The campaign to shut down HLS has become a "meeting engagement"-a battle neither side can afford to lose. Here is what the pro-vivisection "Foundation for Biomedical Research" (or FBR) had to say in their 2006 "illegal incidents report" about the importance of the campaign to close Huntingdon "Life" Sciences (HLS)
Row of police guarding HLS
HLS (NYSE:LSR) finance
"Beyond the issue of research and the debate surrounding animal rights, there is a larger and more troubling message surrounding this regrettable pattern of capitulating to activist attacks. This is because those who seek to attack any corporation for any reason have, thanks to SHAC, now been provided with an effective model to gain publicity for their cause, seriously harm the company with which it has any complaint, as well as its employees, customers and vendors."
This is a quote from a document the FBR distributed on Capitol Hill during their 2006 campaign to pass the draconian revisions of the Animal Enterprise "Terrorism" Act. Most of the document whined about the steady drumbeat of protest and direct action against HLS-related targets.
What the FBR is saying in this particular snippet is that the battle over HLS has become so important that the capitalists can't afford to lose-no matter what. The Green Scare has in turn created a situation where opponents of capitalism also cannot afford to lose-or law enforcement gains a model to shut all of our movements down. In short, neither we activists nor the system as a whole can accept defeat on HLS, so it has become a strategic point of engagement affecting all of capitalism and anticapitalism.
First, some background: the campaign to close HLS is based on a mixture of protest by aboveground groups and direct action by underground operatives against any corporation that has any financial connection (of any kind) to HLS. This has driven away bankers and insurers to the point that the UK government had to set up a special account for HLS.
This "tertiary targeting model" has driven Huntingdon Life Sciences to its knees. Were it not for constant infusions of cash and aid from the entire industry, the UK government, and possibly the US government, HLS would long ago have closed their doors. Think about this for a moment: how many evicting landlords, land-destroying developers, or other capitalists short of war contractors would get this kind of backup? How many two-bit slumlords can get a special government bank account if anti-poverty activists succeed in driving away their bankers, insurers, and investors?
If we back down under fire, all targets of protest will know we can be waited out or crushed. If HLS goes bankrupt, every bloodthirsty multinational corporation on Earth will know people have the strength, the tools, and the strategy to make them next in line for bankruptcy.
Because of these extraordinary high stakes, the HLS campaign has become what is known in military terms as a "meeting engagement." A meeting engagement is a battle which may start small but gets bigger and bigger as both sides pour in more and more resources. This happens when neither side can afford to lose.
Entire wars often turn on the outcome of battles with names like Midway and Stalingrad that ring through history. What happened at Stalingrad? Neither Hitler nor Stalin would accept defeat in a city named after Stalin, causing both sides to pour in so much of their military assets that the winner of Stalingrad (Russia) was able to drive all the way to Berlin with little further opposition. Stalingrad was destroyed, but so was Gen Paulus's Sixth Army, and the Nazis never recovered. All that over a city the Nazis could have bypassed had it not been named after Stalin-over a NAME!
HLS might seem like a tempest in a teapot compared to the great battles of history, but if HLS collapses, everyone fighting against any part of capitalism whatsoever will have a battle-proven roadmap to victory. If law enforcement succeeds in crushing the opposition to HLS, then they would be the ones with a battle proven roadmap to victory, risking defeat for every anticapitalist cause inside the borders of the Empire. This means the Battle of HLS has become a meeting engagement, and neither we nor they cannot afford to lose this fight no matter what the cost.
If activists in wealthy nations are able to begin shutting down the worst corporate offenders with names like Exxon and Nestle, we will shorten the global conflict over capitalism and save human lives. HLS may sound like it is only an animal rights issue, but believe me-it has morphed into the meeting engagement between anticapitalist fighters and the servants of the Enemy. If we succeed in destroying HLS and then use the same tools to bankrupt murderers like Exxon and Bechtel, rest assured history will never forget our sacrifice and struggle.
