Skip Nav | Home | Mobile | Editorial Guidelines | Mission Statement | About Us | Contact | Help | Security | Support Us

World

Strategic Importance of HLS in the broader anticapitalist fight

antispeciesist | 27.12.2008 10:39 | SHAC | Animal Liberation | Ecology | Social Struggles | World

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
Row of police guarding HLS

HLS (NYSE:LSR) finance
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

antispeciesist

Comments

Hide the following 11 comments

Tactics

27.12.2008 11:08

Mark Bibi, General Counsel, Huntingdon Life Sciences, to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee:

"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

"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. "

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

i guess you never heard of 'the rise AND fall of global capitalism'? it starts with a spark.

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

Tertiary targeting is pointless. It diverts our energies and gives the capitalists breathing space to plan the fight back. What is needed is what blitzkrieg warfare calls a schwerpunkt (focus point).

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

Well clearly there's a difference! You bring about a good point, when it comes to Sea Shepherd and Greenpeace, but your comparisons are lacking credibility when connnecting this to SHAC.

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 guess you never heard of 'the rise AND fall of global capitalism'? it starts with a spark."

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

Veganarchist, Sea Shepherd ended the Icelandic whaling for over a decade by SINKING the Icelandic whaling fleet.

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

SHAC doesn't target HLS's suppliers and customers just for the hell of it. HLS have got so many injunctions that protesting outside HLS itself is barely possible, and HLS and the government have taken steps to make sure it is even less effective, e.g. by blocking the visibility of the protests, banning peaceful home demonstrations, and by getting the police to ban things like loudhailers.

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

I agree with you anon, SHAC have been effectively prevented from targetting HLS so they have made the obvious move of going for secondary and tertiary targets, the thinner coverage means they are harder to stop but I do agree less effective. Using the argument of seal culling, if a line of police had been around the sealers boats what would the protestors have been able to do?

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

Silent Bob -

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

faitr trade is mostly bollocks though - another way of the system assimmilating dissent against lanmd theft and incorporating it into the market place, providing jobs and goods for the liberal working class. the NGOs are part of the system that provides the guns and then thinks it will be OK by providing the sticking plasters. Thboiugh I thinbk you will have aproblem replicating the model unless you destrioy the financial centres and media centres of cities like London ( who are very much more securitised - see also pathetic ptretend black bloc wannabees internationale bourgois - anti capitalism is very much dead there - posh stundents just running about and playing and not communicating to the UK working class whatsoever - and has no interest in doing so - see ditto the middle class social centres ). Viva shac

jay


Publish

Publish your news

Do you need help with publishing?

/regional publish include --> /regional search include -->

World Topics

Afghanistan
Analysis
Animal Liberation
Anti-Nuclear
Anti-militarism
Anti-racism
Bio-technology
Climate Chaos
Culture
Ecology
Education
Energy Crisis
Fracking
Free Spaces
Gender
Globalisation
Health
History
Indymedia
Iraq
Migration
Ocean Defence
Other Press
Palestine
Policing
Public sector cuts
Repression
Social Struggles
Technology
Terror War
Workers' Movements
Zapatista

Kollektives

Birmingham
Cambridge
Liverpool
London
Oxford
Sheffield
South Coast
Wales
World

Other UK IMCs
Bristol/South West
London
Northern Indymedia
Scotland

Server Appeal Radio Page Video Page Indymedia Cinema Offline Newsheet

secure Encrypted Page

You are viewing this page using an encrypted connection. If you bookmark this page or send its address in an email you might want to use the un-encrypted address of this page.

If you recieved a warning about an untrusted root certificate please install the CAcert root certificate, for more information see the security page.

IMCs


www.indymedia.org

Projects
print
radio
satellite tv
video

Africa

Europe
antwerpen
armenia
athens
austria
barcelona
belarus
belgium
belgrade
brussels
bulgaria
calabria
croatia
cyprus
emilia-romagna
estrecho / madiaq
galiza
germany
grenoble
hungary
ireland
istanbul
italy
la plana
liege
liguria
lille
linksunten
lombardia
madrid
malta
marseille
nantes
napoli
netherlands
northern england
nottingham imc
paris/île-de-france
patras
piemonte
poland
portugal
roma
romania
russia
sardegna
scotland
sverige
switzerland
torun
toscana
ukraine
united kingdom
valencia

Latin America
argentina
bolivia
chiapas
chile
chile sur
cmi brasil
cmi sucre
colombia
ecuador
mexico
peru
puerto rico
qollasuyu
rosario
santiago
tijuana
uruguay
valparaiso
venezuela

Oceania
aotearoa
brisbane
burma
darwin
jakarta
manila
melbourne
perth
qc
sydney

South Asia
india


United States
arizona
arkansas
asheville
atlanta
Austin
binghamton
boston
buffalo
chicago
cleveland
colorado
columbus
dc
hawaii
houston
hudson mohawk
kansas city
la
madison
maine
miami
michigan
milwaukee
minneapolis/st. paul
new hampshire
new jersey
new mexico
new orleans
north carolina
north texas
nyc
oklahoma
philadelphia
pittsburgh
portland
richmond
rochester
rogue valley
saint louis
san diego
san francisco
san francisco bay area
santa barbara
santa cruz, ca
sarasota
seattle
tampa bay
united states
urbana-champaign
vermont
western mass
worcester

West Asia
Armenia
Beirut
Israel
Palestine

Topics
biotech

Process
fbi/legal updates
mailing lists
process & imc docs
tech