatively affected by that. Whether a person was directly, physically harmed by an act of violence or not, doesn't make such a thing any less of an act of terror, it just makes it slightly less morally apprehensible.
  • All crime directly, negatively affects people. There must be some threshold of what separates those crimes from another, higher category of terrorism. Burning a multi-million dollars home is not the same thing as burning people, and if we conflate the two the law is meaningless.
  • matt1981
    Regardless of how you feel about PETA and their tactics, they are a lawful, above-ground, national non-profit.

    They do nothing illegal? Well look at that woman from New York who decided to come to Canada and throw a pie in a politicians face? She is now facing assault charges. Last time I checked assault was illegal. And PETA has condoned this behaviour on its website. So don't go saying they are "lawful" when they are anything but.
  • Tofu cream pies-- A true terrorist threat:
    http://www.greenisthenewred.com/blog/peta-pie-t...
  • Pilar
    After reading this article, thanks to a pro fur person, won't this make it unconstitutional as per our first amendment? which states:The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the Congress from making laws "respecting an establishment of religion", impeding the free exercise of religion, infringing on the freedom of speech and infringing on the freedom of the press. Now correct me if I am wrong, but what we do is freedom of speech! I am not all for PETA, but is this a bit bios? and why is it the USDA deciding what is terrorism? when they can barely handle food industry issues? Where was the USDA on September 11? Now that is terrorism to grand scale! To protect this industries is immoral and to classify animal activist groups terrorist would not be consider communism?. The definition of communism describes as follow: Communism is a social structure in which classes are abolished and property is commonly controlled, as well as an ideology and social movement that advocates and aims to create such a society. Now our Ideology is to freedom and better treatment for animals. Just a thought....
  • Never go vegan, even most vegans can see through peta's smoke and mirrors, and are returning to eating meat, because they realize how malnourished they are. Peta's more recent actions have absolutely nothing to do with ethical treatment. Killing the pets they take in is total hypocricy. Why anyone would donate one cent to them when one in six people in the world are malnourshied or facing starvation is misguided donations, why not help the ones in need?; Where is the common sense in their"cause"? Peta's leaders are either insane, con artists, cult leaders, or all three. They are almost sure to implode in their own scullduggery one day like Enron did. The house of cards is falling.
  • Steve
    @Logan

    Go Vegan.
    Better for you, better for the environment,better for the animals
  • Logan
    PETA is ruining animal agriculture, dont these liberals know where there food comes from, and how expensive importing beef will be when animal agriculture is extinct.
  • Joe
    From what I have seen in most AR groups right , true and correct have nothing to do with them.
  • Steve
    @ Joe

    "@Liberationnow

    “Use their own strategies against them.”

    Does that mean researchers and fur farmers can start using bombs and arson on AR terrorist?"

    That's a weapon. Our strategy is being right, true and correct, so you and your kind fail before you begin.
  • Joe
    @Liberationnow

    "Use their own strategies against them."

    Does that mean researchers and fur farmers can start using bombs and arson on AR terrorist?
  • Liberationnow
    Ante,

    That sounds promising, let us know what your attorney friend thinks. You know what they say about fighting enemies. Use their own strategies against them.
  • @110 Liberationnow, I think, if PETA is aware of this (they must be) and if this is defamation (legally speaking), they will probably do something about it if it's in their interest to do so. As for the class action suit, I have no idea if and how that would work. Some other here like Will may know more about it. However, at the moment I am retaining a New York attorney who might be interested and who would be perfect for something like this. He is strong fighter for freedom of speech and expression, a tireless media activist and a prominent public figure. I will mention this to him next time I speak to him and see what he thinks. I guess it can't hurt to ask, can it?
  • Liberationnow
    regarding BB's post;

    I certainly hope that the convictions of the SHAC7 and of our other political prisoners can be reversed. This class action suit sounds like a great idea...
  • @103 Brandon Becker,

    The way I see it, fighting for Ideals can be good and bad. People die for their ideals. Some blow themselves up and take many with them for an ideal such as god - something which does not exist. Now, that is really stupid. So, Is the "vegan ideal" (I borrowed the term from your link) and specially by the tactics which you describe above (one vegan at the time lifestyle change) good to fight for? I personally do not think that by itself it's such a great ideal. Is fighting for the interest of animals such as the reduction of their pain, for their freedom and their life good? Yes, of course. Unlike god, I have no doubt that they are real and that they experience pain, suffer and want to be free and live just as I do. You may say, well, veganism one by one will very slowly accomplish just that. I am not so sure of that. This very slow may never come. Yogis have been preaching one to one "do not harm" for 5 thousands of years but abuse, torture, murder and consumption of flash is on the rise year by year. Moreover, veganism, if it only means boycotting products which supposedly do not involve animal exploitation, is NOT exploitation and cruelty free lifestyle. Human consumption of almost anything involves consumption and destruction of sentient beings and their habitat directly or indirectly. Remember there are others besides domesticated. So, veganism without strong anti-consumerist and anti-human reproduction/population message is not to be put so high on the pedestal, in my view.

    It's OK to be idealistic but here we are dealing with lives and suffering of others so I think we needs to be carful that what we are doing is actually benefiting them instead of making ourselves feel good and that we are not just replacing one destructive industry with another. Anyway this is what this long time vegan/freegan thinks right now.
  • By the way, there is a new book from DDr. Martin Balluch: Resistance in Democracy - Civil Disobedience and Confrontational Campaigning http://www.vgt.at/presse/news/2009/news20091005... For some who may not know, Martin has spent three and a half months in Austrian jail last year, went on hunger strike there and may be locked up again; all this for running a "criminal" organization which is a bit smaller in size but essentially not much different than PETA. So, are we going to see Ingrid Newkirk locked up soon for running a "terrorist" organization?
  • Halo
    It appears that the link to the form is no longer working...
  • @Halo:
    They took it down. I have inserted another link to the pdf, hosted locally.
  • Badattituud
    -- Come on guys, it’s time you stopped using the fact that PETA supports direct action as proof that they’re terrorists. --

    What about Mr. Coronado's sentencing memorandum for the MSU arson? Pages 8 and 9 describe Ingrid Newkirk's direct participation (and the involvement of another PeTA employee at Ms. Newkirk's request)


    http://www.eskimo.com/~rarnold/Coronado%20Sente...
  • Be careful with pragmatism, as it can limit one's focus and impede the struggle for liberation:
    "A Tale of Power & Vision"
    http://www.veganideal.org/content/tale-power-vi...

