Skip to content or view screen version

The Peaceable Kingdom, Disrupted

Lee Hall, Legal Director for Friends of Animals | 21.09.2009 21:21 | Animal Liberation | Climate Chaos | Repression

The sabotage of a public talk at the annual Vegan Festival at London’s Kensington Town Hall -- and why it’s not just my issue

By Lee Hall - Sept. 2009

THE PEACEABLE KINGDOM, DISRUPTED
The sabotage of a public talk at the annual Vegan Festival at London’s Kensington Town Hall -- and why it’s not just my issue

By Lee Hall - Sept. 2009


Travel back in time to the close of the 2008 London Vegan Festival. A throng of festival-goers moves out into the cool September evening and arrives at a nearby pub. Animated conversation fills the space. But after a few minutes, the mood turns tense. Someone has entered the pub in a fox stole. Conversation stops; anger takes over. The bartender frantically dials the manager, and the entire pub is closed for the night. What a bad taste in the mouth, after such a wonderful, delicious day.

Days pass, the memory fades. I report on some good things that took place that festival day. Nearly two thousand people came, joined groups, tasted foods, played music, laughed, learned, enjoyed. The vegan movement has so much talent, so much promise.

Fast-forward to the equally enriching and successful 2009 London Vegan Festival, which topped two thousand visitors and featured one of the best arrays of healthful, tempting food ever seen at the event, complemented by some intriguing presentations and workshop sessions. I was glad to be a part of it, and to offer a talk on the image of the Peaceable Kingdom and its use in animal advocacy.

But at least a dozen people had talked to each other over Facebook and planned to sabotage it. The point -- although these same people rail against police powers that shut down speech -- was to disable me from speaking.

Had the disruptive group wanted equal time and open discussion, they could have simply asked for a panel. I’m accessible, attending the festival and listed as a presenter annually, standing at a well-marked table in the main hall from the time the doors open. If not forced but rather asked, I would have been enthusiastic about such a discussion. There are also plenty of Internet channels available. If you disagree with someone’s written work, write a serious response. It can then be debated.

As for the disrupted talk that served only to squander time, someone wrote a description (on a US-run site) declaring that although I did not respond with anger, I was “full of fear.” Seems they were trying to project my situation as an example, a warning to others, when using their group-bullying to disrespect my talk, the people who wanted to hear it, festival founder Robin Lane, and the entire event.

And for what? To twist my criticism of coercive actions (not in this talk, but rather in Capers in the Churchyard, a book published by Friends of Animals’ Nectar Bat Press three years ago) into glorifying a long record of arrests, as one disrupter did, and saying that has led many people to turn vegan? As though the more police make arrests, the more vegan the world becomes? This makes no sense. Activist Donald Leung, a pioneer of the highly successful annual Vegan Pledge, posits: “Imagine a neutral person receives two pieces of news: one reporting a case of an animal-rights activist going to court, another regarding having a good time at a vegan event. Which would they be drawn to most? Which would they be most wary of?”

Another person expected me to have communicated with certain people before writing about them. Only one name was mentioned: Why I did not correspond with Joan Court? Wasn’t it rude or unfair of me not to do so? So let’s look at what I said about Joan Court.

My book reported that Court “won wide support in the nonviolent resistance against Cambridge University’s plans to build Europe’s largest primate laboratory, and earned the public approval of Oxford Green Party councillor Matt Sellwood.” Tsk. Tsk. And I didn’t ask Court’s permission to relay such a detail to the book’s readership. Indeed I went so far as to say this:

People who wonder if it’s possible to model determined activism -- without resorting to methods “equally unacceptable” to the ways of thinking that they’d like to change -- can take heart from people like Joan Court, a retired nurse who undertook a three-day hunger strike. Court, who once worked with Gandhi, sat at the primate laboratory construction site at Oxford University and slept in a nearby van at night. Interviewed by a newspaper reporter, Court simply explained, “Life is sacred and we should preserve it.” Court concluded the strike by eating a dish of vegan stew, thereby publicly connecting the brief strike with the idea of living day-to-day with moral purpose.


Court, evidently displeased to be admired, penned quite a nasty dismissal of my work for a militant blog. In other words, Court was critical of me -- not the reverse. I haven’t said a single disrespectful word about Court; nor do I intend to do so now.

During the minutes people were having a conniption about my supposed maltreatment of Joan Court, attendees were asking to carry on with the scheduled topic. One person told me of becoming a vegan after my previous year’s talk (having gained an understanding of the animal-use problem as one of domination). This person came into the room eager to get back to a question we tabled last year: vegans and cats. That topic was indeed part of this year's talk -- or would have been. But I decided, and the festival facilitators agreed, that the disrupters had made it impossible to carry on, and we cancelled the rest of the session.

I wonder how many other potential vegans were in the room this year. But on the festival founder’s Facebook page, Charlie, who agreed with the disrupters, said, “It’s not about going vegan at one of your talks.”

Perhaps some people are not aware of what vegan festivals hope to achieve.

“Without changing people forcefully the world will not entirely change!” Charlie exclaimed.

Sorry, Charlie. Pacifism -- not passivity, but dynamic pacifism -- will bring animal liberation as a natural consequence; force will bring about even more force, making animal liberation impossible. That is the view of the London Vegan Festival facilitators, and that’s why I came to do the talk there. By refusing to let me do this, the disruptive attendees stole from me and the people who wanted to hear and contribute to the presentation.

Charlie added that “the whole point of the animal liberation movement is to gain liberation for innocent animal life, not to gain public awareness.”