The police and the FBI have declared war on pro-animal and pro-Earth activists. Now it's up to us to fight and win the battle, not just for us, not just for the animals imprisoned in HLS, but for everyone victimized by corporate power or any of its wholly-owned police and military subsidiaries. Show these brutes no mercy, fight them with no quarter asked or given, for we shall receive none!
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/12/26/18556504.php
Don't just take our word for it, this is what HLS said at their 2008 AGM (LSR is Huntingdons trading name):
"Animal rights extremists have targeted, and may continue to target, the US financial community that trades LSR Voting Common Stock, which has caused and may continue to cause liquidity and a lower market price of the Voting Common Stock. The animal rights extremists have in the past harassed the financial community that trades in LSR shares, including market makers, stockbrokers, auditors, investors and trading platforms. The liquidity and market price of the shares of LSR Voting Common Stock could be adversely affected in the future by such actions."
And this is why Huntingdon are so desperate to avoid liquidity, and a lower share price:
"The Company has approximately $83 million of outstanding debt. $59 million of this debt is due on march 1, 2011 and the remaining debt is represented by capital leases, primarily related to the sale and lease back of the Company's facilities. If the company is unable to pay or refinance this debt when it becomes due, or to pay its carrying costs on such debt in the form of interest, the Company could face a default under the terms of its loan agreement. A variety of factors, including worsening financial performance, failure to comply with financial covenants and pressure from animal rights extremists, could make it difficult to pay or refinance this debt."
http://www.shac.net/action/top_targets/toptargets.html
This is a quote from a document the FBR distributed on Capitol Hill during their 2006 campaign to pass the draconian revisions of the Animal Enterprise "Terrorism" Act. Most of the document whined about the steady drumbeat of protest and direct action against HLS-related targets.
What the FBR is saying in this particular snippet is that the battle over HLS has become so important that the capitalists can't afford to lose-no matter what. The Green Scare has in turn created a situation where opponents of capitalism also cannot afford to lose-or law enforcement gains a model to shut all of our movements down. In short, neither we activists nor the system as a whole can accept defeat on HLS, so it has become a strategic point of engagement affecting all of capitalism and anticapitalism.
First, some background: the campaign to close HLS is based on a mixture of protest by aboveground groups and direct action by underground operatives against any corporation that has any financial connection (of any kind) to HLS. This has driven away bankers and insurers to the point that the UK government had to set up a special account for HLS.
This "tertiary targeting model" has driven Huntingdon Life Sciences to its knees. Were it not for constant infusions of cash and aid from the entire industry, the UK government, and possibly the US government, HLS would long ago have closed their doors. Think about this for a moment: how many evicting landlords, land-destroying developers, or other capitalists short of war contractors would get this kind of backup? How many two-bit slumlords can get a special government bank account if anti-poverty activists succeed in driving away their bankers, insurers, and investors?
If we back down under fire, all targets of protest will know we can be waited out or crushed. If HLS goes bankrupt, every bloodthirsty multinational corporation on Earth will know people have the strength, the tools, and the strategy to make them next in line for bankruptcy.
Because of these extraordinary high stakes, the HLS campaign has become what is known in military terms as a "meeting engagement." A meeting engagement is a battle which may start small but gets bigger and bigger as both sides pour in more and more resources. This happens when neither side can afford to lose.
Entire wars often turn on the outcome of battles with names like Midway and Stalingrad that ring through history. What happened at Stalingrad? Neither Hitler nor Stalin would accept defeat in a city named after Stalin, causing both sides to pour in so much of their military assets that the winner of Stalingrad (Russia) was able to drive all the way to Berlin with little further opposition. Stalingrad was destroyed, but so was Gen Paulus's Sixth Army, and the Nazis never recovered. All that over a city the Nazis could have bypassed had it not been named after Stalin-over a NAME!
