Thursday, November 18, 2004

Banned in the UK! The Home Office says 'Stay Home!' to U.S. Animal Rights Activists

By Steven Best

Read full article...

Posted 11/18 | Add a Comment

    Comments:

    You must register to comment.

    Login | Register

  1. What an exceptional example of direction action by activists, I feel.  I particularly like the part where they conferenced for the purpose of creating a unity in purpose and effort.  Now if we could only apply these lesons in other activist venues here. (http://www.ruckus.org is a case in point).

    Posted by Nader Rider from  on  11/18  at  09:46 AM

  2. Since I mentioned RUCKUS in the previous post, I would be remiss if I didn’t mention that they also have a most excellent resource list for nonviolent (underscored, if I had the means to do so here, but I don’t) direct action sources.

    http://ruckus.org/resources/nvda/

    Posted by Nader Rider from  on  11/18  at  11:05 AM

  3. Mr. Best, wonderful piece, thank you. So sorry you weren’t deemed “important” enough to be banned. Your time will come, I fear.

    Is there someplace on the web where we can read of the September gathering in the UK, the papers, talks, activist victories, etc.?

    Posted by catherine from cleveland  on  11/18  at  11:07 AM

  4. Yes. Direct Action. I just wrote to Dr. Best to get feedback on The Plan...as both ALF and Ruckus operations --putting aside all the good they do, for the moment-- suffer from practicing activism which (always) threatens to take their “very best” out of the loop...to the advantage of The Powers. If anyone’s interested, I can let you know what response I receive. Best, Ox

    Posted by Richard Oxman from  on  11/18  at  11:53 AM

  5. Here is a site with some general information about the international gathering in the UK—http://www.ar2004.info/—we probably could send a note to the email contact listed on the site to inquire about getting additional conference information. Also, Steve Best has some good information about animal rights and strategies at his website—http://utminers.utep.edu/best/

    Posted by Mark Hand from  on  11/18  at  11:57 AM

  6. Info about the conf. which Mark directs readers to contains the following: “We know who our enemies are and where they are so let’s all get to work across the world and make Animal Liberation happen.” One question I have is...if you turn the statement around so that it’s coming from The Powers and not the ALF people...is it a problem?  I ask because, obviously, one of the great dangers that face ALF and all who take part in direct action of a serious nature...is the public profiling that goes on...with the anticipated “taking out of the loop” which will follow...if things go “too far.” So...do conferences feed into that? Are sufficient precautions being taken...to make enough inroads...ANONYMOUSLY?  What percentage of such well-intentioned, desirable activism vulnerable to the authorities?  How much does not have to be so subjected?

    Posted by Richard Oxman from  on  11/18  at  12:34 PM

  7. I think that Richard raises an interesting point.  But it becomes a point of consideration even moreso, if the powers, who are committed to thwarting your efforts, perceive that you perceive them to be your enemy.

    The pygmalion syndrome dictates that people will generally fulfill your conveyed expectations of them.  And I wonder how much our “enemeies” act out as our enemies, in part, because we perceive them as such.

    I’ve always been curious about this for the longest time.  Just sharing that curiosity of mine here.

    Posted by Nader Rider from  on  11/18  at  01:03 PM

  8. Brilliant read! Amazing this, the U.K. wants to bump out philosophers but everything’s A-Okay with Pinochet. It’s possible the slide into paranoid statism in both the U.S. and England signals the decline of the once globally dominant Anglo culture. The foolhardy fortressing of these societies against domestic CULTURAL threats (if there is indeed such a thing as a cultural threat) likewise catalyzes an internal cultural degeneration within the state apparatus, wherein the bedrock values derived from old, liberal, Anglo philosophy erode into a shifting, valueless muck, whose primary and impossible purpose is to support an envisioned militaristic, market-based state. Cultural challenges to the markets’ fixed and entrenched modes of maintaining profitability (like, as per our example, arguing animal rights, vegetarianism, etc.) will be dealt with through state force (like, as per our example, denying entrance based upon security concerns). Supposedly, taking drastic measures to preserve their political culture against the terrorists, it seems England and America are admirably succeeding in destroying their more decent traditions all by themselves. It’s a shame—I know a lot of people will just say ‘good riddance’ to it all as these states visibly decline—quite a bit of that old time English philosophy is very good. But then, so again was most of the entire German philosophical tradition the National Socialists pathetically tried to assimilate. It’s so twisted, it’s almost funny. On a species note: is the classical, Anglo, liberal tradition itself devolving? Knuckling under to knuckle-dragging fascism?

