The famous '...then you win' quote doesn't always follow. In SHAC's case, they have lost. WE ALWAYS WIN? Well, not this time. SHAC has set the animal rights movement back years. We need people on our side not thinking we are nut cases. We need to move on from these 'smash em' campaigns. They don't work and vivisection has gone up and up, year on year. We need to get a mass campaign with public support and get a change in legislation.

The last thing the animal liberation movement needs is to get bogged down in the time consuming moral quagmire of political campaigning for a change in legislation. Sure, lets try to change hearts and minds so that some politicians eventually realise that it's in their own interests to stop the costly torture industries they back so readily at the moment. But look around at the compromises you have to make if you want to get involved in THEIR game. Look at LACS, now pretending that the hunting act has worked (because it's their big victory, their life's work) even though Blair has admitted he engineered the whole messy unworkable compromise of a Hunting Act. Look at the Lib Dems rolling back on every promise they ever made facing annihilation just for a sniff of power (ahhh, poor things). Play the power game and "they" have you just where they want you.

SHAC has not lost or set back the wider movement. "Anon" needs to go and have a good look around at the different forms of campaigns and ask which have had more effect on the scummy industries we are opposing. Which are feared more? If the likes of BUAV and NAVS were feared, they would be the ones under attack. If the vivisection industry is growing, why is it not the failure of these "respectable" organisations - well funded and operating for many years in just the ways approved by "anon".

Just to recap where the SHAC campaign is at. There is only one thing keeping HLS alive. Fortress. Go get em.

When we look at the damage that can be done by one undercover cop within a movement, stop and think for a moment about those apparent 'nut cases' and some of the so-called terror tactics reported in the newspaper. What's to stop one pro-animal tesing person from sending used tampons, making death threats etc? If it's a cop, they know they act with impunity and that when some genuine animal-rights activist gets arrested, that activist wi'll carry the can for everything you've done. Longer, harsher sentences keep them out of useful actions for a long time.

This is multimillion pound industries we are going against they have more sway than the public do! Public opinion has still effect, an example is the fact the majority of the public seem to agree with the death penalty (I don't by the way) but that will never come back. Millions marched against the war in Iraq (I was one of them), it didn't work.

The only way to even have a chance of stopping animal testing is to make companies not want to do it – cost, annoyance, loss of staff – the government will then listen to them.

SHAC has suffered a set back, that is all. The smash em' style does work as demonstrated by quotes from industry media about the SHAC campaign. But of course they are going to fight us with all they have got, this is only the beginning and it's because SHAC were winning and we still can. But we must fight.

It's only if we never give in, that we always win!

People in the animal rights movement are always going to have different ideas about tactics, but the previous anon commenters are obvious pro-HLS trolls. No genuine AR person would slate other campaigners in public in that fashion, especially when they are currently locked up in prison.

The fact is, the state wouldn't have come down so hard on people if it didn't think the campaign was effective.

Imagine if you sprayed your neighbour's car or house with abuse because of some dispute over hedges or something. You'd get a slap on the wrist at most. In this case people are getting years in prison for exactly the same. Corporations are getting more protection under the law than real people.

What is needed is both direct action and other forms of campaigning simultaneously. By cracking down like this with blackmail and conspiracy the government (acting for the pharmaceutical companies) is trying to stamp out central organisation. The obvious solution is for more decentralisation of the movement and more use of forms of anonymous communication. It does make campaigning harder, but that is the way things are going.

Another idea is more direct action against "soft" targets like people convicted of animal cruelty, badger baiters, and factory farmers. Great PR as most of the public hate these people too, and they have less resources to retaliate. The pharmaceutical industry has millions of pounds and many politicians' strings to pull. Other animal abusers have less clout.