HLS might seem like a tempest in a teapot compared to the great battles of history, but if HLS collapses, everyone fighting against any part of capitalism whatsoever will have a battle-proven roadmap to victory. If law enforcement succeeds in crushing the opposition to HLS, then they would be the ones with a battle proven roadmap to victory, risking defeat for every anticapitalist cause inside the borders of the Empire. This means the Battle of HLS has become a meeting engagement, and neither we nor they cannot afford to lose this fight no matter what the cost.
If activists in wealthy nations are able to begin shutting down the worst corporate offenders with names like Exxon and Nestle, we will shorten the global conflict over capitalism and save human lives. HLS may sound like it is only an animal rights issue, but believe me-it has morphed into the meeting engagement between anticapitalist fighters and the servants of the Enemy. If we succeed in destroying HLS and then use the same tools to bankrupt murderers like Exxon and Bechtel, rest assured history will never forget our sacrifice and struggle.
The police and the FBI have declared war on pro-animal and pro-Earth activists. Now it's up to us to fight and win the battle, not just for us, not just for the animals imprisoned in HLS, but for everyone victimized by corporate power or any of its wholly-owned police and military subsidiaries. Show these brutes no mercy, fight them with no quarter asked or given, for we shall receive none!
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/12/26/18556504.php Don't just take our word for it, this is what HLS said at their 2008 AGM (LSR is Huntingdons trading name):
"Animal rights extremists have targeted, and may continue to target, the US financial community that trades LSR Voting Common Stock, which has caused and may continue to cause liquidity and a lower market price of the Voting Common Stock. The animal rights extremists have in the past harassed the financial community that trades in LSR shares, including market makers, stockbrokers, auditors, investors and trading platforms. The liquidity and market price of the shares of LSR Voting Common Stock could be adversely affected in the future by such actions."
And this is why Huntingdon are so desperate to avoid liquidity, and a lower share price:
"The Company has approximately $83 million of outstanding debt. $59 million of this debt is due on march 1, 2011 and the remaining debt is represented by capital leases, primarily related to the sale and lease back of the Company's facilities. If the company is unable to pay or refinance this debt when it becomes due, or to pay its carrying costs on such debt in the form of interest, the Company could face a default under the terms of its loan agreement. A variety of factors, including worsening financial performance, failure to comply with financial covenants and pressure from animal rights extremists, could make it difficult to pay or refinance this debt."
http://www.shac.net/action/top_targets/toptargets.html
Comments
Hide the following 11 comments
Tactics
27.12.2008 11:08
"SHAC is the tip of the iceberg -they are the test case for a whole new brand of activism through personal intimidation...Imagine the impact if SHAC tactics were used by those opposed to various other industries from defense, to mining, to oil, to who knows what else."
Imagine...a revolution?
smashy
Anti-capitalist
27.12.2008 14:13
How do you figure?
Capitalism is a global system existing at every level of society, not just a conglomeration of HLS, Exxon, Nestle, Starbucks, Microsoft and the other Big Bads. How does knocking out individual companies help us in the long-term?
(The phrase "whack-a-mole" comes to mind, tho perhaps tastelessly...)
anonymous
re: anonymous
27.12.2008 14:50
it basically implies that by taking out the largest multinationals, the smaller ones around them will fall faster, starting with the most dependant corporations...
why do you think the government hasn't let HLS close down three times already?
why target kingsnorth? why try and stop just one/two/three war(s)? why target starbucks?
unless of course capitalism isn't the entirely disconnected system its cracked up to be?
one look at the global meltdown of financial institutions should help you with this answer.
furthermore, the phrase "whack-a-mole" is particularly inappropriate for politics, unless of course you think we shouldn't try and stop any abuse because its just "whacking moles"?
this ideal would certainly of made a happy Hitler, afterall, trying to stop Nazis is like fighting thin air, right? so we shouldn't bother at all to try and stop anyone abusing anyone? because every single social movement was based on a lie? im going back to reality now, this is silly.
me
Tactics
27.12.2008 17:43
Look at the difference between Sea Shepherd and Greenpeace. Greenpeace does demo's about prison cases and asking canon to stop the whalers. Sea shepherd knows the schwerpunkt is in the southern ocean where the harpoons are flying. Sea Shepherd stops the whaling, all Greenpeace does is gets loads of letter sent to Canon.