    Posted by Theo from Greece  on  11/18  at  01:46 PM

  9. Neither Bush nor Kerry nor Osama are “acting out” as per NR’s “wondering”...as per our perceptions of them...as per the context provided. In other interpersonal situations, of course, it all holds water.

    Posted by Richard Oxman from  on  11/18  at  03:14 PM

  10. I once performed quite intrusive intervention services in families where the head of the house created some intolerable and/or life threatening conditions for members of the household, Richard.  Had I communicated to the head of the house that I saw and treated him/her as my enemy, I doubt that I would’ve accomplished the interventions that I did.  As forceful and intrusive as they were anyway.  I guess all I tried to say was, you can do what you feel you need to do, without painting the recipient of your actions as your enemy.  Their minds are worth the effort to change also.

    Posted by Nader Rider from  on  11/18  at  03:28 PM

  11. I get where NR is coming from,and this works(or can work) when you are perhaps dealing with a person or a few people who have power over one or a few more people.On a small scale.

    What the world faces though is not the same.Simply because those in power can not be reasoned out of what they are doing,and those being controlled(or killed or are slaves in many senses of the word)have alot more at stake than keeping a few people happy and safe(as in a family situation).Simply intervening in their current mindset isn’t enough because there are a whole lot of people willing and eager to take their place,if you could get through,to someone like a Cheney or Bush.

    There is merit to the notion of not advertising the intents in various Plans regarding Direct Actions,and tossing about words like “enemy”.It’s crucial to the success of such actions to keep them from being thwarted.

    Posted by Tammy from Metro Atlanta  on  11/18  at  04:41 PM

  12. I wonder if MLK’s words are as true today as they were then:

    “Non-violence will be effective, but not until it has achieved the massive dimensions, the disciplined planning and the intense commitment of a sustained, direct-action movement of civil disobedience on the national scale. The dispossessed of this nation - the poor, both white and Negro - live in a cruelly unjust society. They must organise against that injustice, not against the lives of persons who are their fellow citizens, but against the structures through which the society is refusing to take means which have been called for, and which are at hand, to lift the load of poverty. The only real revolutionary, people say, is a man who has nothing to lose. There are millions of poor people in this country who have very little, or even nothing, to lose. If they can be helped to take action together, they will do so with a freedom and a power that will be a new and unsettling force in our complacent national life.”

    Posted by Nader Rider from  on  11/18  at  05:40 PM

  13. I’ll look at Tammy’s points later. For NR, please explain how one cannot eyeball, say, Bush w/o calling him the enemy.  Are we to continue entertaining the notion that we’ll be able to eke out reforms by playing politics w the Dems in our corner?  Others in our corner?  If you don’t have to use the attitude or word that suggests “enemy” fine, but it’s a bit of a peripheral point.  There’s a huge difference between sitting down with a local councilman or an abusive husband and trying to rectify something, salvage something...AND going about addressing ecocide and genocide. Certainly we wouldn’t be talking this way vis-a-vis Hitler or Stalin, would we?

    Posted by Richard Oxman from  on  11/18  at  05:43 PM

  14. I’m trying not to be fall victim to the belief that the people who are currently in power are the problem, Richard.  I see them as symptoms of the problem instead.  Were it not for some of our neighbors and/or friends (maybe associates is more accurate), the people in power would not be in power.  Some folks need to address the wolves in the pasture, most certainly.  But we shouldn’t forget to address the sheep that invited them in, in the first place.

    Posted by Nader Rider from  on  11/18  at  05:58 PM

  15. What serendipity, NR; I was just about to post here on the same subject, adding to what I penned earlier. To wit, one should look at one’s neighbors (replete w SUV plus) who may have the time to TALK about the ills of this and that (i.e., this story) but not go anywhere over the half hour alloted for such blah blah, AND/OR not go anywhere near certain lengths/problem areas. You are absolutely correct in pointing the above out. But, again, although one can --must, very often-- be tactful respecting the neighbor’s level of tolerance, etc., certain sheep NEED to be confronted more directly/harshly ‘cause the alternative is to dance around in comfort...doing nothing but propping up a pretense. I’ve lost several “friends” right here on this site for that very reason. In short, many sheep do not want Eugene O’Neill’s Hickey walking into their bar of illusions...and breaking down the glasses darkly.  One thing I know: There’s no way to “go to it” w/o losing some friends, w/o hurting some feelings, etc.