    In regards to supposedly "reducing suffering" of other animals in the system of oppression, see:
    "Moving From Abstraction to Veganism: Advocating Alternatives to Exploitation, Not Alternative Exploitation"
    http://veganideal.org/content/moving-abstractio...

    To keep on topic of the blog post, I want to say it again: all of us in the animal rights movement must speak out! We have no excuses for staying silent as government-industry-media complex tries to take down the movement through absurd "terrorist" rhetoric. For nonhuman animals, make your voices heard!
  • BB
    Joe,

    Ask yourself why the govt found it necessary to delineate between "terrorist" vs "eco-terrorist" or "animal rights terrorist" since obviously in their twisted minds, all are considered equally dangerous and violent. Singling out and attaching such inflammatory labels to certain segments of society [ usually the innocent] assures that the uninformed public will be much more likely to condemn that person/segment first, never bothering to ask themselves if such labels are justified. This politically motivated smear campaign is no different than when the Jews first began to be singled out in German society as scapegoats for virtually everything under the sun. We all know what that escalated into.

    As for researchers being 'innocent'; consider that if you or I stuck pins into the eyes of kittens, or used our companion animals for target practice with bullets, knives, or blowtorches
    we would have our asses hauled to jail, immediately -- and deservedly so. However, do the same things [and worse] in a group, while being paid obscene amounts of taxpayer money; call it science and suddenly it's acceptable -- even honorable. If you can't see the absolute schizophrenia in that scenario then there is something really wrong.
  • leah
    peta can't openly support the ALF. As a former intern, I'm quite aware of the ramifications of even mentioning the ALF inside the building or at a Peta function. If peta were to openly, as a corporation support the ALF, they would lose their non-profit status. They also can't support a specific political candidate or party. They also can't do several other things.

    Also, Ingrid Newkirk does not vacation. I would see her day in and day out arriving early and staying late. She works around the clock. Occaisonally I drive by past midnight to see the lights still on in her office. No one leaves the lights on in Peta without being inside.

    Also, trying to find a way to minimize suffering does not mean the suffering is acceptable. However, we have to take baby steps. Believe me, the CAC method of killing chickens is not where we want to end it. It's merely a step. People are still going to eat it, we may as well try to make it as painless as possible. And it's not gasing. There is no gas. The chamber slowly removes oxygen, so slowly that it would cause no pain. The chicken would fall asleep peacefully and die unknowingly from lack of oxygen.
  • GKC
    "Let me say this for the last time. Praising someone for the changes which reduce suffering does not mean that this someone is condoning let alone endorsing slavery, torture and murder."

    I think this is important to recognize; I am reminded of a saying common in various people's struggles in different forms (regarding 'reformism): "One must first bend the bars until one can be free." Something of that sort, basically the importance of pragmatism in reduction of suffering.
  • GKC
    Meanwhile, as the well-funded and corporatized "headless chickens" scatter about over the acts of the "eco-terrorists," the facist, racist & proudly murderous, violent & hate-filled ranks of the American Nazi Party, Christian Identity, Neo-Nazi, Klan, and various extreme-right militias & factions march happily onward, the recent horrors of the 90's (and before and beyond) seemingly forgotten. Apparently Mr. Rudolph no longer needs to 'run.'
  • These corporations will gleefully manipulate the law to their own benefit (at whatever cost except profit) and it is in a way their job to do just that. It is, however, disturbing to see the government play ("lobbed" perhaps) along so willingly. Thus the people, as always, must themselves try to enact change as best they can.
  • Joe
    Will, there was more on my last post, did you delete some of it or did it not go through? I did it from my phone so it may be my fault.
  • I did not delete anything.
  • Joe
    @BB

    How can you blame the government for inventing eco-terrorist when it was the eco-terrorist who started bombing, committing arson to homes and business and threatening innocent researchers lives?
  • BB
    Judging by some of these comments, the worst has already begun to materialize; the feds' smear campaign against social justice movements is paying hefty dividends.

    All some sleazy right wing fascist with ties to Big Brother had to do, was think of a single, effective buzz word; "eco-terrorist" [not exactly a stroke of genius since the terrorist term has been tossed around for well over 20 years], then conspire with his neo-con, think-tank cronies, to re-classify anyone not in agreement with mass-murdering the planet for $$ as an "eco" terrorist. The irony is positively nauseating. But the word "eco-terrorist" is not all-inclusive; it leaves out other peaceful, social justice movements that the feds are hot to discredit, so the term is expanded to: "domestic terrorist". This targets THE most non-violent, benevolent souls on the planet for the govt's hit list; Food Not Bombs; virtually ALL AR activists/orgs caring about the rights of non-humans; and of course those original tree-hugger types. It then lobs that grenade at the few genuinely decent, selfless groups/individuals who truly give a shit about the suffering of others; instantaneously demonizing, isolating and persecuting those with more integrity, courage and compassion than all the rest of this sorry excuse for humanity put together. The guy who coined the 'Eco-terrorist' term knew his target audience well -- they're the same slobs which appear en masse to support the Palins, Limbaughs and Coulters spewing their murderous, Satanic crap, but which are too intellectually lazy, gullible, frightened, apathetic and uneducated to think for themselves. The TRUE Hitler fan base. To those of you who equate First Amendment protected rights with acts of terrorism, congratulations! You have joined the ranks of the seriously manipulated, mentally feeble and incredibly clueless. You are getting the fascist state you so fervently continue to root for.

    Just because my massively corrupt govt decides to re-label me as a terrorist because of its colluded whoring with big corporations, doesn't mean I have to lay down, roll over and take it up the rear. I refuse to be re-defined as something which is in such obscene opposition to what I actually stand for; by those with less integrity than maggot excreta; to further their capitalist/imperialist dream of unobstructed world domination.
    And anyone with common sense and the ability for critical thinking understands that that is what all of this "domestic terrorist" rhetoric is really about in the first place.

    Some have suggested that the "terrorist" label is libelous/slanderous and defaming. I agree that THE most effective way of fighting back against the govt's plan to lock all opposition away under the terrorism guise, is to SUE. The ACLU, by and large, has shown that it couldn't give a damn about this issue. However, I'm sure there are other civil liberties lawyers who would be interested in the possibility of class-action suits. AR activists need to coalesce for this particular goal -- no one is going to stand up for us unless we are willing to help ourselves. Anyone game?
  • I forgot to write that my last comment was response to Brandon Becker @87.
  • I know and then Dr. Martin Baluch responded with:

    "Francione seems to be stuck in the tracks of the 'welfarism does not lead to abolition'-mantra without being able to look left or right. He does not answer most of my arguments and seems unable to distinguish my position from classical welfarist positions. Instead, he picks quotes from my essay, puts all of them out of context, and refutes them, i.e. he delivers what is called a 'straw man argument' ..." Read more: http://www.vgt.at/publikationen/texte/artikel/2...

