I’m honored and pleased that Amp has asked me to cross-post my Letter Writing Sunday series here on Alas. For those that are unfamiliar, every Sunday i write at least one letter of social importance. The letters range from contacting members of congress, to local elected officials, to corporations, and, as you’ll see this week, to political prisoners. While this is the first letter writing sunday at Alas, it is #8 in the series. The idea is to raise awareness about a different issue every week, to provide a simple outlet for action on that issue, and to create a sense of collective action. I sometimes write letters in the middle of the week and label them such things as letter writing sunday #5.2, but here i will only publish the official Sunday edition. So let’s begin (i assure you that they usually aren’t this long. This is simply a topic that is very near and dear to me.)…
I should have posted something about this earlier, but today is the last day of the International Weekend of Resistance Against the Green Scare. And for those that aren’t quite in the mental space to go out and participate in some direct action or if you’d like to highlight your other action(s), i’m dedicating this week’s letter to solidarity with the weekend of resistance. But rather than write yet another letter to yet another corporate office, let’s show some love for those who are in prison.
The Weekend of Resistance started as the International Weekend of Resistance to Support Free Luers, a political prisoner at Oregon State Penitentiary. This weekend marks the fifth anniversary of his imprisonment. Here is a clip from Free’s support site:
In June 2001, 23 year-old forest defense activist Jeffrey “Free” Luers was sentenced to 22 years and 8 months in prison for the burning of three Sport Utility Vehicles (SUV’s) in Eugene, Oregon. To make a statement about global warming, Jeff and his codefendent, Craig ‘Critter’ Marshall, set fire to 3 SUVs at a Eugene car dealership. Their stated purpose was to raise awareness about global warming and the role that SUVs play in that process. No one was hurt in this action nor was that the intent. An arson specialist at trial confirmed that the action did not pose any threat to people based on its size and distance from any fuel source. Despite the fact that this action hurt no one, caused only $40,000 in damages and the cars were later resold, Jeff was sent to prison for a sentence considerably longer than those convicted of murder, kidnapping and rape in Oregon state. Jeff is a political prisoner and continues to write and agitate for his release while imprisoned at Oregon State Penetentiary. His appeal was filed in January 2002 and oral arguments before the Oregon Court of Appeals were heard on November 30, 2005. The judge has not yet issued his opinion.
I do not persyanlly know Free. We’ve never met. But i’ve been familiar with his case from the beginning. His obscenely long sentencing sent shockwaves through the radical environmental movement, of which i am proudly a part. We had always known that we were targeted for political crimes. Many of us have spent time in jail or prison for our actions. But Free’s case marked a new era for the environmental and animal rights movement. An era plagued by the same fervor as the COINTELPRO witch hunts of the 60s and 70s and the Red Scare hunts of the 1950s. An era where even a website could land you in prison for a few years. An era that is now affectionately called the Green Scare.
In a failrly recent article written by Free, he talks about this upsurge in government repression and how the FBI has dedicated more time and energy towards targeting activists (the #1 domestic terrorist threat, according to the FBI) than it has to groups such as al-Qaeda. In the article, he also reminds us that we cannot believe that this is the first time that such represssion has happened and that we must learn lessons from similar targeting that occured against groups like the Amercan Indian Movement and the Black Panther Party. And in some ways, we have all learned a lot. In fact, the FBI has discovered that its Operation Backfire has, in fact, backfired. Not only has a once splintered environmental-animal lib movement found itself reuniting, but the surge of prisoner solidarity work has spawned many relationships that otherwise may never have formed. For example, a recent animal liberation conference in the northeast US dedicated more time to the issue of prisoner support work, like that of the Jericho Movement, than it did to campaigns about non-humyn animals; centralizing a new dialogue in the animal lib movement about racism and the prison-industrial complex. In an odd way, these attacks have been one of the best things to happen in recent hystory for White radicals in the US. But that is no reason for us to allow these people who have risked so much for a better world to be left alone to rot in prison.
Free doesn’t deny the allegations against him. He simply argues that his sentencing, over twice that of the average convicted rapist, outweighs the crime considering the fact that the only damage done was to three SUVs that were later resold. The average sentence for arson, according to the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, is 5.5 years, one-quarter of Free’s sentence.
Free has continued his struggle in prison. He has never allowed the cold walls to silence him. He continues to publish his words in magazines and recently published a zine, Heartcheck, with fellow Oregon political prisoner Rob “los Ricos” Thaxton (who is completing his seven-year sentance this month!).
You don’t have to agree with Free or his chosen tactics. A friend and i were talking about the recent round-up of activists in Operation Backfire and the lack of attention it has received outside of the relatively small radical environmental, animal lib, and prison abolitionist movement(s). We agreed that even scarier than the round-up was the complacency surrounding it in the larger radical, progressive, and liberal movements. Its as though people believe that activists such as Free deserve their extraordinary sentences and that people like Daniel McGowan, who has maintained his plea of innocence, deserve to face life in prison because they associate with the likes of Free.