Sorry, Charlie. As nonhuman beings cannot free themselves, we humans must make the case for relinquishing our control over them. There can be no vegan culture (the only real animal liberation) unless and until we raise public consciousness. A successful social movement is accessible and sensible to the communities that need to join. We each have one life to give; the more vegans we can draw, the nearer we come to a social tipping point. So we are not just “waiting for the world to turn vegan”; we are working and organizing mightily to cultivate that world.

And nonhuman beings need much more profound change than dependence on human liberators. I support animal rescue, and live with rescued animals. I know each life is precious. I also know that rescuing animals from a social system in which they are officially commodities is like moving a beach a spoonful of sand at a time.

Put your energy behind a holistic movement for veganism and it will be possible sooner than you think. It had better be; the Earth can't stand our swelling population when we're linked to wasteful agribusiness and a dominator culture. Capers is one of the rare animal-rights books that at least begins a discussion of agriculture, the extinction crisis, and climate disruption as urgent issues for a modern animal-rights focus.

This is a discussion we need to have. Think about it. Not long ago, humanity thought our planet was the central point in the universe. We evolved mentally, and humanity can take the next step in its mental evolution now. The advocate’s role includes welcoming those ready to hear us out. As Donald Leung replied to Charlie, “To sabotage such a process and prevent the precious moment of change is, to say the least, counterproductive.”

John Curtin was in the Town Hall room, and could have said just what Donald Leung later did. I hope John Curtin will speak out consistently in the future. In 2004, John Curtin described the act of digging up the grave of Gladys Hammond, whose son-in-law was running a farm breeding guinea pigs for testing, as "repulsive". That’s basically what I said in 2006, in Capers in the Churchyard. Curtin, speaking to the BBC, did not attempt to prove anyone guilty. Neither did I. Both of us commented fairly on the use of intimidation to effect change. Regardless of who dug up the churchyard, each of us ruled out supporting such an act.

For the record: Yes, I’m praising John Curtin’s comment to the BBC. No, I didn’t ask Curtin’s permission first. I don’t ask everyone’s permission every time I mention them, and people usually don’t ask mine. But I do try my best to be respectful of those about whom I write. And as a vegan, and simply as a conscious being, I too deserve respect.

At the festival I got to speak with two of the people who came to help ruin my talk. One had “seen excerpts” of Capers. The other, a self-identified friend of a person imprisoned in connection with the churchyard desecration discussed in the book, said the book's cover tells enough about what’s in it.


May I offer a bit of advice? Because this happens a lot. It happens in academic circles too, people dismissing the book yet also saying they haven’t read it. So far, to my knowledge, two professors have done that too. If you are going to disagree with something, rule number one is you ought to be able to say you read it. Don’t want to purchase it from Friends of Animals and support our work to defend sea lions and sea birds, coyotes and deer and other animals? Then get a cheap, used copy. Use Facebook to plan a circulation of a shared copy. I’ll donate one to the cause. But at least read a book before you set about dissing it in public. Grapple with its actual points and ideas. Otherwise your argument is meaningless.

That said, I’ll respond here to a few questions that have come up repeatedly since the disruption in London:

You got a lot of your information for Capers in the Churchyard from media sources. How come you used such sources?

A key point of the book is about public perceptions, including media treatment, of various methods of activism. To make this point it was appropriate and necessary to show what the media were saying, how news outlets portrayed campaigns, and how public perceptions were gauged to have changed due to the media accounts.

Do you think liberations or economic sabotage are detrimental to the animal-rights movement?

Rescues from institutions, if the animals can be homed, help the animals directly saved. That said, sometimes they present drawbacks to the movement as a whole (depending on how the rescues are achieved) and can result in a situation in which the animals are replaced -- and those replacements are real individuals too. Unless public attitudes change, replacement of rescued animals will be typical (even if at a different site).

If anyone faces criminal charges, law costs must be paid by the activist or the movement as a whole and the activist could be disabled. Worse still, the government can seize the excuse to control activists. Laws that send increasing numbers of people to prison are terrible for all social movements and helpful to grow security companies worldwide.

There is no shortage of individual animals who could be rescued with permission; our hands would be full enough without taking legal risks to rescue them.

Full conscientious objection to animal use (becoming vegan and helping others to do so) weakens exploitive industries and spares animals from needing rescue. It also reduces our use of space; free animals can keep their freedom rather than being displaced by resource-costly industries (such as growing massive crops to feed cows). Veganism addresses symptoms -- whether climate change, human illness and hunger, or appalling living conditions for animals. But it simultaneously works at the roots of exploitation, for it interrogates domination itself. How could we challenge any use of animals as long as we subjugate them because we fancy the taste of their bodies and bodily fluids?

There are generally no drawbacks to vegan action. Legal penalties for going vegan are rare if they happen at all; and health, environmental and ethical benefits can form a base to press society away from every kind of exploitation -- vivisection and fox stoles included.

This does not mean we advocate simply going into our kitchens or behind our computers and forgetting about the current plight of an animal. We do not shrink from challenging specific kinds and settings of oppression. Many of us plan each day and our whole lives to further this social movement.

Are you against the ALF?

I’m not opposing the ALF but rather challenging counterproductive and ethically troublesome methods of activism -- no matter who promotes them. Into the eighties, Capers explains, “the Animal Liberation Front held fast to pacifist principles”; but the ALF has increasingly been pushed by its self-ordained spokespeople to promote military-style tactics that are morally offensive and at the same time easily turn a farmer or university lab into a public victim.

In light of critiques of your book, would you write the same book today?