I think the "soft" target approach is a good idea. However I remember when Hillgrove closed, that was a "soft" target, the press were all very pro Save the Hillgrove Cats and some people were lauded (quite rightly) as heroes. HLS is pr wise a "soft" target, it is montrous but what has happened in the interceding years is something we have to address as a movement and that is those who abuse animals have got their shit together in the media and politically.

The Countryside Alliance nee BFSS have turned ripping apart animals for fun, terrorising rural communities, road blocking and beating the crap out of anyone who doesn't like them into some sort of liberty thing. THEY are now seen as oppressed by many people despite the fact that they were there lobbying like crazy for both the Public Order act 1984 and the Criminal Justice Act 1994 both of which came down hard on peaceful protest. They were cornered, everyone saw hunting for what it is and they revamped themselves firstly by pretending to stand up for rural communities and then by playing the victim. Their first victory was in getting section 68 and 69 of the CJA, sabs were demonised during a time in which 2 young lads were killed for being sabs and Liberty looked the other way.

The vivisectors have likewise steered the debate away from their atrocities to them being victims and very sucessful they have been too. Of course there have been unlawful things such as property damage, hate mail etc which have made this very easy for them but on the other hand what is missing from the debate is why this is felt to be necessary by some activists in the first place and not for want of trying. It is certainly not a one way street I have personally recieved quite a few threats, unwanted pizzas, a dead mouse in the post.I have been assaulted more times than I can count. ALF press officer Robin Webb once recieved an incendiary device in the post which injured a police officer. The answer always given by the media when I have ever brought this up is that it could never have happened and if it did we are "asking for it".

Interestingly ALL research on animals is referred to as medical, it is not and this needs to be challenged on the grounds of accuracy and because it is very misleading to a public who are being blackmailed into supporting vivisection or facing disease and death. Then we can discuss why that supposition is a pile of crap.

We need to challenge the vivisector's well played role as brave saviour of mankind and victim. For a start police and prison officers recieve protection in law, so do vivisectors under SOCPA as though they are somehow more important than nurses, doctors and paramedics.
If I mentally jot up the amount of serious injuries (i.e broken bones, split skulls, etc) to our side whilst protesting against vivisection over the last few years it comes to ten , on the vivisectors side I can think of one Brian Cass and maybe the guy who might have been sprayed in the face with something 10 years ago. Either we are inept at violence or we are focusing on not hurting people, I think it is the latter.

Badger diggers and dog fighters may be a good target, certainly food for thought but I think that whatever we take on we must be more savvy at watching the warning signs of our enemies changing the tide of events. There is defineately a backlash against animal rights activism, it will change if we ride it out but those we target will fight back hard, they will be backed by the state (or the state will allow them to use serious violence against us) and we need to be ready for it.

This comment:

Millions marched against the war in Iraq (I was one of them), it didn't work.


I am very confused about what we should be doing to win rights for animals. I start off with one opinion and then read something and change my mind. Isn't it true that the politicians FINALLY listened to the publics opposition to the war and the major parties had it on their Manifestos this year? I am trying to organise my mind as im not sure of the best method to work towards for the animals.

@ Whoever The war happened with the UK's involvement that is simply a fact – regardless of those that marched against it. But sure public opinion does have some weight and I am certainly not disrespecting anyone who does public education – in fact this is what I do myself. What the movement needs is a diversity of tactics – we should not be limited in what we do by
public opinion, we should just try to show what we do in the best way we can to the public.

That just my 2 cents.

@ the good Anon. Yeah it is clear that the first anon was a troll not because of what he said but because of his style of writing that is synonymous with a particular anti-AR blog. However I felt it important to answer his points as his viewpoint is honestly held by a minority of real AR people.

@ Lyn intresting views as ever. Keep up the good work!

I don't think that there is any formula any easy answer, nor should there be figureheads telling people what to do. I suppose we need to reflect and accept a diversity of tactics ranging from vegan food fairs to more militant actions. I would think that each of us needs to find our present niche within the movement which may change over time and circumstances or transfer to other movements. We are all at a bit of a cross roads but we need to learn to respect one another more, do some movement building, become more security concious, outreach to diverse economic and social groups.