In addition to Operation Backfire, the SHAC 7 were recently convicted of terrorism for hosting a website (the site was forced to shut down, but others have popped up to take its place. CloseHLS is one such site.). They await their sentencing, which will be between two and twenty years each. My friend and i strongly believe that the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security have learned a lot from the very successful Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC) campaign. What they learned most is that you do not go after your target as a whole, you pick it off piece by piece. Those who believe that these arrests and repression will stop with groups like SHAC and Earth First! have not been paying attention to the news. More and more stories are coming out about the FBI infiltrating and spying on peace groups, Indymedia, SOA Watch, and other groups. What all of these groups have in common is a dedication to non-violence and social change that has proven to be successful (HLS is one the verge of its third bankruptcy, the SOA is on the verge of being closed down, Indymedia’s expansive network rivals CNN’s, and so forth). Once they have succeeded in isolating and shutting down groups like SHAC and Earth First!, they will come after others (SOA Watch, International Solidarity Movement, Indymedia, and others have already witnessed imprisonment, Grand Juries, and State repression). A current revision in the House and Senate to the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act of 2002, the Act underwhich the SHAC 7 were convicted, would make it so that so much as holding up a sign on a sidewalk could land you in prison for two years as a terrorist. Why has this received no attention outside of the animal lib movement? Do people honestly believe that this will stop with animal lib activists? According to this legislation, groups like PETA could be targeted as terrorist organizations akin to al-Qaeda or the World Church of the Creator. If PETA is a target, NOW and Feminist Majority are targets for their support of economic boycotts. United Students Against Sweatshops are a target. The American Friends Service Committee are a target. Anyone or any organization that threatens the unregulated profits of any corporation strong enough to endorse legislation, is a target.
It is for that reason that these arrests are not just relevent to the animal lib or radical environmental movement. They are relevent to all of us dedicated to positive social change. And if we cannot support those that are in prison now, then we will soon find ourselves isolated and picked off, one-by-one. Even if it is just two sentences to say hi, write a letter to Free to let him know that he is not alone. Because it is not unheard of that you too may find yourself in a Kafka-esque nightmare, hoping only for contact from a friend; contact from a slightly more sane world beyond the cold hard steel.
You can reach Free through the following address:
Jeffrey Luers
#13797671
Oregon State Penitentiary
2605 State Street
Salem, OR 97310
If you are looking for more information about the support work that is being done for the Weekend of Resistance, the Houston Indymedia Radio Project and Anarchist Black Cross teamed up this weekend and put together a nice Green Scare Special Edition (you can listen to it on my blog) full of interviews about Free Luers, Daniel McGowan, the Green Scare, the SHAC 7, the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, Eric McDavid, Zachary Jenson and other such vital topics.
You can read the letter i wrote to Free on my blog.
Pingback: Sixteen volts
Pingback: feminist blogs
I’m unmoved. He set fires in an attempt to terrorize people, and was part of a criminal conspiracy to do the same. He’s a terrorist, and he got what he deserves.
Hmm, while I think he definitely deserved to spend some time in jail, I also don’t feel the punishment fit the crime. And yes, I understand that the system isn’t fair, but that is hardly a reason to shrug it off.
It seems very much like an opportunistic attempt at silencing dissent through by manipulating the letter of the law and neglecting the spirit of it.
a rapist is not a terrorist? palestinians, iraqis, georgians do not live in a state of terror? what about some of the emails and comments that bloggers like devious diva, brownfemipower, black looks, rachel s, and others have received. are those not acts of terrorism? and if this is about terrorism, why did John Walker Lindh, the “American Taliban” only receive a three-year sentence when his intent was to hurt people (he was found armed and was trained to kill). like i said, Free has never denied what he did, but how can such a sentence for a crime that harmed no one be justified when those who have tortured and killed are released after a few years? who defines terrorism? who enforces that definition? why are the SHAC 7 considered terrorists but the corporatations they target are not (anyone who has seen footage from inside the labs will surely recognize the systematic use of terror)?
Free is willing to do the time (as are others who have plead guilty, like Peter Young). But why should they be sentenced so harshly and why are others (like Sherman Austin, who served two years in prison for hosting a link on his website), who have done practically nothing, finding themselves imprisoned as terrorists? Guilty by association? Perhaps we should also imprison all Muslims (the extension of this line of thinking is very scary).
I’m not going to try to convince you that what Free did was just or effective. If you are unmoved, fine. I’m just asking you to question why the inequity in sentencing.
“He set fires in an attempt to terrorize people”
I’m not sure that was his intent, so much as to simply do something very visible and sensational. I don’t think that qualifies as terror.
The SHAC 7 didn’t just “operate a web site”. They did precisely what the Nuremberg Files web site did — issued threats:
See here for an example.
Or here.
Or here.
More threats
the “threats” that you link to are as follows:
1.) an anonymouse communication received about an action where a group of people woke up Amy Hessler (from Chiron) by shouting in a megaphone and banging on the doors and windows at 3:30am. An action not taken by any of the SHAC7, merely reported on their site.
2.) an anonymous communication from “SHAC sympathizers” making phone calls to express their disgust with the actions at Forrest Labs. Again, an action not taken by the SHAC7, but even if they had when did phone calls become illegal?
3.) Home addresses of two scientists and a VP at HLS
4.) A description about Electronic Civil Disobedience (flooding offices with emails and faxes as a sorta Denial of Service attack). And if you actually read the page, you will find the following lines: “SHAC USA does not manage, direct, control, or is given any foreknowledge of what the action will be, but simply reposts the information sent to us.” “SHAC USA does not know who is responsible for setting up the ECD and reminds people that participating in an ECD can sometimes be deemed illegal (hence the terms civil disobedience) and there can be repercussions.” Again, NOT an action that ANY of the SHAC7 were so much as charged with.
They hosted information. They are guilty of a thought crime. They are being held responsible for the actions of others. Yes, SHAC supports very controversial tactics (like home demos, where people show up at the front doorstep of vivisectionists). But they are not being convicted of actually carrying out these tactics. They are being convicted of hosting a website that supports them. Yes, they support civil disobedience. It was that same type of illegal civil disobedience (and the threats from such folks as Martin Luther King, Malcom X, SDS, SNCC, and so forth) that proved effective in the civil rights movement. It has also proven effective in the anti-sweatshop movement (where students have taken over buildings), in the anti-war movement, in the AIDS justice movement and pretty much every other modern movement for social change. When unjust things are legal, we often have to take illegal action to change them.