I would. I learn from every discussion offered about the book, whether positive or critical. All have, in some way, enriched my thinking, and this will inform my future work. But the book’s ideas, the connections it makes as well as its recommendations, and its definition of animal rights -- I believe all are sound. At the very least they are worth serious consideration.

What message did this incident at the London Vegan Festival send to the animal-rights movement?

People acting through deceit, secrecy, and coercion display the opposite of what veganism stands for; this makes animal liberation impossible. Veganism should be seen as the norm, not a fringe, not something that is carried out in secret, and not a mean-spirited undertaking. It's disturbing that a clique planned an attack on non-violent veganism and its supporters, sad that a meeting open to the community was sabotaged. This shouldn’t happen, and it can only happen if other vegans sit on the sidelines. Make your voice heard. Stop giving supporters of coercive activism a free pass on discussion and news lists. Stop admiring them and flattering them. Stop believing the nonsense about being either with them or with the exploiters. Call them out, because all of that benefits hierarchy. I understand that the people who employ bullying methods are hurt, upset, and lashing out. It hurts us all. Ask them to check themselves and process the effects of what they are doing.

Veganism is conscientious objection to war: whether it be war between nations, or against other conscious beings, or against vegans ourselves.

Speak out, people. Don’t wait for the BBC to ask you if you’ve got an opinion about whether bullying is an acceptable part of an animal rights movement.

NOTES:
Lee Hall is legal director for Friends of Animals and a 26-year vegan. The 12th annual London Vegan Festival took place in Kensington Town Hall, central London, on Sunday, 6 September 2009. The BBC article quoting John Curtin is located at  http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/staffordshire/3747064.stm. The primary reference discussed in this comment is Capers in the Churchyard: Animal Advocacy in the Age of Terror (published in 2006 by Nectar Bat Press). The book critically examines actions of the Animal Liberation Front, Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty, and several other animal- and Earth-advocacy groups and campaigns, in light of the goal of transcending human dominion over Earth and its nonhuman inhabitants.


Lee Hall, Legal Director for Friends of Animals

Comments

Hide the following 21 comments

?

21.09.2009 23:13

are you comparing the people asking you questions and "sabotaging" your talk to someone walking into somewhere in fox?

vegannykissed


A Misunderstanding?

22.09.2009 00:58

In her article, Lee says that it is the view of the London Vegan Festival 'facilitators' that 'Pacifism -- not passivity, but dynamic pacifism -- will bring animal liberation as a natural consequence; force will bring about even more force, making animal liberation impossible.'

I would just like to point out that the Festival was organised by CALF/Vegan Campaigns. CALF - which stands for Campaign Against Leather & Fur - is basically just a couple of people and they may well share Lee's belief, but Vegan Campaigns is a much bigger group and it would certainly not be true to say that it is a pacifist organisation.

The common aim of the group is to promote veganism for the sake of animal rights, the environment, human health and social justice. We do this by holding street stalls, free vegan food fairs, stalls at events and by asking people to try to be vegan for at least a month - the 'Vegan Pledge'.

There may well be individuals within the group who share Lee's views but I have been to just about every meeting that Vegan Campaigns has ever held and I cannot recall there ever being a discussion on the rights and wrongs of nonviolence versus 'coercive activism' or whatever you want to call it.

I also want to say that disagree with Lee when she says that 'Veganism is conscientious objection to war: whether it be war between nations, or against other conscious beings, or against vegans ourselves.' That may be her definition and I do not doubt there are others who will agree with her, but the universally accepted definition is that given by the Vegan Society, which is: 'a way of living that seeks to exclude, as far as is possible and practical, all forms of exploitation of animals for food, clothing or any other purpose'.

Lee is a vegan pacifist and I am sure she believes the two are inseperable. I would describe myself as a vegan anarchist and I think these ideologies are logically consistent but I would not go further than that and say that they are ontologically linked.

Paul Vegan Anarchist

Paul Vegan Anarchist


Context

22.09.2009 07:13

To put this article in context, here is a link to an article on Indymedia containing the text of letters to Lee Hall that, as I understand it, have never been responded to by Lee  http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2009/03/424819.html?c=on

As for the idea that her talk was "sabotaged" by a group of people intent on stopping her speaking, just watch the video of the whole incident on YouTube ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJzvucbdD2E&feature=channel_page +  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FT0IbD8Er0I&feature=channel_page +  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmqfiXRo5nA&feature=channel_page) and judge for yourself - it seems to me that a simple, honest answer to an invited question, with maybe an apology to those to whom she had not had the courtesy to respond, and a suggestion to discuss things further at the end of her talk could have diffused the whole thing.

I've not read her book, so will not criticise that. But her lack of knowledge of the UK animal rights movement is clear from this article, so why does she speak of it? I ran many street stalls (promoting animal rights/veganism) during the period of the "Gladys Hammond affair" and observed that most of the British public were as supportive as ever. Artificial press outrage is not public outrage. There were a few people every stall who were extremely abusive and would ask when we would next be digging up a granny, but then there are always a few people like this on every stall: "Why don't you **** off and get a job" and "I'd be dead if I didn't take medicine tested on animals" are some of their more usual rants.

Lee seems unaware that Joan Court joined with the wider UK animal rights movement to defeat the proposal to build a new animal testing lab in Cambridge and then the same wide coalition moved on to Oxford to protest against the building of their new animal testing facility. The statement that Joan “won wide support in the nonviolent resistance against Cambridge University’s plans to build Europe’s largest primate laboratory, and earned the public approval of Oxford Green Party councillor Matt Sellwood." again shows Lee hasn't really got on top of her subject. As you might expect, it was the Oxford campaign that Cllr Sellwood was opposing (see his letter to the Guardian here  http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2004/jul/28/animalwelfare.health).

