Skip to content or view screen version

Animal Liberation: How Do We Get There?

Camille Marino | 30.09.2010 23:07 | Animal Liberation

Words are useless unless they translate into action. We all know what the issues are. We do not need anymore masturbatory debates about welfare v. rights nor do we need to entertain the enemy by debating their insidiousness with them. They are all criminals and they all need to be stopped. If we start with that very simple premise, then we can easily shift the conversation toward one thing and one thing only: HOW?

The Objective

We need to define an objective before we can quantify effectiveness.

I cannot open all the cages. So I think the next best thing is to make it uncomfortable and unprofitable to be an abuser. Does fear and intimidation accomplish this? To some extent. And exposure is a means to this end. But I want to go beyond making it uncomfortable and make it untenable. I want the enemy to be scared, I want them to be socially ostracized, I want them to live in fear, chaos, and panic when they see strangers… I want to make it so unbearable that they close up shop and retire.

Fear is an effective instrument. But how do we employ it and to what end? I’m a huge proponent of intimidation. No abuser has the right to live in comfort.

Working Together

My limited experience tells me that we each have a piece of the puzzle to put together. We had some minor success in Florida in recent months using confrontation and intimidation tactics that yielded a rather compliant abuser. Then, once the discussion was opened up on our terms, other associates were far better equipped to negotiate liberation measures and offer expertise. We have a colleague who still monitors this situation weekly. This example can be viewed as a microcosm of what we can achieve if liberationists come together against the oppressors. It’s a place from which we can build.

Forget Conventional Activism

The law is a part of the oppressor’s system and addressing it is useless. Government has nothing to do with the “we the people” mythology — it is the manifestation of the corporate-industrial complex. Petitions are a convenient way to waste time that could be better spent being effective, if we could just figure out how.

We need to go beyond protests. It’s not enough. I’m still waving signs but combining demos with various actions. And, obviously, we can’t be too specific in a public forum, but I have a number of private discussions open about precise strategies. All I can say to that end is that there seems to be a wealth of effective approaches that have been successful to varying degrees but they are not in the public domain. I think this needs to change.

We cannot stay in the confines of “activism” that is prescribed and sanctioned by the enemy. These conventional, enemy-approved, comfortable paths will ensure that we as a movement continue to stagnate and guarantee that the raging holocaust will continue unimpeded.

continue reading:  http://negotiationisover.com/2010/09/30/animal-liberation-how-do-we-get-there/

Camille Marino
- Homepage: http://negotiationisover.com/

Comments

Hide the following 8 comments

Some Honesty....

01.10.2010 07:48

At last some honesty - you cannot win by conventional means so you propose illegal ones!

In casee you havn't been paying attention over there this has been tried here and didn't work very well.

I look forward to seeing you on your first action in the UK.

At last

As a hatter

01.10.2010 09:37

You do know this woman is mad, don't you?

pob

aren't most AR folks?!

01.10.2010 10:30

Mad that is.... and deluded and so far removed from reality its frightening and so caught up in the single issue that they can't see the tree from the wood.......

Aunty Christ

Do you want an honest answer?

01.10.2010 13:36

You need to organize. You need to convince a whole lot of people. Given your ultimate aims that means you have to convince them to give up eating meat. To WANT to do that. And most important, you need to know your own species, how your fellow humans normally respond to being attacked.

If you are a very small minority and lack an advantagous disparity in armaments to make up for that it will NOT help you to resort to violence. You would simply be gunned down like mad dogs. The rightness of your cause in your own eyes does not help with that. Perhaps even gets in the way of understanding that that trying to introduce force and violence changes that. The issue in your eyes might be "animal rights" but in the eyes of your opponents the only important issue is that you are trying to make them do or not do something by force (instead of convincing them).