    Later...
  • pablo
    juan:

    just because you say plants and synapse in the same sentence doesn't prove that plants have nerves

    please point me to peer reviewed science demonstrating your claims.
  • Zach
    Come on guys, it's time you stopped using the fact that PETA supports direct action as proof that they're terrorists. Direct action can range anywhere from perfectly legal protests, civil disobedience (some prominent users of this strategy include Henry David Thoreau, Ghandi, and Martin Luther King), and to the civil disobedience which you're referring to (vandalism, arson, liberations, etc.).
  • @86 Brandon, when PETA persuades/forces exploiter to improve the conditions by which animals are enslaved or killed then this is not endorsement of anything but an achievement in reduction of suffering. This my not fit neatly within some theoretical framework but I am sure that animals don't mind if this was the best possible at the time and could not care less about some half-ass theory. Let me say this for the last time. Praising someone for the changes which reduce suffering does not mean that this someone is condoning let alone endorsing slavery, torture and murder.

    Considering that we all may go extinct sometimes soon, the reduction of their suffering is unfortunately all that nonhumans may ever get. To deny them this is repugnant IMO.
  • Ante, I meant to add these points in my last post:

    While I'd love to have total abolition tomorrow, I understand it's going to be an incremental process. Promoting veganism is one incremental strategy, as each new vegan withdraws support from speciesist exploitation and becomes part of the solution. If each new vegan helps create other vegans, we'd have exponential growth and public support to political action for abolition.

    Since you recommended Martin Bulluch's essay at the link above, I recommend reading Gary Francione's reply at the link below:
    http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/a-very-new-...
  • md, nearly all animal rights advocates draw the line at causing physical harm, whether for tactical and/or moral reasons. All the violence so far is on one side- speciesist industries against nonhuman animals. The movement has shown incredible restraint, especially as violence against other animals grows larger and government repression against their defenders grows stronger.

    Ante, when PETA advocates modified ways to confine and kill other animals, it is an implicit endorsement. What about PETA's awards to corporate exploiters or their recent facilitation of killing lobsters? Is that not condoning this injustice? Also, to clarify, I agree with some of PETA's actions (their peta2 division in particular is doing important outreach to youth), I just simply think they need to disentangle themselves from the speciesist industries they should be opposing. For them to wave the banner of "animal rights," they should take rights seriously and defend the oppressed.
  • md
    And by where will we be when the revolutionary cells kills someone, I mean, where will we be

    1. in terms of public perception (and support) of the AR movement?
    2. in terms of defending ourselves form the Corporate State's efforts to label us as terrorists?
  • md
    I have no clue what "agenda" you imagine I have, but I was surprised and disappointed to find that no one I could get to talk about it actually believed in the "do no harm" principle other than as PR boilerplate. I think the movement needs to occupy the moral high ground, but violence is always too easy to justify when it's "us versus them." When someone gets killed, where will we be?
  • Lin
    I was simply trying to clarify, since you seemed to grouping the justice department, the animal right militia, revolutionary cells, etc all under the canopy of the ALF.
    The ALF isn't exactly a group that call a big meeting in Topeka Kansas and discuss the possibility of rewriting the "rulebook"...the ALF code is what it is, and anyone acting within the guidelines can consider themselves to be a member. That being said, there ARE an increasing number of activists who look themselves in the mirror and ask "If these were human children that were being tortured and killed by the billions, would I consider certain tactics to be off limits?" and they have chosen more of an "every tool in the toolbox" type approach.
  • md
    The war is heating up, the gloves are off, and not even the ALF really believes in "the ALF code of non violence" anymore. Direct-action groups are firebombing occupied residences. Everyone I've interviewed in the movement (including Dr. Vlasak), has basically told me "harm no human or non-human animals" is passe. "Just-War Theory" is invoked widely. You'll soon have to give up that comforting stat about no one ever being hurt in the US. Then what?
  • Seek and you shall find. It sounds like you have a very clear agenda, and clear view of the animal rights movement. I'm not at all surprised that you say "everyone I've interviewed" says exactly what you believe. I've been covering these issues for 10 years, and I completely disagree. However, I do believe that support of physical violence is growing, and direct action groups are growing more bold.
  • Lin
    md,
    "The ALF advocates and engages in violent actions (such as arson) that, as direct-action spokesperson Jerry Vlasak cheerfully confirms, WILL sooner or later result in human casualties in the US."
    First off, the ALF has been operating within the US for over 25 years without even one casualty or even serious injury. Are you under the impression that happens by mistake?
    Secondly, there are many animal liberation groups operating within the US. Not all of them act within the ALF code of non violence.
  • md
    If someone were inclined to justify linking PETA to domestic terrorism (which I certainly am not), they could simply point to the fact that Ingrid has long supported the ALF and continues to do so (which I happen to think is gutsy and principled on her part). The ALF advocates and engages in violent actions (such as arson) that, as direct-action spokesperson Jerry Vlasak cheerfully confirms, WILL sooner or later result in human casualties in the US.
  • cognitivejuan
    pablo, If you want to be enlightened then go for it. I'm not stopping you. Google is free. I'm just referencing the fact that many plants display as much or more synaptic activity as some animals.

    lin, first off not all animals have a CNS. I never said that the plants feel pain but there is no proof that they don't. So with that you could also say the same about some simple animals. We simply do not know. And yes I do believe in animal rights. I don't agree with the meat industry and I don't agree with testing on animals for cosmetic purposes. I do believe that animal testing in medicine is perfectly justified though. I mean how else are we supposed to develop veterinarian medicine anyway for that matter but that's a different point. I mean how many studies can you find out there that are testing more animals than the lives their results could save? Like I said before it's all about weighing the cost of life and whichever saves more wins in my book. I don't see how anyone who was really thinking about the future could disagree. Honestly though I'm done with this debate. Neither of us plan on changing our minds and I have wasted far too much time on it.
  • Hi Will,

    I've just submitted a comment. It didn't go through. This has happened before, you may remember. It ended up with spam. Could you please check if the same thing happened this time.
  • Found it! Just approved it.
  • @71 Brandon Becker said: "Ante, what if it were humans who were the victims? Would you still dismiss principles as 'fundamentalist nonsense' and take your 'reality' position of advocating new ways to enslave and murder humans, give awards to their oppressors, and even buy them weapons to carry out the killing? Remember that abolitionist measures can be incrementalist, too."

