Antispe goes Global for AR2008

Rioting in Vienna isn't going to change anything, will screw up the opportunity for the grassroots to discuss campaigns after the march, (after all we're planing to have 3 days of gathering afterwards right?), and will make it difficult to host other gatherings in other countries!

So what exactly are you going to achieve, (other than boosting your own egos)?

How about bringing something useful to AR2008 instead?

If you want to kick off and get into violent confrontations, there's a football tournament going to happen in Austria in 2008 so go to that instead....and leave the serious campaigners, (who want to use AR2008 as a constructive platform), to get on with fighting for the animals!

With a bit of luck the retards planning this will get picked up straight away and allow the rest of us to focus on the real issues of fighting animal abuse, rather than fighting the unsuspecting, (well probably not unsuspecting now), Austrian police!!!

Just like the way a protest always gets violent...of course, everyone believes you. If people want to represent antispeciesism (the abolitionist approach to animal rights) then why not let them?! After all, what are all the other AR activists fighting for...? Exactly the same thing, just they only agree with abolition as a final result, but do not all advocate such a philosophy as an approach towards gaining this equality.

Had you ever considered that antispe activsits would be also using ar2008 to spread their message, along with lots of other groups? I think you got the wrong idea!

When the autonomous bloc quotes the action against Novartis in Barcelona, (which developed into a violent disorder with property damage....behaviour often referred to as a "riot"), I don't think I've got the wrong idea at all!

Of course I'd considered that Antispe would be using AR2008 as a platform to convey their message, and I will look forward to hearing it, but the rhetoric that has been used in relation to Antispe's "Autonomous Blocs" screams of a bunch of people looking to cause aggravation and as it's not them who have to pick up the pieces they can treat it as an opportunity to go OTT.

English activists have enough of a bad reputation, which is why they weren't invited on the recent SHAC Euro-Tour this year....so in my opinion the reputation and the rhetoric combine to suggest that I might not have got the wrong idea at all.

And just out of interest, doesn't "the abolitionist approach to animal rights" (as promoted by Gary Francoine) actually rule out aggressive and "violent" actions (including against property)?

In fact "the abolitionist approach to animal rights" is contrary to the stated aims and motivations of Antispe, ("actively supporting the ALF etc"), as set out by Gary Francoine in a recent conference of his that I attended....and as it is Gary Francoine who coined the terminology "the abolitionist approach to animal rights", I don't see how the two can go hand in hand!

For the record, I don't agree with much of Francoine's theories....and I'm all for people expressing themselves in the manner they see fit, but to do this at the expense of the liberties of others, (especially when it won't affect you as a "foreigner"), is slightly out of order, no?

For example the fact that the Belgian's now have to enlist high-powered, (and very expensive), lawyers just to get authorisations to demo at certain sites because of previous actions by "tourists", or the fact that certain sites in France see similar repression as a result of similar actions, (such as a foreign protester being fined for using a megaphone, (despite it being authorised), because the police are expecting similar actions to the last time "foreign" activists protested there, (and are simply pre-empting trouble by using unjust repression), suggest that the affect of actions such as these on the "locals" has a longer and more damaging affect than the gains made by any one "aggressive/violent" protest!

Finally, at no point did I suggest that "a protest always gets violent"....although considering when the stated aims of a protest are to commit property damage similar to the Novartis action in Barcelona in February then it's fair to assume that that particular protest is likely to become violent, no?

It's a nice attempt to justify the whole thing, but frankly the theories are contradictory and the consideration being put into it speaks of either a selfishness that "it's not our problem afterwards" or an arrogance that one aggressive protest "might" actually change things (and won't just present an opportunity for thrill-seekers to have a bit of "fun).

I would ask anyone considering becoming involved in this proposed action to consider the cause and effect of their actions. Yes, it might be a "laugh", (for some), but, What purpose does it serve? What will it achieve? And what damage will it do?

As we always say here, always for the animals and never for the ego.......

"English activists have enough of a bad reputation, which is why they weren't invited on the recent SHAC Euro-Tour this year....."

Where is THIS coming from? I was invited on the tour, infact I was encouraged BECAUSE I was an English speaking activist, along with many other people I know!!! This is because companies are a lot more concerned when activists speak in english because militancy sprouted and mushroomed over here, and also the fact that activists are making the effort to cross borders to close down a company is a scary thought!!

I would bother to continue, but the rest of your arguments are just the boring usual....advocating complete obedience, anti-property destruction theories, blah, blah, blah. As somebody else said "because Newchurch was closed through all the petitions".

As for the idea that "abolition" means not advocating property destruction is ridiculous. Abolition is just principled antipseciesism, its nothing based on tactics used, but on the angle of protest itself and morally/ideology implications. Just because Gary promotes abolition, doesn't mean his views represent it!!!! That's the usual trash story such as the civil rights movement was non-violent because martin luther king led it to victory. MLK owned what now....an idea? I think not!!

Think.

1) I take it I know you then, because there were only 2 English people actually on the SHAC tour and I was the one who invited them, lol....although I did invite a few other English, none of the other Europeans did!

2) In reply to the 2nd comment where "The Abolitionist Approach" is referred to...that is the Gary Francoine trademark, (as far as you can say that HE first coined the phrase)....as found here:  http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/

So please at least read before shouting your mouth off!

3) If you're not lying about being invited then that means we know one another and I have enough respect for you to invite you on the tour so I'll leave it at that because I don't like arguing anonymously in cyberspace with people I like in the real world.

4) I think you're lying though, lol....so feel free to give me a sly hint, (or even better drop me an email and call me a c**t because if you're not lying about getting an invite then you know exactly who I am and you have my contact), but "many other people you know" [were invited too] is a slight exaggeration I'm sure you'll agree ;-)

I speak English perfectly....as do most of the Dutch, Belgians and Italians who were there!

I got a VERY violent beating from the security there one night....so don't get smart about how Newchurch was closed down!