Far from Joan's peaceful campaigning alone stopping the Cambridge lab, it was reported in the press that "plans for a multi-million-pound laboratory at Cambridge were abandoned because of the excessive costs of protecting staff from activists" (from the Telegraph,  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1457454/Animal-rights-protest-to-target-Oxford-lab.html). Unfortunately, Joan's hunger strikes at Oxford (different city entirely, for the benefit of Lee) as part of a similarly wide campaign against the Oxford lab have so far been unsuccessful.



ARchivist


Laughable traitor.

22.09.2009 09:32

Please make your own mind up and watch the youtube videos above.

The reality is you made tons of unfounded accusations in your book and then refused to respond to anyone via email or letter or phone regarding quotes from people which you had taken totally out of context.

Our only opportunity to challenge your bullshit was at the London Vegan Fayre no wonder people were so pissed off!

I thought you had it quite well...



Chris Freeactivist


Weird...

22.09.2009 09:35

Challenging someone in public is a removal of free speech??

The straw woman army of the pacifist movement!

WARN


The media

22.09.2009 10:11

Utilising the corporate media to prove a point is a non sequiter. The mainstream media rarely represents the animal rights movement in a genuine sense. Their research is often appallingly lazy, they rarely examine the issues of vivisection (for example) in any depth, and as such produce meaningless pieces that almost inevitably support the pharma lobby point of view.

So, what would be the point of using the media to write a significant portion of the book? Surely there should have been some critique in there of media representation, from the perspective of people that were on the ground at the time. (Perhaps Capers 2. The animal rights perspective!)

I read 'capers' many years ago, and though i honestly remember little about it now, i do recall that there seemed to be a fairly decent critique of welfarism, but as far as animal rights activism went, it was so far off the mark, it reminded me of reading The Guardian.

Perhaps i'll look at it again. But i certainly agree with one thing, if you are going to criticise it, read it first.

Mainstream


Welfarist!

22.09.2009 16:05

Lee you said "But at least a dozen people had talked to each other over Facebook and planned to sabotage it. The point -- although these same people rail against police powers that shut down speech -- was to disable me from speaking."

What bullshit! Lee you was NOT 'disabled from speaking', you just refused to answer very valid questions like the coward you are, let's be honest. How dare you not only put down the great efforts of those who carry out DA, but also those who campaign for civil rights!!!

Where do you get the information that "...at least a dozen people had talked to each other over Facebook and planned to sabotage it."?!! Firstly we hear that it's SHAC members sabotaging your pathetic, (media biased, religion based) talk, now it's Facebook! Why wasn't it individuals who just had questions???

I notice Lee, that you don't cover why you wrote that you compare so called animal 'extremists' to the Ku Klux Klan... what's that all about then?!!!

Vegan Abolitonist


Response from JC

22.09.2009 16:31

well...i normally never respond to tinternet debates or incidents of my name being dropped but i will on this occasion... Lee Hall quotes me using a BBC news report....please do not read the said news report if you want my opinion on something...ask me instead because the press have always distorted virtually everything i ever say...to be honest I do not want to go into my thoughts and reflections on the Newchurch grave desecration because , apart from anything else i cannot stand writing, I am a speaker and my thoughts on this matter are complicated so i would be getting myself in knots if I began to try and explain anything in this short space i have available....Lee Hall rightly says i was in the Town Hall in this now infamous speech "sabotage"..i was and i went to it to listen to her talk on Peaceable Kingdom and was not part of any great conspiracy to prevent her from speaking....I watched this talk slowly but surely disintegrate into chaos but i personally would not say it was down to sabotage, far from it - she has written some very strong critical things regarding direct action - a few people asked her a few questions regarding her opinions which is to be expected - ok so they were not relevant to what she was talking about at that time and they had probably got bored of waiting for a more relevant moment - if the talk had been chaired by someone I am sure that it could have been dealt with sensibly - as it was Lee Hall then began to give some jaw droppingly irrelevant answers which further increased the tension...by the time i got to say anything, i think i was described on another blog as "a skinny man at the back", which was that even though i disagreed with her views on the ALF i wanted to hear the rest of her talk - she 100% blanked me...by then she had convinced herself that she was the victim and seemed content to have the feeling that her talk had been sabotaged so that she could then go away and make a fuss about it. Bob Marley said "don't jump into the water if you can't swim" and Lee if you write the controversial things you do about direct action then you must expect people to then tackle you - by people asking you questions about direct action in the middle of your Peaceable Kingdom talk then it might not exactly be "cricket" but come on - there has been no need for all this fuss. By the way I would still like to hear you finish your talk.

Dawn


wot

22.09.2009 16:40

no mention of Donald Watson???

Dawn


I have read it 3 times now.