Thanks Animal Warfare, great blog.

for the answers. Have a couple more questions though. If public opinion does sway politicians (which it does) enough to put the issue on their campaign agendas, then doesn't direct action turn the public away from the cause? I am definately at a crossroads in how I feel about what is the best way to achieve things for the animals and am trying to get this sorted in my own mind. Dont we need the public on side?

What I would say to "Whoever" is do whatever you feel comfortable with. Try to assess how effective you're being and change what you're doing as necessary. Don't beat yourself up for not being the perfect campaigner and don't be too critical of others because we're all wrestling with the same dilemma of what best to do.

I've reread my previous comment and I was too harsh on the mainstream campaigns. BUAV and NAVS et al do a good and important job. I don't want to criticise anyone who is working for a world where animals are less abused than now. The main point I was trying to make is that it's laughable to suggest that SHAC has had no impact or a negative impact.

As for public opinion, the public are more onside than you seem to think. Go and do some street stalls and you'll be amazed at how "extreme" the reaction of "ordinary people" can be. Even when there's a huge media furore like this week the vast majority of people are supportive. Those who want to be critical will be, whatever the media has been saying.

Thanks. Yes I do stalls, demo's etc (we probably know each other) and the people who come up to the stalls are very supportive. But I have been feeling like this for some time now. I have often thought we have to get the public (on a massive scale like the opposition to the war) on side to have any great effect. I am not into welfare. I think welfarist orgs have their place but I want rights and I want it sooner rather than later. If an anti war demo took place again, they would get massive support from the public. All I see on demo's is contempt from the public when we are screaming and shouting at them. I know we will win but I am wondering if there is a better way. Anyway thanks for answering.

Screaming and shouting at the public is not what anyone should be doing in my humble opinion if you mean passers by or workers who for example work for a bank, in their face.Having a loud demo is different stating why you are there and what you want. Is it right to shout at people who are shouting at you? Maybe it depends on each situation but ideally remaining calm has a better impact. Shouting whilst storming the stage at some pharma award giving ceremony will be the only way to be heard. Sometimes shouting and even violence can get you out of a tight spot if you are in danger. If you personally do not like like loud shouty demos or feel that you would have a better impact by doing something else it can be discussed with the other activists or if you are not compatable do your own demos in your own way, thousands upon thousands of targets to choose from. We are all different and comfortable with different approaches and different things will sway different people. Animal Liberation is a massive undertaking considering that every single aspect of our lives is based on abuse and human supremacy, getting people to question and to think is one huge step. Sadly we have some very powerful enemies, whatever you do please stay active in opposing them.

The anti-war demos didn't work. They had their little 'adventure' in Iraq killing our lads and countless Iraqis. The public's view sways politicians but multi billion dollar industries also sway them as with campaign funds, tax revenue and sometimes nice little directorships for them personally.

I don't think the majority of the public will see animal rights as a primary concern any time soon even if we could get some people to be more 'sympathetic' by 'behaving ourselves'. Those 50/50 type supporters would not change their vote for the animals and the politician could safely ignore them in favour of industry cash.

There is still widespread sympathy for animal rights and I personally find the response on demos and stalls to be half and half. This is a highly controversial issue so that is what I'd expect regardless of direct action. Indeed I think a lot of the awareness of our existence comes from direct action. Many of our 'everyday' sympathisers what is to be more extreme.

But as Storm says education has an important role to play, I think we just need to fight past any negative effects of militant actions on public opinion and do are best to get the facts across. It is our job to worry about public opinion not the militants job, they have enough to worry about :-)

And I am partial to shouting and screaming myself in certain situations. I just think some situations need a different approach. I would quite happily chain myself inside a fur shop and make myself heard by being vocal and loud. Or quietly cheeky, depending on the situation.


:)