None of the “threats” that you list are actually being made or carried out by the SHAC7. But even if they were, do threats of phone calls, emails, and midnight megaphone serenades justify 20 years in prison? If so, perhaps you feel i should be imprisoned for these letter writing sundays (last sunday i even made a phone call to go along with the letter, and i’ve been known to show up at the front step of a CEO here and there). No one is harmed by these actions, nor are there even threats of harm. But they have proven VERY effective in shutting down the world’s largest animal torturer. And that is the their only crime… disseminating information about the most effective strategy we have seen since the 1960s.
Thanks for outlining this and making some of this connections VeganKid.
I personally find it hard to do support work for people who I see as substituting militancy for numbers (I’ve no idea if that’s what was happening here, I’m talking about my reaction locally). But your point about the implications of what’s happening is important.
1 is harassment, as defined by California law.
Sorry, 2.) an anonymous communication from “SHAC sympathizers” making phone calls to express their disgust with the actions at Forrest Labs. Again, an action not taken by the SHAC7, but even if they had when did phone calls become illegal?
Quote from article: “Invite the ALF, LI-ADL, and others to protest and/or vandalize your house.”
3.) Home addresses of two scientists and a VP at HLS
The banner at the top likely describes them as “Targets”; it’s not in the wayback machine, but similar notices appear above other names and home addresses in the same area of the site.
It was that same type of illegal civil disobedience (and the threats from such folks as Martin Luther King, Malcom X, SDS, SNCC, and so forth) that proved effective in the civil rights movement.
Martin Luther King engaged in non-violent protests. People associated with SHAC engaged in bombings, beatings, and arson. This is violence, not speech. Did the SHAC 7 engage in any violent acts? Maybe not. But then neither do most Mafia bosses. The SHAC 7 printed on their web site direct threats to engage in illegal activity, amidst a campaign of intimidation.
Is it effective? Sure it’s effective, because it’s terrorism! It isn’t letter-writing campaigns that have convinced HLS customers and suppliers to quit — it’s the bombings!
Please tell me how this site is different from the Nuremberg files.
I guess I should note that if one agrees with ALF, SHAC, etc’s basic premises — that animals have the right not to be experimented upon (often in brutally violent ways), and that this right is as valuable as the equivalent right for humans, their violence is justified.
But if you do believe this, say it. Say that SHAC threatens people who deserved to be threatened, and if someone HLS exec got beaten up, they deserved it.
Be honest.
1- see above about the need to break laws to challenge injustice.
2-again, not actions the SHAC7 participated in. but in defense of the ALF and LI-ADL, in thirty years of existence, they have never harmed a single animal, humyn or otherwise. In fact, to even associate your action with the ALF, ADL, or SHAC the #1 rule is that no harm is to be done to any animal, humyn or not. The people they are targeting make a lot of money killing 500 animals a days. What’s a little vandalism if it means saving 182,000 lives each year? If you are ok with the torture and murder of animals in labs, then we will probably not agree on this topic and i am not here to convince you. But SHAC does not participate in vandalism, they merely support a variety of tactics (as long as no one is hurt).
“Martin Luther King engaged in non-violent protests. ”
Phone calls, emails, faxes, and home demos are all examples of non-violent protest (and are all the tactics used by SHAC).
“People associated with SHAC engaged in bombings, beatings, and arson.”
That’s slander. There are people who took such actions and said they were in solidarity with the campaign to shut down Huntingdon, but SHAC has never condoned violence against another living being. And the beating you referred to happened in the UK. SHAC USA and SHAC UK are completely autonomous.
The mafia fights for power-over. SHAC fights to equalize power structures. Big difference.
I suppose you could consider it a campaign of intimidation. I believe i remember one SHAC activist saying “We won’t rest until you close down, and neither will you.” This was in reference to being very, VERY annoying and showing up on sidewalks, handing out flyers to neighbors, and storming into offices with megaphones. But by calling this terrorism you are equating the megaphone with a machine gun. And that’s fucking ridiculous! A megaphone has never killed anyone. And SHAC has NEVER advocated violence. I don’t know how many times i have to say that. The only terror that SHAC has instilled in HLS and their investors is the terror of narrowing profit margins and not being able to walk down the street without being constantly reminded of the torture they support. If signs and megaphones can be considered tools of terrorism, then maybe its time for me to move.
“It isn’t letter-writing campaigns that have convinced HLS customers and suppliers to quit … it’s the bombings!”
What bombings?!? SHAC has never used or supported the tactic of bombings. And the only action i’m aware of that could be associated with a bombing is the burning of one supplier’s vehicle – an action that was neither claimed by SHAC nor claimed in solidarity with SHAC. Though i do believe they reported the communique from the action on their site. But again, guilty by association? And this event happened well after the SHAC campaign had already driven HLS to bankruptcy twice. Even the CEOs of these companies will tell you that it was not a fire or the threat of fire that drove them to drop their contracts with HLS. For one, they often didn’t care enough about the contract to risk a long campaign against them (and a lot of bad press). Corporations that like their clean image do not like being called puppy killers in the media all the time. They also don’t like the thousands of dollars that it costs them when their phone and fax lines are shut down for a day through acts of electronic civil disobedience. Its all about cost-benefit analysis. And a failing company isn’t worth the cost.
“Please tell me how this site is different from the Nuremberg files.”
Well, for one, the Nuremberg files was a website dedicated to stopping abortion clinics and doctors who performed abortions. The SHAC site was dedicated to stopping unnecessary testing from killing 500 animals a day. The NFs had no clear statements against harming humyns, SHAC did. SHAC focused on an economic campaign (like the South African divestment campaign – from which they got their inspiration and insight), the NFs did not. The NFs were anti-choice assholes, SHAC is not. People listed on the NF site died. No one listed on the SHAC site ever died (though several of them did choose early retirement).
i’m not going to say that Brian Cass deserved to get beat up. I believe he’s an asshole with a horrible job. But i don’t think we must resort to head injuries to shut down the company he runs.
