JON HOCH: I’m sure you get this question all the time, but I was hoping you could walk me through how you came to veganism and animal rights.

NICOAL SHEEN: Absolutely. I was vegetarian in high school. It was because I saw videos on the internet that my friend had shown me. She was vegan actually, and had a lot of influence with me. She showed me some videos of some pig farms and of slaughtered chickens. And I was appalled, because I always considered myself an animal lover growing up with other companion animals. But they were dogs and cats. So I didn’t extend it to other beings. I saw the videos and I couldn’t participate in that anymore. Just to speed through time, after three years of being vegetarian, I was still eating dairy and eggs. I consider myself a feminist. I saw videos of the exploitation of reproduction of dairy cows and female chickens. If I claimed to uphold and defend reproductive rights for women, for the human species, than how come I wasn’t upholding it for other species? I reflected on that and said, “Well, I’m pretty speciesist. If I don’t eat animal’s flesh, but I’m still consuming eggs and dairy. I’m participating in this, I’m pretty damn speciesist.” So I went vegan, and that was my transition. I’ve been vegan for four years now.

JH: How and when did you get involved with the North American Animal Liberation Press Office?

NS: It was last summer. So it’s almost been a year since I’ve been a press officer. I’d been out to a lot to demonstrations, getting involved in animal rights on the streets. And I actually met Pam (Ferdin) and Jerry (Vlasak) through my activism, as well as my other friends who are really close to me now. (Ferdin) has been a long time activist. She’s come out to demonstrations in the LA area for a really long time, heading campaigns with ADL-LA and the Los Angeles Animal Services campaign. As I’ve continued to be friends with Jerry Vlasak, I always knew he was a press officer, along with others, for the North American Animal Liberation Press Office. I’ve always been outspoken, a good writer, always writing articles. The Press Office came to me asking me if I wanted to be involved. The Press Office decides who they want to bring in and who they see is really dedicated to animal liberation and the same ideals that the Press Office upholds. Of course, I was honored, because I’d been writing. But they were just published under my name. They didn’t have any real (formal) title, and a lot of people weren’t seeing what I was writing. It’s really important for me to spread the message. Now I’m doing interviews and speaking to the mainstream media about why the underground and anonymous individuals take illegal direct action for animals.

JH: Is there a line in the sand where you say, “OK, I’ll support these kinds of actions, but I won’t support those?” And if so, what is that line?

NS: Well, I believe in liberation “by any means necessary.” Of course, when you come across any action, you’re going to analyze it as a press officer. Historically and ideologically, why did this individual take this action? In current society, why did this person feel the need to conduct economic sabotage, or threats, or direct animal liberation? …These people are taking actions for animals illegally because they feel there’s no other way to do so and they also believe in liberation “by any means necessary.” They see what is happening in the aboveground animal rights movement as not being successful or immediate for animals. So, when we receive these anonymous communiqués, it’s kind of haughty-totty for us to judge what these individuals are doing. Because they’re risking their lives and their freedom for these animals. And these animals need them.

JH: You’ve mentioned Jerry Vlasak, who famously said it would be strategically beneficial to assassinate vivisectors. Is that an action you’d defend?

NS: What he’s presenting is that within other movements, there have been political assassinations, where it has been successful and effective. He’s just saying, along the timeline of history, what we’ve seen in social revolutions is that there have been assassinations and there have been people who have been killed who are perpetuating oppression. So would I defend it? It hasn’t happened yet. But if an individual felt it was necessary for the oppressor to be assassinated, then sure, I would say they’re right in feeling that it would be practical and pragmatic to stop (the oppression).

JH: If you think as I do, that some animals are the moral equivalent of profoundly retarded human beings, violence is theoretically justified in defense of one if it’s justified in defense of the other. But in the animal context, how do you distinguish between a vivisector and Grandpa at the Thanksgiving table?