22.09.2009 17:05

Mainly to make sure that I was really understanding what Lee is trying to communicate. I agree on the point about an abolitionist approach and I agree that we should as activists be capable of taking criticism, screaming "SCUMMM!!!" at a receptionist in a bank who has no idea what you are talking about may not be a good tactical move!
My huge problem with capers and why some of us decided to ask Lee questions (absolutely no disrespect intended towards Robin or any of the other organisers who did a brilliant job as per usual) was the blatant inaccuracies published within. Nicola Woodcock, a Times journalist who was a close ally of Timothy Lawson Cruttenden did her utmost to sanitise the suppression of civil liberties with her poisonous articles (Rita Skeeter eat your heart out!) but Lee uses her as a reference regarding animal rights activism within the UK. As the book to a large extent relied upon using UK activism and in particular SHAC and SNGP as an example of why "violent" tactics are wrong I think that it would have been common courtesy to contact both campaigns. I have asked lots of people and it seems that Lee did not get in touch even though both campaigns were easily contactable. This was a huge mistake on Lee's part. For the record I have no problem with anyone writing anything about me but if it is inaccurate I will challenge it. As someone who has been involved in both SHAC and SNGP demos I was astonished by some of her comments about us all. I am not at liberty to challenge everything but here are a few examples of nonsense sprouted by Lee:

1. page 50 "a project named "Uncaged"" is described. Uncaged is an anti vivisection pressure group respected by many activists hardly "a project" although this is a simple harmless mistake (which I could easily make if writing about US activsm) it illustrates my point.
2. page 54 "SHAC's effort started off with glue in the cash machines of banks servicing Huntingdon and worked up to brash personal forms of intimidation". SHAC is a hard hitting campaign which has brought HLS to its knees and left the entire vivisection industry wanting to leave the UK. Climate and peace activists are also gluing up cash machines. Why ? Not for fun but because it hits hard financially. Agree or disagree on the ethics but to portray SHAC as nothing more than a bunch of thugs is quite frankly evidence of no understanding or knowledge of how SHAC has campaigned.
3. page 72, " multiple aspects of the SHAC campaign appear to form an argument for good laboratory practices". Lee says, a few times, that SHAC simply cares about animal welfare within HLS "Perhaps some of the campaigners accepted the underlying premise that the animals can be used, if used as gently as institutional resources will permit", page 13 "it is only Huntingdon that the campaign means to disable". VERY WRONG END OF THE STICK!!!
4. page 117 "And what would unfold, more clearly than ever before, was the terrible conlict within activism, between the hunger strikers and the body snatchers. The latter had become what they had despised". This is a really bad comment, European AR hunger strikers include Barry Horne who was dead before the Gladys affair, the Austians who were on hunger strike after the book was written and of course dear Joan Court. The body snatchers I have no idea who they were if indeed there were any or if they were members of the security services so who is Joan supposed to despise within the AR movement, she has no idea, I don't know either, nor does anyone else so Joan wrote to Lee, I sent an email in March and we are still waiting to find out what this "terrible conflict within activism" is all about. Maybe Lee can enlighten us now?
5. Page 118 "Locals pelted the parade with bacon and eggs" apparently at the last SNGP march through Burton. I didn't see it although I was there, nor did anyone else I have asked. Anyone have any ideas where this comes from....please???
6.page 119 Lee says that the point of SNGP was to stop the Halls supplying HLS with guinea pigs. I thought we were trying to close the barstads down altogether but maybe I was misled by the evil masterminds behind the campaign!! Lee please if you ever write a book about UK activism again, get in touch, talk to us and you won't make mistakes like this!

OK the dog is looking at me mournfully and I have to take him out but before I go please bear in mind that these are just a few examples of Lee misguiding her readers, unintentionally or not to back up her claim that any form of violence is wrong. One thing that the book did leave unanswered was what actually constitutes violence? Maybe Lee could answer this.

Lynn Sawyer


A few points to clarify & question

22.09.2009 17:53

At the talk JC stated that you would use the incident to play the victim which you denied. 2 weeks later & you’re doing exactly that. Your article is juvenile & self righteous preaching. Just to clarify some points:

“But at least a dozen people had talked to each other over Facebook and planned to sabotage it. The point -- although these same people rail against police powers that shut down speech -- was to disable me from speaking.”

Untrue. No sabotage was ever planned on facebook nor was your talk sabotaged. We didn’t want to disable you from speaking; you were asked questions that you couldn’t/wouldn’t answer! We wanted you to speak.

“Capers is one of the rare animal-rights books that at least begins a discussion of agriculture, the extinction crisis, and climate disruption as urgent issues for a modern animal-rights focus”

So why is the front cover Yoxall cemetry? Why is the book called Capers in the Churchyard? It seems ludicrous to me that you’ve used one crime that no activist has ever been found guilty of on the front cover yet write about issues that are not related to that one incident which in the scheme of things is pretty insignificant to what you could have put on the front cover.

“And as a vegan, and simply as a conscious being, I too deserve respect.

So do the activists & campaigns that you failed to contact when you wrote your book. You were asked on numerous occasions why you didn’t contact anyone in SHAC or SNGP. You refused to answer! Eventually you gave a reply to someone after your talk. Your reason “I didn’t know how to”. How utterly embarrassing for you! I won’t insult your intelligence as you have ours. You obviously know how to use the internet, send an e-mail & use a telephone. So what is the real reason?

The 3 imprisoned activists also deserve respect but you failed there too.

“Don’t want to purchase it from Friends of Animals and support our work to defend sea lions and sea birds, coyotes and deer and other animals?”

I’m embarrassed for you! Seriously how childish! We don’t want to buy your book out of principle. If you want to send me a copy I’m quite happy to e-mail you my address & I’ll make a donation to SHAC as a goodwill gesture.
I volunteer in the UK & abroad at different sanctuaries & also give donations, attend fundraisers & sponsor people etc etc – we all support charities/animal rights groups.

“People acting through deceit, secrecy, and coercion display the opposite of what veganism stands for..”

This is an accurate description of you & your book. Well done.

“when using their group-bullying” & “Speak out, people. Don’t wait for the BBC to ask you if you’ve got an opinion about whether bullying is an acceptable part of an animal rights movement.”