If you are ok with the torture and murder of animals in labs, then we will probably not agree on this topic and i am not here to convince you.
I wasn’t planning on arguing on the animal rights stuff, because I know we don’t agree, and I actually respect your views. I can totally see how one would come to believe animals have full rights. I have no interest in convincing you otherwise. But I do believe that honesty is paramount, and your description of SHAC as merely operating a web site is not an honest description.
In fact, to even associate your action with the ALF, ADL, or SHAC the #1 rule is that no harm is to be done to any animal, humyn or not.
The SHAC web site is really poorly built, so some of its pages never made it into the Internet Archive. And it’s been shut down, so I can’t find current links. But one page has the link text “Dress up Brian Cass.” Which at least indicates a complete lack of sympathy for the guy getting beaten up. Also, everything I can find indicates that at least one of the people beating him, Blenkinsop, was affiliated with SHAC. ALF lists him as A POW. Also, Jerry Vlasac, on ADL’s board, advocates killing people.
What bombings?!? SHAC has never used or supported the tactic of bombings. And the only action i’m aware of that could be associated with a bombing is the burning of one supplier’s vehicle – an action that was neither claimed by SHAC nor claimed in solidarity with SHAC.
This page links to these two bombings.
Now, these were in the UK, but SHAC-USA links to them in the same list of links as all of the other actions.
“Please tell me how this site is different from the Nuremberg files.”
Well, for one, the Nuremberg files was a website dedicated to stopping abortion clinics and doctors who performed abortions.
In other words, the cause.
The NFs had no clear statements against harming humyns, SHAC did.
And the degree.
Just because it’s not violent doesn’t make it OK. SHAC is engaging in a deliberate campaign of harassment. Many if not most of their actions are rightly illegal — the 160 decibel wakeups, the car paint stripping and tire puncturing. Some are dangerous — gluing doors shut is wildly irresponsible: what if someone’s in there and needs to get out? Likewise throwing bricks. You would likely condemn these actions when they are taken against activists. The wakeups, in particular, you would likely describe as a form of torture if they happened at Guantanamo Bay (I would).
Sure, it’s not the worst sort of terrorism. In particular, it is less bad than varieties that kill people. But it’s still thuggish and unacceptable. And when people go to jail for threatening to harass people, it’s not for operating a web site. So, I want to you change your post to say that they weren’t just “hosting a web site”, but threatening people.
“People associated with SHAC engaged in bombings, beatings, and arson.”
That’s slander.
Actually, if it were false it would be libel (written), rather than slander (spoken). But it’s true. I’ve now linked to examples of each (assuming you’ll count the car bombs as arson).
good, at least we can agree to not try and pull the other one to their side of the animal rights debate:)
I didn’t say that SHAC merely operated a website, i said the SHAC 7 merely operated a website. Even according to the prosecution, they were not charged with any other action beside hosting information on a website. They cannot be charged with the actions of others (nor were they). So i will not change my post. They did list addresses of people that they labeled as targets, but they never meant target as in ‘end of a barrel’. Target as in, “our next target is the Montgomery bus system.” Its common activist terminology.
Dr. Vlasak is fucking nuts and i want nothing to do with him. The fact that he is even remotely associated with the animal lib movement does a great disservice to us all, in my opinion. He does not speak for me and i have NO idea why he is allowed to continue to serve on the board of the ADL. I’d agree that having him in such a position does hurt the credibility of the organization.
I agree that there was pretty much no sympathy for Mr. Cass after he was injured. I think he was greatly vilified (after all he was the symbol of everything they were working against) and several members of the SHAC7 already stated that they would have done things differently in retrospect. And i believe that there was only one persyn who hit Mr. Cass. And yes, that persyn was an active participant in SHAC actions (SHAC does not have membership or a centralized organization – each persyn represents themselves, not SHAC). But i’ve been involved in actions against the war in iraq organized by United for Peace and Justice. Does that mean that if i go out and beat up some military persynnel that i will be representing UfPJ while i do so? It was an isolated event, not a tactic of an organization.
The link you posted was to Bite Back and is part of a communique from an ALF action, not SHAC. I never contested that the ALF has used bombs or arson. Rod Coronado not only served four years for pleading guilty to planting bombs as a “member” of the ALF, but is now facing even more prison time for talking at a University about how he carried out the action. The targets of the car burnings were, i believe, SHAC UK targets. But it was not claimed by members of SHAC (and certainly not any of the SHAC7). Again, an isolated incedent. I will agree that it does sound like in this case the company severed ties with HLS because of the bombings, and that would appear that the company’s actions were in response to terrorism. But this was the ALF, not SHAC. And again, the actions were carried out so that no one was hurt.
“Just because it’s not violent doesn’t make it OK”
We may have to agree to disagree on that.
“SHAC is engaging in a deliberate campaign of harassment”
True. But the SHAC7 were not convicted of actually carrying out harassment, but rather making harassment possible by listing addresses on a website.
“The wakeups, in particular, you would likely describe as a form of torture if they happened at Guantanamo Bay (I would).”