MDN

Tried and tested methods

01.10.2010 16:40

Which were certainly the methods used in previoiusly successful social movements.
I can't sympathise with the animal rights vote though, its as bad as animal welfare. As you said all decent avenues of change by-pass the governmental route, so why bother to say changes in the laws will help animals (rights for animals) when it clearly won't. Laws are there to oppress individuals and suppress social movements, not help them.

veg@n

@ vegan

02.10.2010 07:32

Agree with the laws bit to an extent. For over a century people in their thousands fought hard to get the Hunting Act passed. Two sabs were killed, many were injured, others spent their lives gathering evidence to present to Parliament and the media about what happens to hunted animals. For what? A "ban" on hunting? What ban? Not only are the police ignoring the Hunting Act, they are arresting those trying to film or intervene with the criminal offence. It could be argued that things are worse post ban. Numbers of sabs/monitors in the field have decreased because people mistakenly believe that hunting has stopped and the hunts are more violent it seems. However I do think that the Hunting Act would work with strengthening, enforcement and an actual penalty for those convicted but really what are the chances of that happening?

The so-called ban on cosmetics testing did not stop Wickham labs batch testing cosmetic botox on mice. It appears that the state just accepts at face value anything hunts and labs do. On paper something has been done, in practice it's the same old shit but with more state oppression for those opposing the abuse. After all hunting and cosmetics testing are unlawful now so anyone doing something to stop them is immediately branded a troublemaker harassing those who lie about the legality of what they are doing.

The ban on fur farming though WAS very effective. Now I understand Sweden is going to ban them and in Greece 50,000 mink were released by the ALF.

I would say that I agree with you in principle about laws and Parliament but think they can have their uses.

Lynn Sawyer

Ban on fur

02.10.2010 16:34

The reality is that laws will never help us as thats not why they're drafted. They are there to strengthen the state and economics not movements. Not to mention it strengthens the state by the amount of laws they have therefore reinforcing public trust and reformist attitudes; most notably apathy.
Furthermore I don't believe in the long-term bans on fur farming help. In the short term they clearly solve the problem temporarily (usually) but not indefinitely. It's true that no solution will, but there is a more reliable method, even if it can take longer its sustainable whereas laws aren't. For example once most fur farms were shut down in the UK by activists a law was only put in place to criminalise what people power would have inevitability (and very quickly) achieved: no more farms. It was done to to retain power in the hands of the state as a moral medal for parliament and to crush a rotten apple in industry. Admittedly it's unlikely that they would legalise fur farming again in the UK due to the historic outrage, but it is more possible than if activists were the ones entirely responsible for the industries demise, not just majoritively, regardless of legal status. It acts as a stronger financial (and moral) deterrant.
Take other countries that have the ban, how long will it last is the real question? It won't take long before big business interests override a law that was basically put in place to prevent so-called 'criminal behaviour' and future public outcry. How many laws that have been 'won' by movements have to be repealed before people realise?
To answer your question though the hunting act will never be workable because it was only intended to supress public outcry and decrease resistance in the fields. The only use in laws is rating them in effectivity to reflect how successful are being as a movement. Working towards them is basically campaigning for someone to assess how well you are doing. So you obviously won't get very good marks - if any!

veg@n

Interesting points vegan

03.10.2010 07:53

I think I know what you mean. "Democracy" is not really democratic but a power game which deludes the masses into thinking we all have some sort of say it is clever and either absorbs those who make a fuss into it's tentacles or destroys them. I am not a lobbyist, I know what you are saying animal liberation has to come from the grass roots rather than laws. However personally I will, if I can, use the pitiful legislation which is in force to protect non humans, for example if I see dog rolling in a park the best way I can help those dogs by myself ( and THE best way is a big mob of us) is to call the authorities, ditto if I see someone getting beaten by a gang. Not ideal and of course the authorities usually abstain responsibility for dealing with this sort of thing in which case it is on to plan b whatever that might entail, of course I have covered myself legally to an extent by informing the authorities prior to intervening, double edged sword though!
I have been in situations where police and RSPCA have responded well though and have done more than I could. I am interested though in how we tactically change things from the grass roots and what your views are on this and whether you think we should in fact use the legal system at all to protect animals? I think that there is certainly a case for avoiding the legal system completely as it rarely helps us and often hinders but think it is probably more of an individual decision or small group consensus about each given situation.
I agree with you absolutely that laws can and do mislead people into believing that labs,farms, slaughterhouses etc treat animals well. Of course many WANT to be misled because of course they want to eat meat, wear leather, have botox etc. Complex. My personal view is that people are individuals and an individual approach is needed to stop them being abusers and for some bans/laws do work which might help some of their victims at present.

Lynn Sawyer