NS: That is different, when you have an individual who is carrying on and continuing, day by day, knowing that they’re going in and torturing and murdering an animal, especially, for example, for vivisection. They make lots of money off of it. It’s a business. It’s an industry that’s tied in with the pharmaceutical industry. This person knows that they’re going in, day in and day out, and doing this to animals. And for whatever reason they think they’re doing it for, I don’t think that these people are innocent. I don’t think that these people can go and say, “Well, we actually really believe this is for science. As scientists, we actually really believe it’s benefiting humans.” Because they see it. And they write in their journals that it didn’t (help). What came out of this torture and murder of an animal has not progressed anything. This person knows that they’re living behind some kind of lie. Education, first and foremost, has been always something activists have done. But where does it stop? Where do animals finally achieve their liberation? There’s only so much you can say to someone before it’s exhausting. And that’s what I think these anonymous individuals feel: that the pressure needs to be stepped up, that these people have been asked nicely enough. Maybe if something they care about—their property, their car—maybe if that is threatened—or their lives, they care about their lives—if that’s threatened, then maybe they’ll start to think about what they’re really doing and go towards a different avenue.

But (in regards to) the socialization of people eating meat, I was there. I wasn’t always vegetarian or vegan. I would never advocate someone go out and use violence first. That’s the thing. I think media really exploits what Jerry has said to say that he’s saying that violence comes first. He never said that. He’s saying that it’s building up and building up and people are tired of animals still being slaughtered, more animals still being vivisected in laboratories. Anonymous individuals are taking more aggressive, militant actions because they’ve educated enough. They’ve talked enough. People don’t choose violence. And you know what? I don’t even like to say that it’s violence. I like to say it’s justice, or extensional self-defense for these animals who can’t defend themselves.

JH: You seem to be involved in a lot of home demonstrations. What do you think makes that an effective tactic?

NS: I believe that it brings the message to the animal abuser to a place where they feel comfortable. It also educates the neighbors around them. So it’s not just focused on letting the animal abuser know that outside of work they’re going to continue to be shamed for the atrocities that they commit, but also for their neighbors to realize who they’re living next to, to educate them about the animal abuse that’s going on. Whether it’s vivisection or any other form of exploitation. Their neighbors are like, “Whoa, this is what they really do? They told me something different.” There are a lot of people who don’t realize what vivisection is. So these home demonstrations, or neighborhood pickets, expose (animal abusers), and say, “Listen, this is who you live next to. If you lived next to a child abuser, I’m sure you would be standing up with us.” It’s the same thing. These are sentient innocent beings who have done nothing wrong.

JH: I read you filed a lawsuit against the UCLA police department. I was hoping you could provide a little background on that.

NS: It’s because of the continued harassment from the UCLA PD. (They’re) following activists around, going to the meet-up spot when we go to demonstrations, following them to bathroom breaks or when we go get snacks. Videotaping all of this. Videotaping us walking from place to place. This is an issue of them not wanting us to expose their employees at UCLA. (They are) trying to inhibit what we’re saying, where we speak, and where we continue to assemble. That’s a direct violation of what constitutional rights we’re supposed to have anyway. Who knows anymore the validity of what our constitution actually has, because it’s violated every single day. The lawsuit is addressing the harassment and continued intimidation of legal, aboveground activists who aren’t doing anything illegal, but educating and practicing our freedom of speech.

JH: Researching this interview, I was struck by how many different causes you were involved in, from marching against the war, to fighting for reproductive rights, to standing up against the Minuteman. And honestly, I was pretty impressed. So I guess my question is how can the animal rights movement better incorporate itself into the broader Left?

NS: I’d say by seeing its movement as revolutionary and not as a lifestyle politics. Taking on the idea that animal liberation is necessary for human liberation and human liberation is also necessary for animal liberation. What oppresses each and every one of us is from a system of domination. Each person or each social group may experience their oppression differently, and they definitely do, but the root of it is coming from the same system. Whether you think that’s patriarchy or capitalism, racism, speciesism all come from this idea that one is less than, that we have a right to dominate another because they are considered less than. So I would say that the animal rights movement, as well as the Left, needs to realize that we’re interconnected. If we continue to divide ourselves we’re not going to be as successful in seeing the society that we want to.