A few differences. The targets of the wake-ups (which very few home demos actually consist of waking people up) are in a house while those doing the waking are outside, and the targets can easily put a stop to it by severing their ties to a company that kills and tortures animals. The prisoners in Guantanamo have no choice. They are not on the other side of the wall. And their torture lasts for more than five minutes once a week (since home demos rarely occur even a few times a month and are usually done very quickly in order to avoid arrest).
and you’re right, it would be libel. And even though i don’t think that link above clears you of libel (since it was claimed by the ALF and not SHAC), i will rescind my allegation because the guy that beat up Brian Cass was technically associated with SHAC (since he had been involved in a lot of SHAC actions previous to the attack). But i still don’t think this one guy’s violence is any indicator of the desires and motivations of SHAC as a whole. If i did, i would not associate with SHAC and would not be putting so much effort into defending them:)
Um, weren’t the owners of the Nuremberg Files website the subject of a civil suit, but were not charged as terrorists or imprisoned, despite the fact that the site they ran was aid and comfort to murderers and bombers, rather than harrasers and vandals?
I don’t think saying, “Oh, they should serve long jail sentences, because what they were running was almost as bad as the Nuremberg Files site,” makes much sense.
Interesting and thought-provoking post, Vegankid! I’m not in favour of vandalising other people’s property to make a political point, but to punish destruction of property without intent to hurt more harshly than rape, murder or violent assault looks like people are worth less than property, which I find incomprehensible and immoral.
Um, weren’t the owners of the Nuremberg Files website the subject of a civil suit, but were not charged as terrorists or imprisoned, despite the fact that the site they ran was aid and comfort to murderers and bombers, rather than harrasers and vandals?
The problem with NF wasn’t that it was “aid and comfort”, but that it was a “true threat”. It’s true that they weren’t criminally prosecuted — but they could have been under existing law. That they weren’t may have reflected local law enforcement’s political beliefs.
The link you posted was to Bite Back and is part of a communique from an ALF action, not SHAC.
Yes, but SHAC links to it approvingly, in the same list as all the other actions: “ARSON ATTACK ON HLS SUPPLIER (external link) UK activists heat things up..”
Rod Coronado … is now facing even more prison time for talking at a University about how he carried out the action.
Actually, for teaching people how to make bombs. But I agree that Coronado’s speech is protected, and that he shouldn’t be charged for that. After all, the US Army distributes the same information (look up TM 31-210).
My fundamental point is that we ought to try to change minds through moral suasion. I don’t think there is anything wrong with breaking unjust laws. But I don’t think laws forbidding harassment and property damage are unjust.
jeefie – that is exactly what i was trying to say. you just managed to say in a few potent words what i couldn’t get out in over a thousand :) thanks!
novalis said: ” My fundamental point is that we ought to try to change minds through moral suasion. I don’t think there is anything wrong with breaking unjust laws. But I don’t think laws forbidding harassment and property damage are unjust.”
i would agree about trying to change minds through ethical tactics, but that can often be impossible when dealing with unethical corporations. Its not that the “scientists” of HLS don’t know that they are punching puppies in the face and cutting open monkeys without anesthesia (while they are alive), they just don’t see anything ethically wrong with it. That head-butting of ethics usually doesn’t get us anywhere. But i (and the members of the SHAC7, at least according to testimony) do agree that the campaign could change to be more compassionate towards individuals and still be effective. and i agree that the SHAC campaign could be successful without property damage. I’m not sure i’m convinced that it would be as successful without the element of harassment, but how that harassment is carried out could be different (after all, where does the charge of harassment end? are sit-ins harassment? call-in days (a tactic used by every mainstream organization that i’ve ever been a part of)? letter-writing campaigns? picket lines? holding signs in front of workplaces? All of these could be considered tactics of harassment and i have no problems engaging in any of them. But we may just have to agree to disagree, and i’m fine with that. i don’t expect everyone to agree with what i feel are acceptable tactics. all i care about is that people are involved in creating a better world however they feel is the best way to do so. well, i suppose that’s not entirely true. i don’t really care for vlasac’s notion of the best way to do so. i don’t feel assassination will change anything (but vlasac also isn’t involved in what he feels are the best tactics, he just thinks other people should take the actions he’s not willing to. and i have no respect for just talk. that’s where the heartcheck comes into the picture).
so i guess we all put some limitations on what we feel is acceptable. and my limitations seem to be outside of yours. i certainly don’t think you are wrong for disagreeing with me, i guess i just don’t feel like a terrorist. i’ve had plenty of opportunities to learn to shoot a gun, but i’ve never had the desire to do so. i don’t like guns. i don’t like violence. its the culture of violence that i work to stop. that’s why i think companies like HLS must be stopped. if that makes me a terrorist, then perhaps one day i’ll be writing a letter to myself in prison. i hope you’ll at least say hi, novalis. :)
Aw, *blush*! Thanks, Vegankid :). I think you got your point across really well.
Oh, allright, that makes it okay. /sarcasm
i hope you’ll at least say hi, novalis. :)
I don’t read your main blog, but if I hear about it (through Ampersand, say), I will. I think our prison system is stupid and wasteful, and it’s a shame to lock so many people up for so long for so little.
I might get raked over the coals for this.
I really wish people would stop comparing the actions of organizations or actually umbrellas(neither is really an organization anymore) like ALF and ELF to the civil rights movements of the past. There are huge differences between the two. Not the least of which is whether those who are the thrust of the movements are members of the most privilaged racial and economic classes(i.e. White middle-class young people, including those who hide behind “exotic” or often ethnic sounding nicknames to hide their identities) or among the least.
Learn about political and social movements before you co-opt them, to explain why you choose to use violent and harassment tactics. ALF/ELF is not AIM, or the Black Panthers or any of those groups, because for one thing, if this wasn’t mostly a movement of White middle-class young people, then most of its members would have been killed in some cases by the hundreds as was the case with those groups. No arrests. No indictments. No jury trials. Except a handful here and there. But hey, people of color can not even lead a nonviolent movement without getting killed by other factions including their own government.
And unlike McGowan, none of these folks would be out on $1.6 million bail. Well, the ones who lived long enough to ask for bail.