I am not a bully, Never have been, never will be. The other people that I know who questioned your talk are not bullies either. I am fiercely protective of those close to me & your book offended/insulted/upset some of them & I won’t apologise for speaking out & questioning your work.

I have been offered to lend a copy of your book which I’ll collect at the SHAC national (very apt). I will read it & I will give you feedback.

a self-identified friend of a person imprisoned.....


To Paul Vegan Anarchist (if you're still reading)

22.09.2009 19:35

"I would describe myself as a vegan anarchist and I think these ideologies are logically consistent but I would not go further than that and say that they are ontologically linked."

Veganism: A philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude — as far as is possible and practical — all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose

Anarchism: A political philosophy encompassing theories and attitudes which consider the state, as compulsory government, to be unnecessary, harmful, and/or undesirable.

Doesn't the state inherently exploit human and non-human animals? Therefore for veganism to exclude all exploitation, it must also exclude support for the state. This is obviously subject to liberal interpretation, but real veganism must include anarchist philsophy. There is one (imo the main) example of an anarchist perspective of veganism.

The other way round is that anarchy translates to "No rulership or enforced authority." So isn't the human hierarchy over non-humans an authority that should be resisted as well? Therefore anarchism must oppose human supremacy, similar to opposing other oppressive elements in society.

This is just a few example of how veganism and anarchism is ontologically linked. I personally think all liberation movements are inherently interconnected with anarchism, as they are all resisting authority over individuals (such as white and male supremacy).

veganarchist
- Homepage: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veganarchism


Poor excuse for an article

22.09.2009 21:31

"The sabotage of a public talk at the annual Vegan Festival at London’s Kensington Town Hall -- and why it’s not just my issue"

You are right to say the event was sabotaged, but wrong to lay the presumption that other activists sabotaged your talk. You said you wanted a 'question & answer' talk and then sabotaged it yourself by not answering any questions, pure and simple.

"But at least a dozen people had talked to each other over Facebook and planned to sabotage it." - As pointed out by others, complete lies, no reference.

"Had the disruptive group wanted equal time and open discussion, they could have simply asked for a panel." - They didn't need to, you promised that with your 'interactive' talk.

"As though the more police make arrests, the more vegan the world becomes? This makes no sense." - Are you kidding me and every other non-liberal reading this article?

Educate yourself on radicalisation. Throughout history movements have been repressed. Activists have been arrested, thrown in jail, and this has encouraged more activists to 'take their place' as it were and inspired them to fight. From suffragettes, to black panthers, to climate activists, to SHAC to name a few examples. More people were drawn towards these causes, therefore indirectly changing their ways and encouraging others to do so.

"Imagine a neutral person receives two pieces of news: one reporting a case of an animal-rights activist going to court, another regarding having a good time at a vegan event. Which would they be drawn to most? Which would they be most wary of?"

The average person is a middle-class liberal reformist who couldn't care less about anything but themselves. They wouldn't be drawn to either events and would be much more wary of people having good at a political event (a presumed threat to their lifestyle) than an activist going to court (a 'neutralised' threat). Unles the person thinks that more people could take action because of the court case, although this goes against your entire philosophy.

If we now replace a 'neutral person' with a potential activist, then obviously the court case is always a lot more interesting than any social event. Indymedia shows this to be true. Furthermore, your are analyzing this under the belief that veganism will bring about social change, whereas all social change has been from violent insurrections. Have the conditions for social change completely changed because the individuals are non-human? Why?

"Court was critical of me -- not the reverse."

The issue with Joan Court is that you were misrepresenting her as the "model example of an activist" whereas you know she isn't by your standards, as she supports militant actions that you oppose. You made it seem like she was on your side, that is why she stated otherwise.

"But I decided, and the festival facilitators agreed, that the disrupters had made it impossible to carry on, and we cancelled the rest of the session."

Interesting how you talk of being against domination, and said your talk was an 'open and interactive', but then act like a victim when you didn't successfully dominate the discussion. Instead you label individuals as 'disrupters'. Anyone can see this smacks of hypocrisy.

"force will bring about even more force, making animal liberation impossible."

Where is your evidence for this? In the short-term you are mostly right, but in the long-term you are completely wrong. Historically, the force used by liberationists is met by an increased force by the state until one or the other is neutralised. So infact, force brings about even more force, until one side backs down and then the force is no longer existent. We all know that liberationists never give up, instead successfully challenging the repressive forces.

Where is the increased force from the state against blacks, women and gays after people resisted using force? It's in the past that's where. Your argument is as stupid and unfactual as saying "human liberation is impossible using force" - which was proven wrong. Pacifism will bring about even more pacism, making animal liberation impossible is the truth here.

"As nonhuman beings cannot free themselves"

Wrong. Numerous examples include animals escaping from zoos, circuses, trainers, farms and other abusive practices. What you are trying to say is that some non-humans cannot physically free themselves. This is true, as some physically unable humans also cannot physically free themselves. Clearly chickens in battery cages can't liberate themselves, but neither can humans in solitary confinement in prison. So what? This doesn't excuse pacifism. Some women can't physically defend themselves from rape, so all women shouldn't try to, is this what you're trying to say? Sounds like it.

"I also know that rescuing animals from a social system in which they are officially commodities is like moving a beach a spoonful of sand at a time."

Although I agree, what does that make encouraging people to be vegan? Moving a beach a grain at a time?! Infact the two examples are like moving a beach by small stages whilst the beach get's bigger. Let's face it, burning buildings causes more damage economically to institutions than liberating individual animals or turning people towards veganism.