    First, you're presenting this question to a wrong person. I would always do more for most nonhumans than humans for reasons I don't want to get into here. (Yes I know humans are animals too... blah, blah blah...)

    Second, you don't seem to understand what PETA is doing or you are being intentionally deceptive since you are distorting and misrepresenting by a grand straw man. Encouragement and fighting for the reduction of suffering (for nonhuman and human alike) is NOT the SAME as condoning slavery, torture and murder which you seem to be accusing PETA of doing. The reduction of suffering is the most that is possible to do for nonhumans right now and in the near future above the ground through the existing legal and social structure of the spectacle. It is immoral not to at least try to do this. And I am not talking about ridiculous "string quartet or no string quartet" but real suffering, pain and torture. If you don't know know what is meant by the real suffering, I suggest trying a root canal without anesthesia or have someone pull your nails out without it. So yes indeed, even if I knew I had to die tomorrow and had to have my nails pulled out tonight, I would be grateful and would pay for anesthesia during the pulling. Likewise, even though I am against prisons and death sentence, I am all for making the life and execution of prisoners as devoid of suffering as possible.

    But, if you have an immediate plan for "total abolition" to happen tomorrow, by all means, please let's have it now and please I don't want to here about 0.001% increase in veganism while human population is still increasing globally at the rate of about 2% annually together with increase of consumption of nonhuman flesh; let alone that so called "ethical veganism" doesn't have any plan for millions of "pests" who are INTENTIONALLY tortured and murder in production, transportation and storage of "vegan" food.

    Anyway, I find dualistic views of "welfare" vs rights boring and old. In good faith I offer these three articles. If you have already read them, try to read them again. First two are by two of my favorite people Martin Balluch and David Sztybel.

    Abolitionism versus Reformism by Martin Balluch http://www.vgt.at/publikationen/texte/artikel/2...

    Animal Rights Law: Fundamentalism versus Pragmatism by David Sztybel http://74.125.155.132/scholar?q=cache:JCEKn4pzK...

    One-Track Activism: Animals Pay the Price by Norm Phelps http://www.veganoutreach.org/articles/normphelp...

    Cheers!
  • Ante, what if it were humans who were the victims? Would you still dismiss principles as "fundamentalist nonsense" and take your "reality" position of advocating new ways to enslave and murder humans, give awards to their oppressors, and even buy them weapons to carry out the killing? Remember that abolitionist measures can be incrementalist, too.
  • Alex R.
    PETA are affiliated with and contribute money to terrorist organizations like the ALF.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PETA#Support_for_t...
  • You're citing WIKIPEDIA? Seriously?
  • pablo
    Juan,
    I'd love for you to enlighten us about "plant neurobiology"
  • Badattituud
    -- One involved undercover investigators exposing and investigating animal welfare violations, and holding those individuals accountable for breaking the law. --

    I see. So I suppose you'd be happy to provide a link or citation to the outcomes of the court cases? I've been able to find just one elephant abuse case - apparently the first ever. Happened this year. Ringling and the elephant trainer were found innocent. So what broken laws are you referring to?

    --The other, by Ringling, involves operating outside of the law to disrupt political activities in order to protect profits.--

    What "political activities" would those be, do you think? I'm sure their VERY highly paid legal team (paid for with money donated to "save the animals") has a plan for every loophole - but to this layperson, it seems that PeTA's riding a very fine line here, indeed. http://www.irs.gov/charities/article/0,,id=1633...

    And, as I said, I’d give PeTA and their “investigators” a lot more credit if they’d make raw footage available, instead of editing 100 hours worth of footage into a 45 second clip.

    --They themselves have been involved in many illegal activities.”? --

    Rodney Coronado's sentencing memorandum (specifically pages 8 and 9) sure indicate that they have been involved in at least one.
    http://www.eskimo.com/~rarnold/Coronado%20Sente...

    --The answer is simple and it’s 3 words long…central nervous system. --

    Not all animals have central nervous systems... Or did sea sponges and bivalves become vegan all of a sudden?
  • liberationNOW
    BB,

    You better believe it. I will be considered terrorist for my views here, but I don't give a SHIT!. A couple of weeks ago undercover footage of a veal calf operation in Vermont was exposed. The footage actually had the god damn USDA inspector telling them, "Oh, don't do that, you could get shut down for that". The inspector witnessed horrible abuse of the calves and did nothing. The only god damn reason the operation was shut down is because the USDA got caught with their pants DOWN!. Their job is to make sure animals are treated well and all they do is protect the abusers...IT makes me SICK!. They along with all the other torturers causing mass genocide are the real terrorists.

    With all the undercover footage on factory farms and inside laboratories, not one fricken thing is ever done to bring these sadistic bastards to justice. We are sick of asking nicely, we are sick of trying to use the law in the animals defense. Animals are suffering this very second (and PETA I might add addresses this and sometimes are called welfarists for doing so. Like all of us they believe in Animal Liberation but know the animals also need help NOW!) Like their suggestions they sent to Land O Lakes to improve the the conditions there).

    The animals cannot wait another 50 yrs for laws that do nothing for them. SO what are we supposed to do?, keep asking nicely?

    "Never be afraid to do what's right when a person or animal is at stake, society's punishments are small compared compared to the wounds we inflict on our souls when we look the other way"
    ~MLK

    If doing what is right breaks the law, so be it.
  • Hi Joe,

    I have been convicted for two actions the government called "ALF" crimes. I also was charged as a terrorist in the SHAC7 case. I served years in jail as a result. From start to finish I spoke out against violence as a tactic in movements. I have been reading this thread and what you have been posting, and I would like to say that I do my best to never undercut the definition of terrorism and feelings attached to such a charged word.

    This issue is complicated. No one wants to pervert any terms. These times we are living in are even more complicated. 99.99% or more of animal activists even those who engage in ALF activities believe in non-violence against beings, regardless of species. The Terror definition is a charged one, one that carries a ton of emotion, and one that no one wants to block in the legislative leg for fear of seeming insensitive to terror victims. What the USDA is doing is a pragmatic move to insure leverage against effective animal activists, it will work as long as the legal infrastructure remains afraid of partitioning their constituents in a ethical debate like this one.

    You can think anything you want about me, or other people who you may consider "terrorist," I appreciate your individuality & opinions. I am just a person like you, and I made a choice to give a shit the best way I knew how.