It’s hard to equate a sit-in or petitions with an act of vandelism, involving an incendiary device or organizing harassment campaigns against people including their families(a tactic also used by a-ha, the “pro-life” extremists). Blasting loud music or noise at people. Well, that was used by the FBI itself against the Branch Davidians and has been used as a means of torture against (real) political prisoners and other noncombatants by different governments and intelligence organizations including our own. Nice.
Unethical tactics to deal with unethical people is an awfully slippery slope don’t you think, and the answer is to go sliding down it on a toboggan?
But let’s return to incendiary devices for these “actions”.
The KKK used these devices to kill, maim and terrorize Black people and Whites who supported them. The “pro-life” extremists and the likes of Eric Rudolph use them to kill, maim and commit property damage against facilities that provided medical care including abortions to women. ELF uses them to destroy property but not hurt people. Well, it’s a matter of time before that happens. Ditto with ALF, who I wonder what those folks would have done to several friends of mine if they had walked on the destruction they left behind on one of its “actions” a few moments earlier. Would their “victimless” action record remain intact?
ALF/ELF and the something-7 advocate these tactics and others to harass people and that is being defended as being necessary, because hey, these corporations use unethical tactics?
I disagree with the sentencing requirements(but hey, I disagree the “three strikes” laws(for petty theft “strikes” and mandatory/minimums for drug users too), but I do think they should do time. I’m not sure they are terrorists, but I do not consider them political prisoners unless they are innocent of the crimes they are charged or it was in self defense and that has happened. Sorry, I’ve met some real ones in my time. You know like the woman who spent years in jail just for running for elected office in her country.
I’ve read articles where some of these activists seem to think, what’s the big deal? It’s only $40,000 worth of damage to a car, or a business(that might have to shut down, thus forcing layoffs on employees who live month to month and do not just “play” poor) because when a corporation even an “evil” one suffers economic damages, who do you think pays the price? The CEOS, the Board of Directors? Only in the movies.
I also feel badly for all the nonviolent activists who suffer in part because the government is doing what it’s doing with a broad brush, but also because of what a relatively radical extremists are doing. But hey, why toil day in and day out on environmental issues when you can sit around and talk about what “action” involving incendiary devices you are going to next?
Hmm. I wasn’t aware it was common for activists to list people’s personal addresses in order to target them for ANY type of treatment. How do you know, someone is not going to show up and put them at the “end of a barrel”? You don’t.
It’s one thing to picket or protest people at their workplaces or companies. Another at their homes when they are with their families.
I’ve been harassed through both channals and I can definitely say the latter is much worse, even if the tactics seem benign on the surface to you.
I don’t know. To target people and their families with repeated harassment(as do the “less violent” members of the “pro-life” movement with abortion providers and their families) at their homes seems much more akin to stalking than activism.
While I do agree that the sentences that are being given are extreme(though to set fire to an SUV to educate people on global warming seems self-defeating to say the least), I do not agree with even the more “benign” tactics used, I guess.
Radfem, I’m pretty much with you up until the last bit.
Pity the poor bus drivers of the Montgomery Bus Company.
If you consider the goals of the organizations to be illegitimate, then of course any effect they have is unjustified, but if you accept that their goals are valid, then the possibility that some working class people will be unemployed when the monkey torturers are driven out of business is not a sufficient reason to allow monkey torture to continue.
And in relation to the earlier parts:
How do you feel about the ANC, which also used incindiary devices?
Hmm. If I remember the Montgomery bus strike involved a boycott, meaning the people who usually rode the bus opted to use other forms of transportation often at great personal sacrifices to themselves and their families. Many of them likely lost their jobs in the process.
I do not recall reading that these folks posted the personal addresses of any employees whether at management or below, and showed up on a regular basis to their homes to blast loud music, or slash their cars. The only arson or violence I recall being committed during the boycott was against those who led it, not by those who participated in it against any of the employees of the company involved. Far more participants were killed, maimed and jailed both by agents of the government as well as by others for their nonviolent actions than will ever be prosecuted let alone killed or maimed for participating in the more violent actions of either ALF or ELF, even accounting for the difference in numbers of people involved.
You can’t compare two different political and social movements that are entirely different, and as I said, most importantly down to whether or not those who are active in them are among the most priviliaged members of society or among the least in terms of class and race.
And yeah, I do pity people who are forced out of work because some other group of people decide it’s perfectly fine to vandalize, burn or destroy their business because they object to its practices or in some cases, the CEO’s views.
Some of their goals are valid, but that does not mean approving of the methods used.
The ANC of today or yesterday? I don’t think there will ever be a before/after ALF or ELF. They blew up things yesterday, they will today, they will tomorrow. The only surprise they feel is that they might have to experience any consequences for those actions at all, that the CJS has enough time to spare from locking up generations of poorer, non-white people to spend five minutes coming after them.
Like I said, I think the guy should face some time, but not the sentence he was given. But I think I’ll save my compassion for the two men of color this week who spent four years in jail for a crime they may not have committed because they weren’t deemed important enough(nor was the victim for that matter) to not have to wait four years for a DNA test to be run.
As I said, I pretty much agree, but the Montgomery bus boycott, like all boycotts was intended to (and did) put the economic hurt on a company, leading it to disagree with the city council. I’d be surprised if drivers were not laid off.
I suppose the major difference between damage to a business by boycott and damage by arson or vandalism is that boycotts require serious mass action to have an effect, while any idiot with a can of gasoline can damage a business through arson. Serious mass action lends a greater degree of legitimacy to the damage done. Also, of course, boycotts basically never kill anyone, while arsonists get lucky every time they avoid killing someone.
And you are right about the ANC vs ELF, in that ELF and ALF are revolutionary groups without the backing to ever achieve their goals, so all the harm they do is basically a waste. It seems a fair basis on which to distinguish.