    Posted by Richard Oxman from  on  11/18  at  08:14 PM

  16. Richard brings up another point,a good one.I myself have lost several long standing friendships over being"too radical or political”.I think part of this is because some of the ideas I’ve brought to the table directly oppose the way people were raised(challenging the"american dream"),and it’s threatening to them.I’m willing to meet people where they are at the moment,but only up to a point.I also think that on a deep level many people do know that how they live is selfish,and contributes to the destruction,but having to face that would mean giving up all they’ve worked so hard for.Proposing the idea that they begin looking at the REAL cost of things(like where their consumerism really leads when traced backwards to what’s at stake-the slavery and death behind diamonds for example,our cultural symbols of love and devotion,and as “bling bling")they want or feel they need is just too much.It raises up alot of hackles.

    Posted by Tammy from Metro Atlanta  on  11/19  at  08:38 AM

  17. Tammy it is called like the English film :"The Loneliness of the Long Distance Runner”, which is a metaphor for being so far ahead mentally of the gang that one finds oneself running with ideas all by oneself on an empty road. I would find it much to be a real badge of honor. Now, is it worth to oneself to slow down to accomodate others ? I do not think so, because inertia never spurred anyone on and the long distance runner is too easily coopted if she/he relents. Better to be misunderstood, hated even, than be manipulated
    into any measure of compliance. Keep on the political fight.

    Posted by gui rochat from new york  on  11/19  at  09:58 PM

  18. Just as the Richardson film from ‘62 depicts a boy’s rite of passage into manhood, I’d say the “loneliness of the run” touched upon by Tammy and Gui above...can be looked at as a rite of passage/a run for activists who are moving from the herd into a position of inner-directed passion. The run-of-the-mill socialization that we’re all used to must fall by the wayside.  Being indifferent (a la the Tom Courtney character) to the likes of the obsessive competitiveness of the Redgrave character is also essential.  And so much else.  Being an activist on the order of John Brown --whether or not we are willing to actually give our lives in the sense that’s usually talked about-- is what’s called for now; history teaches us that nothing less will do the trick.  It is a trick that must be turned over time, beyond one’s lifetime in almost all cases.  Blessings to Tammy and Gui and all others who are keeping this passion alive.  Loving regards, RICHARD

    Posted by Richard Oxman from  on  11/19  at  11:15 PM

  19. Passion is an interesting ingredient.  Both the wrong-full and the right-full can possess it.  I’ve been exceedingly passionate about many things in my life.  And while the passion was pretty much consistent, what I was passionate about changed in time.  There is another ingredient, however, that only the right-full can possess.  For by posessing it, it makes you right-full.  I’m alluding to compassion, of course.  And compassionate action, unlike passion, always transforms things and people.  I don’t think that compassionate action gets as much attention as it deserves.

    Posted by Nader Rider from  on  11/19  at  11:39 PM

  20. mmmm, richard wanted me to comment further, but i am a bit at a loss what to say as he and Tammy said it all..by the way there are so many good political movies, especially from hollywood, even now as i may have mentioned before, for example the movie ‘Pleasantville’ where everyone lives in black and gray untill colors appear, frightening though they are at first, then liberating and bringing happiness.see it !

    Posted by gui rochat from new york  on  11/20  at  12:28 AM

  21. Dear NR: The passion of John Brown (which is what I was speaking about) was derived from the compassion you are speaking about. I think the semantic sidestep should take a backseat to the fact that there are not many “activists” fired up enough to forgo the comfy routines/rutts I’ve been criticizing.  Not enough willing to pull out ahead of the pack...on a run.  Too many holding back in the name of moving in a solidarity that does not exist.

