Skip to content or view screen version

Fight Speciesism! #7 - Out Now

antispe britain | 24.12.2008 22:27 | SHAC | Animal Liberation | Ecology | Social Struggles | World

January issue of the latest anti-speciesist, anti-capitalist, abolitionist direct action news is out now.



- In Memory of Barry Horne
- NYSE:LSR Under Attack
- Hunt Sabbing News
- Mink Released
- Insurrection in Mexico
- Letter from Sean Kirtley
- Whalers On The Run
- Global Roundup
- Telmex Campaign
- Uprising in Greece


Antispeciesist Action is a collective of militant antispeciesists and animal rights activists committed to confronting animal abuse, suffering and exploitation of non-human beings through the use of direct action.

We believe in the 'No Compromise' philosophy, veganism and actively support the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) and animal rights prisoners.

We are opposed to capitalism and the state, understanding that without both entities, the universal exploitation of animals would not be possible.

Until Every Cage Is Empty!


FS! #6 - November
FS! #5 - October
FS! #4 - September
FS! #3 - August
FS! #2 - July
FS! #1 - June



Antispeciesist Action


================== - Flag - Flash Banner - Header - Forum

=================== - Vegan Prisoners Support Network (VPSG) - Animal Liberation Front Supporters Group (ALFSG) - Earth Liberation Prisoners (ELPSN) - Anarchist Black Cross (ABC)


1. Find others who look like they are there for the autonomous bloc, for example people with green&black flags and/or wearing bandanas/balaclavas.
2. Join with them. 3. Move as a group joining with others until all groups are as one.


The best detailed description of animal rights and anti-speciesist action can be summed up in the Abolitionist Manifesto parts 1-3:

I. Animal liberation begins in our heads. Animals will never be free unless or until we cease viewing them in instrumental terms. This means that animal liberation hasn’t even begun in the heads of the new welfarists, who endorse measures (e.g. welfare reform and “humane” animal products) that reflect an instrumental view of nonhumans and as such show that they do not — at bottom — reject the property paradigm. An indispensably necessary precondition of animal liberation is thus that we view animals in noninstrumental terms — as inherently valuable bearers of moral rights — and treat them — without exception (including in campaigns) — pursuant to that view. As Gandhi said, we must be the change we wish to see.

II. Animal liberation will not merely be enhanced or safeguarded by certain moral relations between humans and nonhuman animals. Rather it will be constituted by certain moral relations — specifically, a concern for animals’ welfare informed (or rather transformed) by respect for their inherent value. Since new welfarists’ compassion and urge to alleviate animal suffering conflicts with respect for animals as rightholders, something which shows itself in their endorsement of supposedly “humane” animal use which is a rights violation, it follows that not only is there no common ground between welfarists and abolitionists, but that new welfarism — necessarily — has nothing to do with animal liberation, since the latter is inherently impracticable without respect for animals’ inherent value which is theoretically informed by the concept of animal rights, i.e. the basic right not to be treated as property, solely as a means to humans’ ends.

III. Abolitionism is principled antispeciesism, which in turn is a moral imperative. Maintaining a moral imperative is not about being fundamentalist, fanatical, purist, absolutist, elitist, extremist. It is about being radically opposed to the corrupt instrumentalization of reason which pervades the new welfarist movement and which manifests itself in the way the latter has no moral baselines — no principles — and rules nothing out in advance. For the new welfarists, even incremental measures that radically negate animal rights (such as the promotion of “humane” animal use, working with institutional animal enslavers, and supporting speciesist welfare groups) have legitimate instrumental value. But an “animal rights” movement that doesn’t rule out — a priori — those things that conflict with principled antispeciesism and the status of animals as rightholders is not only a pseudo-animal rights movement: it is an expression of counterfeit moral responsiveness to animals.

By contrast, abolitionism is a rights-inspired movement, which means it rules out — in advance — those things that conflict with antispeciesist, animal rights maxims because the latter are taken to be wrong in principle, in particular the promotion of meat and other animal products that were supposedly produced more “humanely” than others.

Co-authored by James Crump and Karin Hilpisch

antispe britain
- Homepage:


Hide the following 10 comments

sorry, i'm new to this

25.12.2008 01:00

speciesism implies applying different standards for different species. does anti-speciesism therefore hold all species to be equal?

if so, since all animals are "inherently valuable bearers of moral rights", do they all bear the same moral rights?

if not, who decides the moral rights borne by different species?

I'm not being facetious, i'm genuinely trying to understand a philosophy which, in truth, does indeed strike me as fanatical, extremist etc.


Speciesism; racism; sexism

25.12.2008 02:51

Anti-speciesism is as extreme and fanatical as anti-racism and anti-sexism. Equality can not be influenced is an "extreme" way, as philosophies can not be 'changed' in such a way.

Those who advocate such philosophies may take extreme measures to make ideas realities, but its important to remember that its just the action that is radical, extreme and/or militant, not the philosophy they are promoting, although activists may see them as such.