So do you not feel pity for people who are forced out of work because some other group of people decide it’s perfectly fine to use an economic boycott to destroy their employer’s business?
You seem to be saying that there’s some big moral distinction between people driven out of work by activists according to what method was used to curtail their employment. I don’t get that. All actions that are intended to be significantly disruptive could potentially harm businesses and thus lead to people losing their jobs. This is as true of boycotts as of bombings – in fact, it’s obvious that boycotting a business puts more jobs in danger than burning three SUVs does.
I feel bad for anyone whose loses a job due to activism. But I don’t see how you can say that putting working-class person A out of a job as a side effect of activism is a moral strike against environmentalists, but not morally problematic when it comes to civil rights activists.
I do agree with you, however, when you say that arson is a far more morally dubious tactic than boycotts and marches. And when you say that the ability to commit acts of arson or property damage without worrying about being killed by police is an example of white privilege. I just think than including “what if business is hurt and someone loses his job” as a reason against political activism is going a step too far, because that kind of thinking forbids ever disrupting the status quo in a significant fashion.
Yes boycotts do that and people probably did at least temporarily. What I was talking about is people who work in businesses that are damaged by arson and vandalism who are impacted by those actions. It may be aimed at the higher-ups like the CEOs but it doesn’t hit them first. And if someone is bankrupted, how many people were laid off before that? They aren’t all “monkey torturers” either, even at laboratories but work a variety of positions, many unrelated. Some of them may not be able to get jobs to support their families as readily. These activists might view them and their livlihoods as acceptable collateral damages but they should at least consider them.
And I’ll always wonder what could have happened to my friends if they had encountered ALF people basically destroying a facility that they worked in to be able to attend university. Would they have been harmed so ALF could remain anonymous?
I once worked for a restaurant chain that was targetted for the CEO’s right-wing views, but the activists weren’t interested in the feelings of those who worked there, including the fact that there were serious labor issues involved, unless we were just pawns they could use for their own ends. I guess they thought they were more educated and thus smarter and had a right to make those decisions. They actually showed up and disrupted a meeting between the CEO and workers to *make* their political point while severely damaging our ability to do like.
The irony is that either umbrella group could get backing enough to constitute change if they changed their tactics but then neither would exist. They don’t have that ability to do anything else. They are clandestine organizations that initially did violent actions, before becoming umbrellas that encourage, inspire and endorse similar actions by splinter groups, which does sound similar to the evolution of several terrorist organizations. But there are many people committed to environmental issues and animal rights nationwide who do not resort to these actions to get their message across.
Actually, I do feel sorry for people who lose jobs in boycotts. I tried to clarify my position in my last post.
I just don’t equate boycotts with bombings for like you said, moral reasons so it’s hard to equate them on the economic impact level even though that’s probably not a fair assertion to make.
Now I’m confused. By “harmed,” do you mean laid off and unable to attend college, or do you mean murdered so that they couldn’t identify the ALF people they had seen? Or do you mean a third possibility I’m missing?
Regarding how comparable the civil rights movement is to other movements, I’m half-there and half-here. There’s something tiresome – and, worse, offensively appropriating – about the way nearly all social change and activist movements try and associate themselves with the civil rights movement and/or MLK Jr. And comparisons are sometimes misleading.
At the same time, I’d hate to think that the lessons of the civil rights movement cannot be learned from and cannot be applied to any other circumstances.
I generally agree with radfem about the comparisons between the Animal liberation movements and the civil rights/black liberations movements being problematic. Although I don’t actually think that the biggest point of difference is the class background of the animal liberation movement (there may have been some problems with SNCC bringing on middle class white college students in the Mississippi summer project in 1964 – but I don’t think it made any difference to the legitimacy of the action).
To me this is the really fundamental difference, in fact it’s the criteria I use to judge protests and activism. My goal is to bring people together to fight for a better world. I don’t believe there are any shortcuts. We can’t do it unless we use the power we have collectively, and I believe in democracy so unless we can educate, agitate and organise we have no legitimacy for what we’re doing.
See this is impossible because Martin Luther King, Malcom X, SDS and SNCC all had different positions on civil disobedience and threats and most of those positions changed over time.
I mean hurt or worse as innocent people often are when they bump into people committing multiple felonies. Groups of people who survive in large part based on their anonymity are not going to just destroy property which they did in this case to the tunes of hundreds of thousands of dollars in front of an audience.
They didn’t lose their jobs, b/c actually they were working largely with taking care of insects, amphibians and reptiles and those species are apparently not worth the same time and effort to “liberate” as a monkey, bunny rabbit or cute puppy. I guess it’s only certain species that are on par with humans and they get to decide which.
Maybe it’s unrealistic to wonder about things like this and go, “what if” b/c after all if they make a few steps to ensure they do not harm people(which appear to be at least as much or more about just not having their crimes witnessed), then when the unexpected happens, they will just stop what they are doing and quietly leave the scene and stick to some nonviolent mantra when just minutes before they were violently attacking property. But I believe they were thinking each time they went to work what could have happened to them, just because their tuitions and room and board weren’t handed to them on a plate by their parents.
But then having seen the damage(which took months to repair) and having heard about what it looked like after it happened, I don’t think so.
I do agree with this, but I do not believe that is what is being done here with some of these organizations and I believe that is part of their problem. Like I said, it’s not the issues that don’t matter, in fact they really do. It’s the tactics that should be questioned. The odd thing is that it’s the tactics used by a relatively few that have turned many people off to the whole movement as much as they have proven to be ineffective to institute change. Or maybe it’s just some of us who see a huge disconnect between educating people on the problems of global warming and burning SUVs and other property(which if anything, just adds to that problem, not to imagine putting toxins into the air of neighborhoods that I dare say none of these activists live and work in).