    Posted by Richard Oxman from  on  11/20  at  01:15 AM

  22. What you see as a “semantic sidestep”, Richard, I see as a vital correlation between the two.  Compassion is simply the ability to place yourself in the shoes of others who are experiencing horrific acts.  What is happening to them is happening to you, you feel.  They are you.  And so the passion to fight for their interests is best served, I feel, if it is rooted in compassion as its foundation.  It’s not surprising to see a direct correlation in the felt intensity of the two ingredients also.  The more compassionate you are, the more passionate you tend to be.  But that has been only my experience.

    Posted by Nader Rider from  on  11/20  at  01:26 AM

  23. We don’t disagree, NR, on what you’re saying. I think the “confusion” here...if there is any on your end...is that I’m trying to redirect the discussion back to why there needs to be compassion/passion among activists.  That’s why I used the term “sidestep.” I didn’t want the focus of our blah blah to be on semiotics. You are right to insist upon the distinction.  But...there is --amidst all the talk the envelopes us-- too little of putting on the others’ shoes...which you invoke.  People are putting on those shoes in some quarters...but then they’re either marching to places like what A.N.S.W.E.R. tells them is “the next stop” OR they’re marching to the local courthouse investing too much faith in the legal system...or they’re marching in those shoes arm-in-arm w other “activists” to the local polling booth...avoiding facts like --to give just one example-- legitimate elections being a thing of the past.

    Posted by Richard Oxman from  on  11/20  at  02:19 AM

  24. This is a great discussion...nothing to disagree with here.  As I read all of your comments, I see that you have given legitimacy to the “Loner”. It is good to see the stigma being removed from “one who acts alone” rather than with the group.  Richy, I agree with your criticism of those who put faith in “the courthouse or polling booth”. I agree with you that the “system” does not work.  Please give examples of recent Direct Actions that you would believe to be more effective.

    Posted by rosemarie jackowski from  on  11/20  at  09:20 AM

  25. Thanks for all, Rosemarie. Truly. One of the reasons I have wanted people to dialogue about The Plan is that...to answer your heartfelt question...it would be best to have ongoing feedback on ALL proposals for direct action. Efficacy is a function of particular circumstances. The Plan, which is designed to attack things nationwide, has elements that would not blend well in certain local situations. I submit that if you and NR and Gui and other like-minded individuals here at PA send one person each to me...we can come up with an alternative to The Plan that will hold more potential for forcing change than the old paradigms being followed...for your particular local interests.  For now, on a national scale, the Leno/Letterman thing would be a grand start.  I don’t know how closely you read INVITATION TO THE BODILY SNATCHED on CPunch...but it’s designed to generate “other plans” among participants.  The very kind of plans you seek.  Please feel free to press more on this count.  Blessings, Richard

    Posted by Richard Oxman from  on  11/20  at  10:28 AM

  26. Good timing for this discussion about “Other plans”.  This, I believe, is the week-end for the big annual protest at the SOA. Many people, at great personal expense, go there every year.  There are usually arrests with relatively long jail sentences resulting. I am thankful for the contributions of all of those who protest there. Sadly, those protests receive very little, if any, media coverage and most people in the US have not a clue about the training center for US terrorists that is right here in our own back yard. Worse yet, publicity about the SOA is absolute proof of US endorsement of terrorism, but the media is complicit with the Pentagon in keeping the truth hidden.

    Posted by rosemarie jackowski from  on  11/20  at  11:37 AM

  27. I’ve been in touch w Father B since my days in Hawaii in the early 90s...and all of his imprisonment (in the past)...and the “taking out of the loop” of others...should culminate in new models for protest...following the upcoming demo.  One thing people can do on a daily basis is...everytime Jimmy Carter’s name comes up...they can underscore the fact that this “nice” former Prez looked the other way forever (plus)...while the SOA operated on his home ground, grounding out death plus for those who Dems easily reprimand Reagan for killing. Jimmy and all the “colleagues” should ONLY be referred to as genocidists.  If alternative media people would take that stance...we’d be a lot longer along the path we want to travel.  As it is...you will note...for all the good Amy Goodman does...from time to time...she’ll speak in hushed tones about people like Carter when he’s doing a particular PR turn vis-a-vis voting supervision, etc.  We should not let JC go to The Other Realm w/o taking that hammer from his hands (with which he so sweetly constructs housing for the underpriveleged under the glare of cameras)...and turning it on him.  What’s the name of that Project he sponsors?