Abstaining from abuse is not extreme, whether its rape, child abuse, racism, sexism, or speciesism, etc. Infact its the very nature of 'extremism' that is illogical, as to be not extremely against abuse would be rather odd, if not insulting to say the least.

"The question is not whether we will be extremist but what kind of extremist will we be."
- Martin Luther King, Jr.


"who decides"

25.12.2008 13:10

All beings have the same right to LIVE
it's that what any intelligent being should know
an intelligent being doesn't need anybody "who decides"


Read this:

25.12.2008 18:45

As a starter on species equality -
- Note: I don't agree with all Singers ideas but this is well put and online so I posted it.


speciesism rocks

26.12.2008 09:25

'All beings have the same right to LIVE
it's that what any intelligent being should know
an intelligent being doesn't need anybody "who decides"'

My cat killed a mouse the other day. Since I would be pissed off with anyone who killed a person, I beat the shit out of my cat and left it in the road. I figure it's the other cats' responsibility to make sure it gets better.

(That was sarcasm, in case any ALF-IMCista wants to firebomb my house...)

Animal welfare is a valid position for a variety of reasons. Animal rights is a meaningless concept based on a poor understanding of the term "rights" and a fanatic, screeching level of opposition to anyone who dares to disagree. And speciesism is a (rather distasteful) attempt to shoehorn animal rights into the various exploitations human beings have inflicted on one another.


Speciesism mean not discriminating *purely* by species membership

26.12.2008 11:22

Speciesism mean not discriminating *purely* by species membership.

Obvious different species have different needs and desires, and it's fine to discriminate on the basis of these very real differences, just as it is fine to discriminate between races or sexes based on real differences.

But too often discrimination is only done to enforce a group privilege and has no underlying rationale.

Maybe everyone can agree this is a good thing?

The next question is whether the physiological differences between humans and non-humans is justification for us killing or harming animals. Some people would argue that the benefit to a human of a meal outweighs the harm done by imprisoning, torturing and killing an animal for its short pitiful life, and so is justified. Other, like me, would argue it is not.

But the main point is to ensure your motivations are based on sound physical realities and aren't just done to maintain your species superiority.


re: Speciesism rocks

26.12.2008 11:34

re: anonymous's comment entitled "Speciesism rocks"

Non-human animals don't make moral choices like we do, so obviously a cat killing a mouse is just the way nature is. We have the intellectual capacity to choose to not inflict pain on others, so it is right we should do so.

Animals do many things that we wouldn't want to advocate for humans: rape, cannibalism, infanticide, coprophagia, etc. Just because animals do something doesn't mean it's automatically OK for us to do it.

Animal welfare, like human welfare, is just about bigger cages and longer chains, it doesn't change the fundamental relationships that cause the suffering.

Animal rights is just about putting these fundamental relationships into a legal or cultural framework so we establish that for us to inflict pain on animals is absolutely wrong.

Anti-speciesism is about making sure we are thinking logically and aren't just resorting to uncritical bigotry. Generally anti-speciesism implies animal rights, but I suppose it doesn't necessarily.


re: veganonymous

27.12.2008 12:57

Well said mate :)

My Mates A Primate

confused ideology

29.12.2008 10:53

while this is, no doubt, well meaning, it is badly thought out. this kind of think gives the 'green' or 'ecological' movement a bad name by its stupidity. what you are asking for is impossible. by all means the mistreatment of animals should be stopped, but humans are also animals, and we, whether you like it or not, eat meat. it is not 'really' possible for everyone to become a vegan, and there is no way that a mosquito's life is worth the same as a human. who judges what has worth? clearly, we do, humans. this is simply the way it is. i think that the people involved with this are well meaning, but they have an idiotic contradictory ideology that will not help their cause.

chow minh

response to chow minh

30.12.2008 01:08

Who says "we" eat meat? I certainly don't. Just because many people do or have done in the past is no justification for anything. People have historically been racist, sexist and homophobic. Does that mean it is "natural" behaviour and we should carry on doing it? Of course not, and meat-eating is the same.

Why isn't it possible for everyone to become vegan? It's certainly the most ecological way to live, aside from minimising harm to animals. Even the governments are starting to realise this.

It's not about a mosquito's life being worth a human's. Killing a mosquito that is going to infect you with some nasty disease is a totally different thing to enslaving, confining and killing a cow to eat her flesh, for example.

It's just about judging each being on their own merits and not saying all creatures are identical, and not saying that humans have the right to kill anything just because of their species membership.

We judge what we think things are worth, sure, but what's the problem with that? We set up society to not baselessly discriminate by race or gender, so why not add species to the list, if it will reduce the amount of suffering in the world?

Just because you disagree with the basic premises doesn't mean the ideology is idiotic or contradictory. It's perfectly logical and there have many books written about it that go into the details of the various philosophies.

Do you think we should discriminate purely on species membership, without taking the attributes of the species into account? That sounds like illogical bigotry to me.