    Love & Liberation,
    Andy
  • One thing I forgot to mention about PETA which I find very important. They seem to be one of very few, if any organizations, who have an ongoing campaign against glue traps - one of the most torturous barbaric devices used to kill primarily rodents. Millions of these sentient mammals are tortured for days and killed through starvation and suffocation away from public view in dark corners of restaurants and hotels, facilities for crop production and storage etc. by professional exterminators. Considering that millions of these beings end this way so that the food can get safely to luxurious "vegan's" plates, you would think that other "ethical vegans" beside PETA would at least acknowledge these atrocities. Where is the outrage about this? Imagine if dogs or cats were tortured and killed so brutally next door under a kitchen sink while you feast on your "vegan" pie in a restaurant.

    For this alone my full support goes to PETA, regardless of the fundamentalist nonsense stuck with principles and devoid of reality.
  • Lin
    Brandon,
    I agree with pretty much everything you said.
    My point to Juan (which he continually misses) is this. There are a lot of reasons, as a vegan, to be uncomfortable with giving money to PETA...several of them you mentioned. You don't have to be an Ingrid Newkirk sycophant to understand that what PETA does is not terrorism...and if we let people refer to organizations like PETA and IDA as terrorist groups without challenging them on that, we've lost half of the battle.
  • I appreciate PETA exposing exploitation and advocacy of vegan living. However, they also engage in speciesist campaigns that promote new ways to enslave other animals (http://www.satyamag.com/mar05/dunayer.html ), have given awards to Burger King and slaughterhouse designer Temple Grandin (http://www.abolitionist-online.com/article-issu... ), and just recently facilitated the mass killing of lobsters in Arizona (http://blogs.pitch.com/fatcity/2009/11/finding_... ). PETA may do some good, but that doesn't mean they should be free from critical examination. There are other groups in the movement that take rights seriously and deserve our money and support.
  • Lin
    HOLY FUCKING SHOOT ME IN THE FACE!
    OK...here's the deal. And I'm going to say this really sssllllooooowwwwllllyyyyy, because saying this over and over again gets really old.
    The CCF is a PR company paid to promote the fast food, alcohol, and tobacco industries. Look around their site a little bit. You'll find some really informative articles on how the evil Mothers Against Drunk Driving are trying to take away your god given right to get hammered and go out for a joy ride. Or how about the million dollar ad campaign they just started to promote the idea that feeding children foods loaded with high fructose corn syrup isn't bad for them.
    You consider yourself to be pro animal rights and these are the people whose word your going to take as the truth? Really?
    And this quote from you struck me as a bit odd, especially considering your "pro animal rights" stance: "If the animals have just as much rights as humans why not plants? They have yet to define why if humans aren’t higher in the food chain than animals. Then why are animals higher than plants? There are plants that have a higher level of sentience than some animals. I would suggest you read about plant neurobiology but then I would be afraid you would stop eating all together." The answer is simple and it's 3 words long...central nervous system. This is entry level stuff you wouldn't have to ask if you had EVER read any book on the subject of animal rights. Once again, although I know you'll ignore this, I'm going to ask you to back up what you've said. Post EVEN ONE link on here to an article on plant neurobiology that proves that there is a plant that has a nervous system and can feel and react to pain. Just one. It shouldn't be that hard...you seem to be ab expert in the field.
    Prove yourself right and I will not only leave you alone, but I will never post here again.
  • cognitivejuan
    Lin, I guess my comment about finding the site didn't make it to you in time. hmmmmm. They support terrorist groups what else do you want me to say. It's the truth it's been proven atleast just as much as your ccf big corporation ties have been proven. Peta gives money to terrorist groups. Newkirk on multiple occasions has made statement about how she wanted to do violent things. The reason that i immediately posted a link for it is because you asked for links i simply did a search for "vp peta insulin" and that was the first thing that came up. Like I said I had never been there at that point so i didn't know I was even there at first I looked up a couple of minutes later and went hey consumer freedom I bet this is the site she's talking about. Still doesn't make it wrong. They are quotes you know. Here's another one http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2007/11/peta... which I quite like. If you don't agree with what peta does stop defending them. They are trying to thwart most of the medical industry by stopping animal testing. Stopping people from finding cures is violence to me. Inciting violence or threatening violence for political gain is terrorism. PETA = Terrorism
  • Lin
    2 Things genius....first, read the quote that I was questioning you about....I wasn't asking about the comment regarding the medicine...I was asking about your terrorism rhetoric, which you completely failed to respond to in any way whatsoever.
    Secondly, you made such a big deal out of the fact that you had never even heard of the Center for Consumer Freedom...and them immediately post a link to.......wait for it.......wait for it.....THE CENTER FOR CONSUMER FREEDOM WEBSITE.....wow.
    Once again, there are a lot of things that PETA does that I disagree with. That is not what this discussion is about at all.
  • cognitivejuan
    Lin, Hey it looks like I found your site. So are you saying those quotes are lies?
  • cognitivejuan
  • Ha ha ha ha ha ha. I love how everyone has been saying "POST ANYTHING EXCEPT THE CENTER FOR CONSUMER FREEDOM HACK NONSENSE" and that's the one thing you post. Love it!
  • cognitivejuan
    Lin,
    The interview was in a Glamour magazine in 1990 so of course there aren't any links but there are plenty of sites that quote it and just as many peta supporting sites that admit to it. Their defense is that since the research is already done there's no reason why she shouldn't be able to take advantage of it. So they're saying that if your disease hasn't already been cured, too bad, they don't care about you. I've never heard of or been to this CCF site so if you i'm quoting them so directly maybe it's because it's the logical conclusion I don't know. Like I said I've never been there. I am pro animal rights but peta is a fundamentalist group. I am not pro fundamentalist. I don't know why I'm even responding it's not like you are making a real point anyway. You've never even touched on why you think peta is good organization or why peta shouldn't be harassed for their anti environment stance. I'm sorry that my ideals concern far more than just animals or people for that matter. Which is why I don't believe in thwarting all progress that could come from animal testing. Ingrid Newkirk once asked "Would you be opposed to experiments on your daughter if you knew it would save fifty million people?" and my answer is yes. It is always about the greater good. I would readily give my own life if it saved just 2 or even one that was more productive than mine.
  • Talk about me good, talk about me bad, just talk about me... PETA has done more to bring about public awareness concerning nonhuman torture and genocide than all other put together but no one is perfect and neither is PETA. It is not surprising that those who profit from these atrocities are trying to bring PETA down but it's revolting to see the same coming from some within the movement and I am not talking about constructive criticism but publicly expressed views such as that they would rather see PETA destroyed than HLS. I guess this must be due to reactionary fundamentalist believes mixed with jealousy and inflated egos.