SHAC (god luck to them though) is an example of how not to run a campaign.
Tictac
Hierarchical campaigns at sea/land based leaderless resistance
27.12.2008 20:35
SS have never once sabotaged the whaling industry enough to prevent whalers coming out at sea, mainly because this isn't the goal of the campaign. In another way of looking at it, whales are STILL (30 years on) murderered year in year out, SS just help to keep the numbers down - that's the reality. Yes saving lives obviously helps, and *may* bring about a change within society, but they have not yet succeeded in their mission of ending whaling, so there's no evidence *yet* to suggest they will do so soon either.
On the other hand, a campaign action in the 70s cancelled the seal hunt for the year, whereby not a single seal was killed - thanks to land based resistance from the ALF. In relation to the campaign against HLS, there are some comparisons.
For example, activists have raided HLS labs saving countless number of animals, along with breeders who were/are supplying HLS. In the same style as Sea Shepherd, animals were saved, but only for a temporary amount of time, until the next shipment or animals arrived (or the next killing season in relation to SS).
After realising that this was only helping, not resolving the issue at heart, militants naturally took further action. This led to all banks, stock exchanges and insurance companies dropping HLS - here is when they should have fallen manier times. Instead UK Government comes running and provides banking and insurance services; illegally.
So as a small sentiment to the game of comparisons, SHAC are more like SS, if not more radical than SS, because they are in it to end the suffering, not to "save lives" to gain public sympathy, donations and acceptance. Secondly, HLS has nearly closed over 3 times, and as I mentioned earlier, not once has whaling been cancelled once or for good. As laws passed for animals are as ignored in the oceans as they are on land.
The comparisons & differences shine like a gleaming light if you let it!
veganarchist
response
27.12.2008 22:34
I am quite familiar with the concept you patronising little shit. However, I've yet to see any evidence that knocking way against individual companies has any effect on disrupting capitalism per se.
Not that these companies should be left alone - but seeing it as anything other than trimming the more unpleasant edges of capitalism is, IMO, a little over-optimistic unless the campaign is carried out in a way which can lead to wider action. The animal rights movement seems to put individual dramatic action over mass participation - which is fine if you want to be the activist superhero, less so if you're interested in broader social change.
"it basically implies that by taking out the largest multinationals, the smaller ones around them will fall faster, starting with the most dependant corporations..."
And your evidence for this is what, exactly?
"why do you think the government hasn't let HLS close down three times already?"
Because not doing so would give the animal rights movement, and perhaps other movements, a massive boost. Your point?
"why target kingsnorth? why try and stop just one/two/three war(s)?"
Because these things need doing. Doesn't make the downfall of capitalism any more likely, tho.
"why target starbucks?"
To open up market opportunities for Cafe Nero?
"unless of course capitalism isn't the entirely disconnected system its cracked up to be? one look at the global meltdown of financial institutions should help you with this answer."
I've never met anybody who thought capitalism was an "entirely disconnected system" (whatever that means).
"furthermore, the phrase "whack-a-mole" is particularly inappropriate for politics, unless of course you think we shouldn't try and stop any abuse because its just "whacking moles"?"
Of course we need to stop abuse. However, targetting individual companies as a tactic to throw off capitalism per se, rather than simply to damage that particular company, is problematic in that harming one simply opens up market share for its competitors. Capitalism keeps running, the players just chage over time.
Take out McDonalds and the Burger King execs will be celebrating; take down BK and there'll be a party in the Subway offices, I guarantee you. Hence the whack-a-mole comparison - each one that gets knocked down simply triggers a mechanism to pop another one up. It's the mechanism that's at fault, and dealing with that is a much bigger issue than grinding away at one company after another until somehow things just happen.
"this ideal would certainly of made a happy Hitler, afterall, trying to stop Nazis is like fighting thin air, right? so we shouldn't bother at all to try and stop anyone abusing anyone?"