    Posted by Richard Oxman from  on  11/20  at  11:48 AM

  28. Habitat for Humanity.  We often assume an agreeable public mask to cover for the other less agreeable acts of ours.

    Posted by Nader Rider from  on  11/20  at  11:56 AM

  29. Some curious Nobel Peace Prize winners:
    Jimmy Carter Jr. 2002,
    Shimon Peres and Yitshak Rabin 1994,
    Henry Kissinger 1973,
    Thomas Woodrow Wilson 1919,
    Theodore Roosevelt 1906

    Posted by gui rochat from new york  on  11/20  at  12:02 PM

  30. Richy and NR make good points. I cannot think of any member of congress who ever was in favor of closing a military installation in his/her district.  The criticism that you make could be applied universally to all of the powers in DC and also to the citizens. I have said for a long time that if some company came into an area and proposed building a factory to manufacture Napalm, the people would be all for it.  After all, it would mean more jobs for the area. What about the responsibility of the individual?  At what point do we say that every person is responsible for their own actions?

    Posted by rosemarie jackowski from  on  11/20  at  12:10 PM

  31. The napalm point is well taken. It’s highly instructive that when Syl and I were trying to set up shop in Salt Lake City --the original site slated for the OneDance Summit*-- we learned that residents of Toelle County insisted upon keeping the highly toxic industries housed there...where they work...in the name of economics, etc.  This in spite of the definitive documentation showing that their personal health was going to hell --to put it lightly-- because of that stance.  *www.onedancesummit.org is still accessible, but the “Press Release” referred to on the site..is not working properly; let us know if you want that or something else related to our abortive attempt to address mutual ills...in the past.

    Posted by Richard Oxman from  on  11/20  at  12:59 PM

  32. Being against trophy hunting, canned ("sport") hunting such as fox hunting, industrial “meat industry”, and animal torture does not make a person anti-hunting.

    I am a strong advocate for hunting. Life feeds on life to survive, be it animal or plant, fungi or other.

    I resent the idea that being against “fox hunting” is anti-hunting. It is not. It is against animal cruelty for the “sport” of a wealthy elite. The same elite that eat the diseased liver of forcefed geese.

    On a similar subject. It is often assumed that being pro-gun is “pro-gun industry”. Likewise, I am pro-gun rights, but am absolutely against the military-industrial complex.

    The far right-wing endangered species killers want the debate to be framed as pro-hunting vs. anti-hunting in order to bring the populace to their side. I humbly ask “animal lib” folk to not play into this propaganda.

    Posted by Cemendur from Cascadia  on  11/21  at  05:30 AM

  33. I’ll agree with this part of Cemendur’s thesis: Being against trophy hunting, canned ("sport") hunting such as fox hunting, and the industrial “meat industry” does not automatically make a person “anti-hunting.”

    But, for me, “a strong advocate for hunting” is, by definition, not a person who is against “animal torture.”

    Sematics to some...but not to the animals and those who respect them.

    I’m not looking to initiate a long thread, re: evolution, diet, etc...I’ve just chosen to not let that point go without a counter.

    Posted by Mickey Z from  on  11/21  at  01:05 PM

  34. I resent the implication that I do not respect animals because I live in part a hunter-gatherer lifestyle.

    You are stating that Indigenous people and anyone else that hunts has no respect for animals. This is an Imperialist anthropocentric attitude. Which is really unfortunate because I enjoy much of your writing (Mickey Z).

    Posted by Cemendur from Cascadia  on  11/24  at  03:05 AM

  35. Well that was an antagonistic response and that was not my intentions for responding. Although, I acknowledge these conversations predictably spiral into tit-for-tat arguements.

    My reasons for responding were to highlight our strength in unity. Unfortunately our differences were highlighted.

    I am a rural Green Anarchist who has more in common with the Magonistas and the Zapatistas than with the typically city-dwelling “anarcho-primitivists” and vegan anarchists.

    We have many cultural differences that are not reconcilable. Unfortunately, these differences become highlighted instead of our overwhelming agreements - be they from an anarchist, libertarian socialist, or “global justice” outlook.

    Posted by Cemendur from  on  11/24  at  10:19 PM
    36. Commenting is not available in this weblog entry. {/if}

    Next entry: The Greensboro Massacre

    Previous entry: Empire of the Senseless

    [ads]

    Support Press Action