    But all this aside... PETA, ALF etc. are freedom fighters and have never injured or killed any of these torturers/murderers in the process as it's been pointed out over and over.
  • Lin
    Juan,
    Interesting...could you possibly post a link to this captivating interview where the VP of PETA said that "PETA is a terrorist group. They funnel money towards “direct action” groups which means they support this sort of activity, They themselves have been involved in many illegal activities."? That would be really interesting to read I can definitely post link to the CCF articles which use your wording almost VERBATIM.
    And referring to anyone at PETA as my "idol" is so ridiculous that it deserves almost no response at all. I don't have to idolize a person or an organization to defend them against accusations of being a "terrorist".
  • cognitivejuan
    roxanne,
    you only have one example and you GREATLY exaggerated it. I doubt the population of primates ever reached the billions. Hell if you ever read the book you would know that billions and billions isn't even a real number. I find it kind of insulting that you would use it as a reference. Carl Sagan was a true AR sympathizer not some PETA crazy.
    Lin,
    So you ASSUME I got my information from some site and then try to make a point of it? That makes no sense. The information I used was from interviews given by the VP of peta herself. Not some corporate funded website, but from your idol.

    The simple fact of the matter is that peta acts like they are doing something good. When they're not. They're just as bad as any other group ran by a zealot with one sided beliefs. If they really cared then they would be more outspoken with large protests which would actually cost them money. They on the other hand only support small demonstrations that don't cost them money but actually raise donations. Is good old Ingrid Newkirk touring around raising awareness? No she's taking vacations and smoozing with celebrities. Formula 1 racing is one of her favorite past times. No car, car pollution, or racing has ever hurt an animal? Yeah right. Double standards through and through. What if I was some crazy environmentalist? Does that give me the right to treat her like the people her group harrases? If the animals have just as much rights as humans why not plants? They have yet to define why if humans aren't higher in the food chain than animals. Then why are animals higher than plants? There are plants that have a higher level of sentience than some animals. I would suggest you read about plant neurobiology but then I would be afraid you would stop eating all together.
  • Badattituud
    Will, I couldn't help but notice these couple of lines in your article.

    --I recently posted about the Animal Agriculture Alliance calling for federal prosecution of undercover investigators. It’s not because the investigators are violent. It is because they pose an even greater threat: educating the public. --

    Interesting how this is an awful awful thing when it's the animal rights folks going to court. Yet, PeTA did pretty much the same thing when Feld Entertainment sent "undercover investigators" to Norfolk. (BTW, PeTA lost that suit)

    http://www.peta.org/mc/NewsItem.asp?id=7885
    http://www.wtopnews.com/index.php?nid=25&si...

    Why is it that PeTA and their cohorts should be given every opportunity to "infiltrate" and "document" other companies, but when it comes to anyone seeing behind THEIR closed doors, it's an outrage?

    I'd give PeTA and their "investigators" a lot more credit if they'd make raw footage available, instead of editing 100 hours worth of footage into a 45 second clip.
  • @Badattituud:

    They are two very different scenarios.

    One involved undercover investigators exposing and investigating animal welfare violations, and holding those individuals accountable for breaking the law.

    The other, by Ringling, involves operating outside of the law to disrupt political activities in order to protect profits.

    They are not comparable.
  • Susan Hoppler
    Oh, sorry - I accidentally forgot the vivisectionists - they are another example of people getting rich from the torture and death of animals - like factory farming....
  • Susan Hoppler
    No big surprise there - they are in the pocket of the meat, egg, dairy and poultry industries - what a joke. Yay! I am a terrorist! I, for one, am proud to make those idiots sweat. Proud member and supporter of PETA and proud of it!
  • Talking about PETA tactics... I think their new ad showing nude Joanna Krupa holding crucifix is just brilliant. Article from Fox News: http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2009/12/01...
  • Scott
    Amazing post, Will. These comments are a good read as well. Props to Justin Goodman's (whom I've actually met) reply as it was amazingly stated.

    I kind of fell out of reading this blog, and got more heavily into setting google alerts for things that are animal rights related. It is nice to come here and see people who actually stand up for the movement and people like Joe are the minority. Even better still is that instead of engaging in some kind of namecalling debate things are 99% civil.

    Although I pretty much find it grating and offensive to post any CCF drivel..!
  • Thanks, Scott! Glad you're back.
  • Lin
    jarsra,
    Maybe I'm just dumb (and, yes, I realize that I've now opened the door for that comment)....but wasn't Rod acting under the banner of the ALF? I know it's a weird question, but it just struck me as odd when I read your comment that PETA supported Rod AND "much more dangerous groups such as the ALF"....Rod was convicted of arson and property destruction which, I assume, are the types of actions you would refer to when making your claim of the ALF being a terrorist group. Because, with no fatalities or serious injuries in the ALF's (more than 25 year) history...That's pretty much all you've got.
  • Bouchie
    Lin - perhaps one of the harder bits of being an AR activist is constantly fighting losing battles over semantics and public perception? The whole "we're not violent, here's the definition" thing gets old, quick - and it doesn't, honestly, change a single person's views. So the AR movement in the West hasn't killed or seriously injured anyone? So what? We need to stop pretending and arguing that burning things down and blowing things up are somehow special, protected First Amendment / Freedom of Speech issues. They aren't. We need to stop arguing about whether ALF and ELF and so on engage in "terrorism", because, let's be honest, they do - what is the point of all their actions if not to coerce vivisectionists and agribusinesses and so on to change their ways?

    If anyone has the cognitive facilities of a third-grader, it's some of the AR activists who have this distorted, white-knight, purity-and-innocence delusion going. We're not noble heroes and champions upholding law and morality; we are - let's be honest for a moment, however briefly - a small but vocal fringe of disaffected idealists who do what needs doing, rather than what's right or pretty or noble or legal. Sometimes, that involves terrorism, and things that most people who aren't anal-retentive, emotionally-insecure sophists would label violence. If we put half as much effort into arguing the importance, the necessity of what we do as we put into arguing about the semantics of what we do, we wouldn't be a small fringe on the edge of society any longer...
  • @Bouchie:

    Where the hell has anyone said that blowing something up is a First Amendment issue? Where in the world are you getting that?

    It may be convenient for you to say "so what" and end any discussion of what the word terrorism means, but I hope to God other people in this country are not so reckless. The definition matters. You may have no problem with expanding it to include animal rights activists, but if this continues, they will not be the last.
  • jarsra
    PETA uses tax exempt funding to sponsor known arsonists, such as Ray Coronado, and they also fund much more dangerous groups that have openly admitted to acts of domestic terrorism, such as the ALF. Of course they would be considered terrorists.