Why is it people like you think the rich and greedy are going to give up their lifestyles because of their non-existent conscious? The planet is burning, we don't have time to wait for these wankers to change, because they most likely never will and animals are still dying.

A few other points:

"Worse still, the government can seize the excuse to control activists."

Or even worse still, so-called activists can seize the excuse to control activists with pacifism.

"Rescues from institutions, if the animals can be homed, help the animals directly saved."

How do you approve or rescuing animals (illegally)? They are the 'property' of others and this is considered by law as theft. Surely this a coercive form of activism you oppose?

"becoming vegan and helping others to do so weakens exploitive industries and spares animals from needing rescue."

Not true. More people are born non-vegan then people turning vegan, therefore it does not weaken the industry, but minorly slows down its growth. The industries are getting stronger, it's called economic growth, something that vegan outreach fails to address.

"There are generally no drawbacks to vegan action."

Apart from potentially being considered as consumerist, liberal, reformist, middle class, and being an incredibly slow way of bringing about animal liberation - none at all!

"....challenging counterproductive and ethically troublesome methods of activism"

Why not examine the idea that self-defence (against rape for example) is ethical, as opposed to the unethical doctrine of pacifism. Similarly, if someone is being raped, walking past and not defending the individual as a pacifist is not an ethical or moral choice to make.

"Stop giving supporters of coercive activism a free pass on discussion and news lists."

You mean censor them because their views don't match yours? Pacifism is all about domination, censorship and accepting violence - because it does nothing to confront it.

veg@n


I was wondering....

22.09.2009 21:50

... why you keep on about not being able to do your talk on Peaceable Kingdom? Is this an overtly religious book? I say that because I was in the room for your waste of time talk, which was almost wholly a bible class! I am not at all religious (as if you can't tell), and I was shocked that instead of listening to a talk on your book I listening to what seemed like no end of readings from the bible... Although I'd read the blurb about your talk and nowhere was religion even ONCE mentioned, so I asked you why you'd deviated from your talk. Surprise, surprise, you ignored me too! Do you make a habit of ignoring people at your talks? It really does seem that way to me!



Vegan Abolitionist


I'm glad Hall wrote this!

23.09.2009 00:40

Well, if I were texting now I'd say 'lol!' Which, for those old fogies amongst you who are not 'down with the kids' like I am, means 'laugh out loud'! Am I the only one amused and, yes, pleased, by Hall's response? I have been waiting to see if she would do this because I knew only if she were really unsettled would she bother - and here it is! I almost punched the air when I saw it! She's unsettled! She's agitated and disturbed and, frankly I can't blame her. Her venality has been royally exposed and the video evidence is on the World Wide Web for all to see! This is what she forgets! There is film of this meeting and so I find her selective amnesia absolutely fascinating! I mentioned before how stupid Hall is on this level. She operates just like our politicians who feel they have only to say something for it to be true - forgetting how everyone else can see exactly what they're doing! Casuistry is so second-nature to her that I'm fairly sure she
hasn't enough self-awareness to even recognize her own MO. Take her laughably disingenuous response to the criticism that she relied on media sources to support her arguments. Apparently, (now prepare to stifle your sniggers all journalism students)she thought it 'appropriate and necessary to show what the media were saying, how news outlets portrayed campaigns.' Shame she didn't feel it 'appropriate' to include any such context in the published work! All very well adding it afterwards eh Lee? But a little late wouldn't you say? Did you honestly think no-one would notice? And anyone can now go back and confirm you're nothing but a common liar.

It's this kind of shifty manoeuvering that ensures the downward trajectory of Hall's reputation will continue. She can never go back and re-write her book; it's out there to be taken apart - and how very easy that is. It's like taking candy from a baby. Again, arrogance is her downfall, resulting in a woman spewing sophistry rather than exuding sincerity. Incidentally, those of my friends who are not activists and who viewed the vid all commented on her 'rabbit caught in the headlights' expression!

She constructs her own version of reality because the truth is too much to bear for the poor love. Anyone watching the video can see how she 'answers' some questions (this in itself is a masterclass in pointless
peregrination, of meandering endlessly in the hopes of drifting out of trouble) then, when things get really difficult she attempts escape by using the 'this is neither the time nor place' excuse. She cannot even remain consistent for minutes at a time! This is what I was most surprised about; how poorly she dealt with being challenged. Instead of a woman standing her ground and defending her work we got a slithering serpent; a cowardly chameleon. I thought, Jesus! Is this all she is? A slimy little politician?

As I wrote in my Amazon and Barnes and Noble reviews of 'Capers' -
>  http://www.amazon.com/Capers-Churchyard-Animal-Rights-Advocacy/product-reviews/097691591X/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1
one also expects a certain level of journalistic integrity in an endeavour of this kind, but having shown the book to other journalists who have no interest in animal rights whatsoever and who judged it purely on those grounds, their remarks were damning. If Hall were not blinded by her own hubris she would be embarrassed. I recognize that if I were truly enlightened I would have sympathy for her, but I clearly have more evolving to do because she's just so damned funny!


Alison Banville


hmmm

23.09.2009 12:13

who reckons Hall is actually going to reply to these comments?

not much chance


Lee answer these questions?

23.09.2009 15:21

Highly unlikely as she thinks people asking questions is bullying & sabotage!!

I doubt it


I have been thinking...

