Another repression of the animal liberation movement?

international | animal rights | opinion/analysis

Sunday October 24, 2010 00:33

by Mi cke y - !Liberate!

At the end of August Time.com published an article containing a controversial opinion of co-founder of the most popular organization fighting (supposedly) for animal rights – Ingrid Newkirk. Mrs President, said, inter alia, that “Absolute purists should be living in a cave.” In the ranks of the activists PETA has been regarded as the organization which in no way improve the lot of animals. After another raid someone may even be tempted to declare that the organization becomes harmful, because denying ethical considerations justifies the same industry which is responsible for the holocaust of the animals. This in turn leads to the construction of the belief that everything is really okay, we should eat animals, we just need to kill them a bit more gently. This way, Burger King customers will soon become defenders of the animals. Anyway Gary L. Francione issued an excellent response to Mrs. Newkirk views. I urge you to read it to understand fully what I mean.

On the one hand, we have an apparent desire to make changes represented by the creators of popular NGOs and on the second hand we observe reinforcing the repression against those who try to make real changes. This is particularly evident in the United States, where not so long ago, Walter Bond was arrested, accused of carrying out direct action under the Animal Liberation Front. By the way as it turned out that FBI informant, who delivered information about Walter Bond, was his brother. Shortly after the FBI raid took place at the house of well-known activist Peter Young, who runs a website dedicated to animal rights Voice of the Voiceless. And from other reports, we can learn about the secret meeting of the companies involved in violence against animals, which is to be devoted to “extremists fighting for animal rights.” To make matters worse a few days ago it emerged that Monsanto hired a blackwater, which is responsible among others for the crimes committed in Iraq, to spying on the eco and animal rights movements. The measures taken by businesses are becoming more repressive, which may indicate a growing fear of the consequences of activists actions. Especially, thanks to publicity they gain, animal rights issues get to the commercial media, hitting the mass audience. And this is a problem for companies that are part of the industry exploiting animals. They are happy to condone the existence of such organizations as conformist PETA , but do everything they can to harm those who strive for true liberation of animals. These companies are very afraid that their customers can see the truth about the production of food, clothing or other products of animal origin. Less consumption means lower profits. And thanks to the support of the state officials they criminalize those who fight for a right cause, accusing them of absurd allegations (eg, terrorism), at same time pursuing the policy of absolute cruelty to other beings.

Increased repression is often a symbol of the growing strength of the movement. Similar mechanisms can be found in history or even in modern times (the Zapatistas, Greek anarchists). Capitalist thinking instilled to managers and employees of big business is not able to understand a completely different thought, based on ethics, not a selfish point of view. This does not mean, however, that this thought may be stifled by intimidation or pressure from the state forces. The more repression, the more resistance. The more terror, the greater will to act. This in turn may result in increasing the strength and commitment of the people in the struggle for animal liberation. In the broad outline, also in a political struggle, which I personally link to the animals issues as the whole movement must become a part of it. Social revolution (in which the animal rights are the key issue) instead of ineffective reforms or welfare can ensure the animals freedom and respect.

Sources:
http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/media/links/p3443/a...n.pdf
http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/ingrid-newkirk-on-p...iple/
http://www.voiceofthevoiceless.org/alf-lone-wolf-arrest...torm/
http://www.voiceofthevoiceless.org/breaking-fbi-raids-u...time/
http://www.voiceofthevoiceless.org/leaked-document-reve...reat/
http://news.infoshop.org/article.php?story=201009182110...05427

save preference

Comments (2 of 2)

people don't go from a condition of little or no awareness directly to radical / revolutionary

by V for vendetta

Sun Oct 24, 2010 21:57

You know perfectly well that people don't go from a condition of little or no awareness directly to radical / revolutionary

PETA, by playing the corporations own media and celebrity games, are achieving awareness of animal issues on a large scale. Because of this, they are considered a much bigger threat than ALF to the status quo. That is why they are targetted

That is why vested interests would like nothing more than for PETA to be rejected by other animal rights groups. Divide and conquer is the game of the corporations. Don't fall for it. Many of those people who PETA gets through to will go on to a deeper awareness.

There is no reason why all groups can't proceed on all levels in parallel. There is no reason why different approaches can't be tried. Not everyone is amenable to a radical or revolutionary approach. In fact very few are. Largely because of the very tools used successfully by corporate interests. Tools that PETA is now using against them, and quite successfully.

No, Not everyone is amenable to to radical or revolutionary change. (The small number that are can be easily smeared and neutralised.) It's naive to think they are.

Or perhaps it's not so naive? Perhaps it's something else at work here?

animal welfare doesn't work

by Jorg

Mon Oct 25, 2010 00:53

I think most of your comments is correct. Only one thing. It depends on what you define as a revolutionary change. Contemporary revolutionary thought puts a large extent on education, not a sudden change, which could lead to disaster. Only conscious society can accept radical changes.

The thing with PETA is, that yes, they managed to attract the attention of people using photos with naked chicks or Pamela Anderson involvment in their campaigns but at the end of day it didn't give expected effects. The welfare reforms have failed. Also you can't be against torture, while accepting a lighter form of torture. As Francione's said:

"The reforms that are promoted by PETA and the other new welfarist groups for the most part do not provide significant welfare benefits for animals. They just represent a different form of torture. Waterboarding someone on a bare board and waterboarding them on a padded board is still waterboarding. "

However, of course, I agree with you, there should be different methods of struggle against the exploitation of animals, not just direct action.

Upcoming Events

New Events

Other Press

User Preferences

Feeds

Blog Feeds

Anti-Empire

The Saker

Public Inquiry

Another repression of the animal liberation movement?

Comments (2 of 2)