    Do some more research and present both sides of the issue next time.
  • "Sponsor known arsonists"? Huh? Please provide anything to support that. And not just a link to the Center for Consumer Freedom.

    PS: Speaking of doing some research, it is Rod Coronado, not Ray.
  • Lin
    Juan,
    So.....they support direct action and they are "a bunch of hypocrites"....and that's your rational explanation for why they should be considered a terrorist group? I can pretty much guarantee that all of your "facts" were pulled off of petasucks.com which you probably failed to realize if run by the Center for Consumer Freedom. The CCF, by the way, is a PR firm paid for by the meat, alcohol, and tobacco industries. When they get spare time from their anti-AR campaigns, they contribute to society by condemning Mothers Against Drunk Driving and promoting fast food and high fructose corn syrup.
    To everyone else,
    Is it just me, or is one of the hardest parts of being an animal rights activists the fact that you have to deal with masses of people who have the cognitive abilities of 3rd graders?
  • Vera
    Friends of Animals wouldn't ever be classified as terrorists. They don't do anything for animals except attack other animal rights activists. They are a worthless org and don't support them.
  • roxanne
    cognitivejuan,

    Hey, you are so wrong, amigo. A lot of the vaccine that were harmful to humans were unharmful to animals and vice versa. We are different species and don't contract the same diseases in the same manner. AIDS is a good example. BILLIONS AND BILLIONS used to torture primates and yet no cure. Do you know why? Because monkeys don't contract AIDS via intercourse. duh. they are different species. they may have 98 DNA as ours but a DIFFERENT mapping. Please educate yourself. The more money wasted on torturing animals, the more humans will die. KARMA
  • roxanne
    USDA are the terrorists.
  • cognitivejuan
    PETA is a terrorist group. They funnel money towards "direct action" groups which means they support this sort of activity, They themselves have been involved in many illegal activities. They are a bunch of hypocrites anyway. The VP of the organization uses medicine made from dogs while at the same time putting down others who use medicine made from animals. Fact is we wouldn't have most of the vaccines or medicines we have now if it weren't for animal testing. People who support PETA are either crazy or misled. They hear "people for the ethical treatment of animals" and they think "oh that sounds good let's join" but PETA is nuts and entails A LOT more than that. Just read about them for god sakes. You have to be mentally deficient not to see their argument is riddled with holes. They don't care about animals they just want to push their ideals down everyone's throat.
  • @18 Luke Thomas: "It is my opinion this is slander. Seriously."

    I was thinking the same. If this is defamation in legal terms (I am not sure that it is), it would be great to see a major libel law suit initiated by PETA against USDA going all the way to the Supreme Court. PETA usually does a great job in taking advantage of a controversy and getting spotlight on this absurd labeling of AR activists as terrorist is a must. I guess PETA know about this USDA accusation?
  • BB
    "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.”
    — John F. Kennedy

    To radicalize a peaceful movement is to ignore, disenfranchise and repress it. Speciesist lunatics wield the word 'terrorist' like the bloody knife of a wild-eyed slasher; taking down innocent victims based on politically corrupt, delusional epiphanies. If the AR movement continues to turn a blind eye, refusing to acknowledge the consequences of such corp/govt extremism, it is inevitable that an all out war between those set on destroying our planet and those committed to saving it, is at hand.
  • catsinee
    Urgh!!!! USDA is a joke! They need to go after the people who abuse animals not people who try to save them.
  • Steve
    Joe, the joke is that, although you and various "respectable" sources constantly bleat that 'animal rights' represent the no.1 domestic terrorism threat, our law enforcement agencies seem to be unable to find any threat. One or two arrests, and those legally suspect. Indiscriminate use of the T-word, so that it lose all real meaning. It's such an obvious sham.
  • Joe
    People like me are sending America down a scary,slippery slope? People like me do not condone bombings, arson and death threats. People like me are the ones who truly champion the environment and are doing something to help it. If violence of any sort is ok in your definition of terrorism, then it is you that has a flimsy idea of what terrorism is.
  • Zach
    Joe, you're right, terrorism isn't funny but both yours and the government's flimsy definitions for it are. What you are telling us is donating money to provide adequate legal defense is just as bad as real terrorists who fly planes into the twin towers and the pentagon. People like you are really sending America down a scary, slippery slope
  • Colleen
    PETA a Terrorist Threat? Give it a rest USDA, that's laughable. They are no more a threat than my neighbors newborn son.
  • Joe
    Steve , then go watch comedy central or do you find terrorism funny?
  • Steve
    Nice to see you back Joe, I need a good laugh.
  • Joe
    Will, I never said Coronado was not entitled to a fair trial, I wanted to point out another connection PETA has to the ALF whom Coranado was representing when he committed that arson.

    PETA runs on donated money, people who donate to PETA think their money is going to be used to save animals when in fact some goes to help terrorist groups.
  • Anonymous
    I smell legal trouble for the scumbags at the USDA.
  • Anonymous
    Thank you for exposing this Will. Another example of APHIS' love for and support of those who terrorize, torture and kill (e.g. animal use industries).
  • Joe
    AR groups love to pervert the definition of terrorism to fit their needs, but the correct definition as to law is "The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a Government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives".

    Lets say your definition of terrorism is right and its only a terrorist act when someone is killed, (which according to Liberationnow will be any day now). Would it be terrorism then? Most likely when that happens and some dedicated researcher is killed by a terrorist bomb there will be a redefining of the word terrorism by AR groups to exclude that death.


    PETA has a close connection to ALF and does fund them. PETA has given $2,000 to David Wilson, then a national ALF "spokesperson." The group paid $27,000 for the legal defense of Roger Troen, who was arrested for taking part in a burglary and arson at the University of Oregon. It gave $7,500 to Fran Stephanie Trutt, who tried to murder the president of a medical laboratory. It gave $5,000 to Josh Harper, who attacked Native Americans on a whale hunt by throwing smoke bombs, shooting flares, and spraying their faces with chemical fire extinguishers. Lets not forget the $70,000 given to Rod Coronado for his defense for committing a multi-million-dollar arson at Michigan State University.
  • I think Lin just won some cash.