24.09.2009 08:45

Lee's comment in her book on Joan Court was intended I am sure to be complementary to Joan Court but to clarify what happened I thought that it was an inaccurate representation of Joan's views and actions. I therefore contacted Joan, we met and I took the book with me so she could see what had been said. Joan is not a violent person but she does not throw her hands up in despair at SHAC or SNGP or SPEAK she attends demos and counts many of the prisoners as her freinds. She did not single handedly stop the Cambridge lab although her and Sue and the great and much missed recently deceased Pat and indeed Animal Aid did wonders in that campaign. We (those of us in SHAC at the time) pledged to use civil disobedience and blockades to stop the lab at the Girton planning inquiry in which Cambridgeshire police spoke out against the lab' saying that they had no control over us which probably helped a bit. Joan wrote to Lee, I posted the letter and emailed, Lee has not yet responded. This is why I asked Lee about it at the vegan fair.

Keith Mann wrote a book called Dusk til Dawn detailing the AR movement in the UK . He is probably more knowledgeable than most on the people, facts, politics and everything else to do with the UK movement over the decades. He knows me fairly well and decided to include my experiences (along with those of many other activists) in his book. I have discussed the experiences with him on previous occassions and written about them but still he chose to phone me to make sure that what he was writing was accurate. I think that he did the same with others. Result of which no-one was left scratching their heads going"WTF!!!!" that I am aware of when the much acclaimed book came out.

Once something is in print on paper or even electronically it almost becomes "fact". In a few years time Capers in the churchyard and Dawn til Dusk may become very important books. People may use them as reference guides to the AR movement. Inaccuracies have to be challenged. If someone says that I am a teetotlar, who goes to church, that flowers burst forth from wherever I tread and always has a kind smile for those in trouble that would be very nice but it would be a total misrepresentation of me as a person. I am more likely to enjoy a daily ration of booze, attend church only cos I like carols and they do free vegan wine, have shoes covered in dog poo and have a sinister glare for anyone who wants me to help them with anything but a dire emergency! Furthermore someone might read the sugar coated version and choke to death on their breakfast but also think maybe that I was in some way responsible for this nonsense. If I die, get imprisoned, become seriously mentally ill, or bugger off to some cave to be alone I will not be able to counter a misrepresentation of me. Historically I will become some paragon of sickening virtue as I am sure has happened to countless others. As Lee herself has said history is important and if we as contemporaries can not sort out facts now then future activists will be left with very inaccurate portrayals of activists now it does not help anyone. Joan was not being horrible to Lee she just did not want to be portrayed as someone who opposes the ALF or SHAC or SNGP when the opposite is true and she has made her position clear.

A legal point regarding the book. In the Civil Courts attempts have been made at financially crippling activists and stopping all but heavily nuetered protests on the terms of the corporations. Heavily biased media reports have been used as evidence against campaigners. High Court judges have not been impressed by rather crap lawyers making huge bundles of tabloid press cuttings and actually expecting them (these judges are very interesting to watch and are VERY VERY bright compared to other judges) to take it seriously BUT this book "Capers in the Churchyard" is written by an animal rights activist with UK contacts. We are not only challenging the inaccuracies because they are unfair, or because we are opposed to pacifist dogma being applied to all activists but because we are fighting against a foul enemy who will use this book in the courts potentially. We need to go the record about what is wrong in this book as a matter of self defence. It is still being sold after all even if it is a few years old.

Lynn Sawyer


I'm almost glad this book came out now...

24.09.2009 16:52

Our movement was very a much ALF and SHAC supporting because we were all pacifists (I know I was!), now this book is showing pacifism for the cult it really is!

veg@n


Accessibility

24.09.2009 17:58

Lee Hall says she is "accessible" if that is the case why didn't she reply to the letters she received from Joan Court, Lynn Sawyer and Janet Tomlinson in March?
Snubbed

Janet Tomlinson
mail e-mail: janetsara1@talktalk.net


What is pacifism?

25.09.2009 06:54

I am left unsure so many different people have differing views on what violence is. I have been called "violent" just or standing with a banner because someone who disagrees might feel intimidated!!! My own definition of violence is use of physical force against a sentient being regardless of motive. In some cases I believe it is justified to use even lethal force to save a life and I disagree with Lee because I think that most of the general public agree with me. Not many would criticise a police oficer for shooting someone with a knife to a child's throat if it was a last resort and was necessary to save the child. Members of the general public have often intervened using violence to protect animals I can think of many examples recently a man was convicted after he hit a teenager who was smashing a cat against the wall (sorry don't have the reference but it was last year), no-one was that bothered about the teenager who got his just deserts. Of course if you can talk someone out of abuse or an assault, get the authorities to arrest them (which includes violence IF they bother), use verbal threats, then great but sometimes restraint or causing them pain will be the only thing that works. Gratuitous violence e.g you have some 'orrible little abbatoir worker bound and gagged after he ran after you with a knife for trying to film him molesting pigs, to my mind it is not OK to cut his ears off, beat him, mash him put him in a stew or harm him futher he is nuetralised, he should just be let somewhere where someone will find him.....eventually, maybe with a note to say what a disgusting little freak he is whilst you go off and make sure that the video footage is all over the net taking the pigs with you to their new home.

Having said that usually AR activists are heavily outnumbered and do not enjoy violence whereas our enemies do and are much better at it than us. We should really all learn some good self defence moves and discipline to allow good judgement and a clear head in a violent situation. To be really honest in some situations I wish that we had more of a capacity for violence, really nasty people know when you are bluffing and on many occassions demos and actions have been cut short because of violence for activist wellbeing, to give statements or trips to A+E.In other places people face death squads for any dissent whatsoever, violence against someone trying to kill you and your family, cutting down the forests on which you depend and trying to force you into virtual slavery is utterly neccessary.

Lynn Sawyer