The phrase "straw man" seems appropriate here.
anonymous
Re: Veganarchist ...
28.12.2008 01:07
The ALF 'ended' (it hasn't really ended as several thousand seals are still killed in UK waters) sealing in the 70's by burning the licenced sealing boats. They did no 'do a SHAC' and protest the sealers diesel supplier, no they got to the heart of it and burnt the ships. If they had done tertiary targeting and protested/spray-painted the fuel suppliers for those sealing boat then we'd probably still have registered sealing vessels in the UK. Tertiary targeting dissipates activists energies
Tictac
Secondary and tertiary targeting is a necessary tactic for SHAC
28.12.2008 12:45
If circumstances change, you don't carry on banging your head against a brick wall, you think laterally. Secondary targeting of suppliers and customers is an excellent way to do this. It gives HLS a much larger "surface area" where they can be attacked.
Also, many of the companies targeted, customers especially, are pretty nasty entities themselves, so you are killing two birds with one stone (if you will pardon the expression).
HLS is always the main focus, so I think SHAC is an excellent example of a campaign that is very focused, or having a "schwerpunkt" as you put it.
SHAC has done more to raise the profile of anti-vivisection, get more people involved, and make us a truly international movement than any other campaign.
That's why they are the target of such over-the-top oppression - because they have been so successful. If SHAC had achieved very little, the government wouldn't be bothering with them.
Here's to success for SHAC in the New Year, and for the desctruction of Huntingdon Life Sciences!
anon
To anon and Anonymous
29.12.2008 06:29
Anonymous:
I am quite familiar with the concept you patronising little shit. However, I've yet to see any evidence that knocking way against individual companies has any effect on disrupting capitalism per se.
Not that these companies should be left alone - but seeing it as anything other than trimming the more unpleasant edges of capitalism is, IMO, a little over-optimistic unless the campaign is carried out in a way which can lead to wider action.
"("why do you think the government hasn't let HLS close down three times already?")
Because not doing so would give the animal rights movement, and perhaps other movements, a massive boost. Your point?""
Surely, this is the point! If direct or indeirect action can massively influence a companies future then, job done!
"("why target starbucks?")
To open up market opportunities for Cafe Nero?"
And if Cafe Nero march in with exactly the same corporate strategy they will know that they will be subjected to the same. It also opens up a market for less out and out corporate whores!
"Of course we need to stop abuse. However, targetting individual companies as a tactic to throw off capitalism per se, rather than simply to damage that particular company, is problematic in that harming one simply opens up market share for its competitors. Capitalism keeps running, the players just chage over time.
Take out McDonalds and the Burger King execs will be celebrating; take down BK and there'll be a party in the Subway offices, I guarantee you. Hence the whack-a-mole comparison - each one that gets knocked down simply triggers a mechanism to pop another one up. It's the mechanism that's at fault, and dealing with that is a much bigger issue than grinding away at one company after another until somehow things just happen."
As it is unlikely that you would ever get the mass mobilisation needed to take down the 'mechanism' I'd say that a practical option for most activists is to 'whack at moles'.
For example, 5 years ago, would Nestle have even considered 'fair trade' as any kind of option? It reuces their profit margin, they just didnt entertain it. Now they have their own 'fair trade' brand (which is still a joke as all it says is 'we pay the majority of our producers shit, but heres out token gesture'), the main thing is that there is an increased awareness in the general public for th whole fair trade issue and that is no bad thing and something we can all play a part in. The majoriy of the people who could bring the corps to account will never burn an HLS execs car but they will choose where they spend their money.
Silent Bob
Silent Bob
29.12.2008 07:55
To be honest, from your post it seems that we don't really disagree, much as it might seem. My comment was directed towards a claim that these actions will "shorten the struggle against capitalism" - i.e. that they are useful in destroying the mechanism. I'm not denying that they are useful in targetting specific companies, only that seeing this as anything more than that is a mistake.
anonymous
fair trade...
29.12.2008 14:42
jay