    Joe: Are you seriously equating legal defense with bombing? It's really frightening where people like you are taking this country. Not only do you completely misrepresent all of those cases (please post any info you have on Harper spraying anyone in the face with chemicals) but to say that contributing to the right of any defendant to have representation and a fair trial is "terrorism"?
  • Luke Thomas
    To be more specific, it is my opinion the USDA has slandered PETA. Just my opinion of course, if I'm still allowed to make one in America. Or has making opinions been outlawed.
  • Luke Thomas
    It is my opinion this is slander. Seriously.
  • More reason to support PETA and direct action.

    I agree with Alex and Liberationnow. This confirms too things. First that corporate/state oppression is getting scarier by the minute and second that even though some pseudo-abolitionists are trying very hard to discredit them, PETA is effectively fighting exploiters. And yes, direct action is working indeed. On the other hand, consumerist approach (one vegan by one vegan push) is of no threat to their murderous profits. For every new vegan consumer thousands of non-vegan consumers are born every minute and all support the same destructive genocidal system.

    What can we do? For a starter support these groups on the USDA list. Also I think a new "Manifesto for Radical Abolitionism: Total Liberation by Any Means Necessary" http://thomaspainescorner.wordpress.com/2009/11... by Steven Best and the Facebook group http://www.facebook.com/group.php?v=wall&gi... created around it sounds promising. As for the lifestyle: Go freegan and don't reproduce.
  • md
    The link to the Sacramento Bee editorial doesn't seem to work. Didn't Ingrid/Peta used to hold joint press conferences with the ALF long ago?
  • Liberationnow
    Bombings and arson against property are not the same as bombing and arson against people. Again Joe, you ignorant idiot; There has never been one person or animal injured in any ALF or ELF activity. But you can be sure as shit, violence is coming.

    Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
    -- John F. Kennedy
  • Joe,

    Words are a combination of sounds that are constructed to convey meanings. Like all words, "violence" and "terrorism" have specific meanings that are meant to convey specific ideas and concepts. Unfortunately, these two words are frequently used as placeholders for any behavior that an individual or group doesn't like, rather than to describe specific acts that fit their meanings.

    Lets look at the word "violence" for example. Dr. Gene Sharp, one of the world's foremost scholars on nonviolence and advocates of nonviolent activism defines violence as "physical violence against persons to inflict injury or death, or action dependent on the threat of such results, not as a term of moral or political opinion." Some activists in the movement may engage in activity that is illegal, or even destructive to property, but none of the organizations being discussed here have harmed anyone or have implied that they would ever harm anyone. In fact, they are all patently nonviolent and eschew the use of physical violence against humans and non-humans.

    Similarly, the term "terrorism" has a meaning, although there is no universally agreed upon definition. However, one aspect of terrorism that is almost universally recognized in academic circles (and I say "academic" specifically because the legal definition of terrorism in the U.S. has been so adulterated that it barely differentiates between a peaceful protest and a pipe bomb) is that the term is meant to define violent or physically threatening acts that are directed SPECIFICALLY at noncombatants (innocent civilians, the general public) with the intent of inciting fear and advancing a political agenda. Now, since we established above that tactics used by the AR movement do not harm and are not meant to harm people, and the property destruction and protests undertaken by the movement are directed at people who harm animals for a living (or facilitate and profit from it)- not random members of the public- the terms above don't seem to fit. These activities may be a lot of things, but they aren't violence or terrorism, and continuing to label them as such degrades the true meanings of these terms and the plight of the victims of true violence and terrorism.

    To suggest that PETA, which has worked to expose violence against animals in the experimentation, food, clothing and entertainment industries and to deliver animals from suffering through legal and peaceful -albeit often colorful- means, is "terrorist", but that individuals and companies that commit physical violence against animals are simply "people who have done nothing wrong" just doesn't make any sense.
  • NAILED IT, Justin
  • Lin
    I've got 5 dollars on Joe posting a link to the CCF claim that Ingrid Newkirk funded Rod Coronado's defense.
  • Diversity of tactics FTW!
  • Joe
    Will can you honestly think that ALF and ELF are nonviolent with all of the bombs and arson that they themselves take credit for?

    Why is anyone surprised at the USDA form? Most of the groups on that list have committed very serious crimes. While PETA has not taken credit for any bombings that I know of, they have given money to the ALF and its members knowing full well what the group was doing.
  • The ALF and ELF have committed arson. A number of other groups such as the Revolutionary Cells have claimed credits for "bombings." But this is besides the point.

    PETA has never given money to anything like that. The FBI had a case file open for years on PETA, and probably still does, which included surveillance and infiltration. It turned up nothing. http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-140051648.html
  • Joe
    ALF and ELF are nonviolent groups? I would hate to see what you think a violent group is. The ALF and the ELF are both very violent they have set bombs off and committed arson against people who have done nothing wrong except not live they way the AR groups want them to live.
  • You would hate to see that, Joe? Trying opening a newspaper. Destroying property is illegal, potentially dangerous, and perhaps not always the most strategic course of action, but it is not the same as harming humans beings. People and property are not of equal worth.
  • Liberationnow
    I can't even believe my eyes and the horrible sinking feeling I have in my gut after reading that "Security Profile". They are trying to crush us as a movement and we need to do something NOW before this bullshit gets any worse. Direct Action is working and this is the evidence. Pretty soon every single animal enterprise will be heavily guarded by police or security forces. They will be like Fort fricken Knox. But what can we do?. Will, any suggestions?

    Rise, Resist, Revolt! (but HOW?)
  • As Alex commented, I think this is a good example of how a wide range of tactics are truly viewed as threats to business as usual. I think that needs to be part of the answer to the question above: recognizing first that this is not about just stopping illegal tactics, it is about squashing movements. From there, I think there is going to need to be continued, and increased, outreach both to the general public and other social movements. I know those are very vague responses, but at the macro level, I think they are the first steps. I'd love to hear the thoughts of others about this. I think it the most pressing issue facing every progressive social movement right now.
  • It's bad enough the USDA APHIS lists nonviolent underground groups like ALF and ELF as "terrorists," but even worse to see them label legal aboveground groups like PETA and ADL as "terrorists," too. Considering that the USDA APHIS works on behalf of corporations to promote food-industry enslavement and slaughter, vivisection, and other forms of speciesist oppression, such fear-mongering is not too surprising.

    Don't let the government and capitalist industry silence us. We must speak out against unjust attacks on free expression and continue to advocate veganism and animal rights. Other animals are counting on us to be their voice for freedom and liberation.
  • This seems to suggest that PETA is indeed quite threatening to the agricultural industry. This is perhaps some inconvenient evidence that should be introduced to the ongoing "abolitionist"/"welfarism" debate.
  • WTF, animal defense league is on there as well! So stupid!
blog comments powered by Disqus