I am really not trying to derail this thread. I do support questioning the sentences given in these cases. It’s just that as much as I see questions asked about the length of the sentences, I see as many asked accompanied by genuine befuddlement about why the CJS is bothering them in the first place, because after all, they are just doing $40,000 worth of damage(never mind, the cumulative factor because many indictments involved multiple incidents), what’s the big deal? As if they should be allowed to commit crimes damaging property without any scrutiny and that is where I see a lot of the class and race privilage come into play.
my apologies. i was not trying to equate the animal rights/liberation movement with the civil rights movement. i get annoyed when people do such things, too – for the same reasons stated by amp. i was just trying to draw connections between the two by showing that the civil rights movement used illegal civil disobedience and so does SHAC. Reading through my post and statements again, i see how i did not word myself very well. I think this all got confusing when i and others strayed from the topic of excessively long sentencing and into topics like the ethics of groups like SHAC, ELF, and ALF. I’m not going to argue the ethics of the ALF and ELF, which i agree will never be comparable to the civil rights movement or to the ANC because the ALF and ELF make no claims to being organizations (let alone and organization fighting for a new model of govement). They are merely autonomous groups acting under the same name to destroy what they feel needs to be destroyed. And it is hard to create any sort of accountability among completely autonomous groups acting on their own accord. And why i won’t defend the ALF and ELF here is because there is a diverse spectrum of thinking within such groups. I think there is a big difference between the folks that break into a lab, take some animals and leave; and folks who burn people’s cars in their driveway. And even more of a difference from folks like Dr. Vlasac who advocates assassin.
And i agree that the focus need to be on what we are creating, not just what we are destroying (to do that means we will find ourselves trapped in the same culture of violence).
I would also agree that many of the actions of the ALF, ELF, SHAC and much of the environmental and animal rights/lib movement are products of White Privilege. But that’s not exclusively true of these movements. Pretty much everything we do as White people is a product of our privilege. My ability to speak about racism without fear of major reprecussions is a product of privilege. Just as Amp believes that we should not refuse to take action because some people will lose their jobs, I believe that White folks shouldn’t refuse to take action because to do so is a product of their privilege. Otherwise, we would never do anything:) What i agree with is that the White folks in these movements do not do enough to challenge their privilege. But i would generally make that argument of White people in every movement. My experience with Copwatch is that it is greatly shrouded in White privilege. Yes, White folks get away with a lot more. But if we can use that privilege to help equalize privilege and create justice, then shouldn’t we use it? I suppose that’s a big question. Question is are we using our privilege to maintain it or to counter it? And can you actually use privilege against itself?
I also think it is dangerous to characterize the animal rights/lib and environmental movements as White. Yes, it is dominated by White people (as White people seem to dominate the Same-sex marriage movement, the feminist movement, etc). Many of us understand that these latter movements are not homogenous… at all. And my years of experience in the animal rights/lib and environmental movement is the same. And to label them as White is to once again marginalize the voices and actions of people of color. After all, the most (in)famous member of the ALF and ELF in the US is Rod Coronado (a member of the Yaqui nation). I know that he gets annoyed when people assume he’s White.
maia – i agree that all those groups had very differening opinions on ethical action. my wording on that was horrible. what i meant to imply was that even though they took different forms of civil disobedience, they were all illegal actions. And i’m not trying to compare arson to a sit-in, but i would say that electronic civil disobedience is a newer form of sit-ins, lock-downs, and such.
ps. i also agree that arson does not make one a political prisoner. but if Free’s sentencing was not politically motivated, how can you explain that he received a sentence almost four times longer than the average arson sentencing? You don’t have to agree with the prisoner’s motivations for them to be a political prisoner.
Oh, and Free has never argued that he should be released. He simply argues for an appeal so that he can receive a fair sentencing. He did the crime, he should be willing to do the time. But i don’t feel he should have to do more time than the average arsonist.
It’s called enhancements. How can it be that a group of White kids can discharge a firearm at a party and injure someone and face misdemeanor charges at most? Well, even if they were charged with felonies, they would have been sentenced just based on the felonies. However, some kids who were Latino also discharged a firearm at a party without harming anyone and are facing up to 20 years a piece, because they are being charged as a “gang” and the White kids are not. But hey, even White Supremacists gangs are viewed by the CJS as “groups” not gangs, even though they fit the legal definition for gang enhancements, which are between 5 and 20 years. Hate crimes also have enhancements(though increasingly at least in my region, they are used for Black on Latino violence rather than White on Black or Latino violence), as do use of certain types of weapons and prior felony convictions. In my state, it’s 10 years in prison per enhancement for most of them.
Political motivation would probably not be considered a motive in these cases, except the motivation to pass the legislation or the ballot initiatives to get these enhancements(i.e. gang enhancements) created in the first place. But the way enhancements are applied to different groups of people is often political, whether you are an activist or not. Again, for Whites, the only way they might bump into an enhancement is through these ahem, political actions.
Like I said, I don’t agree with the sentence. But I don’t agree with the crime either.
I have no problem with that. My problem is reading articles written by and about similar activists and their supporters who just seemed shocked at why after torching various targets from one coast to another, they have drawn attention from law enforcement agencies. That’s where I think the race and class privilage comes in and yes, it’s probably akin to “dangerous” to silence the voices of men and women of color who participate in this movement, but many others stay clear of it altogether and that needs to be addressed as well. Not environmental issues, because men and women of color, particularly African-Americans in cities and rural areas, Latinos in the South and South-western states particularly near the Mexican border and American Indians are more impacted by environmental issues than most Whites and they fight them, but movements like these ones. Part of it might be that many activists of color are fighting to keep their communities going and safe from unemployment, affordable housing, poverty, eminant domain/gentrification, police misconduct, violence, access to municipal/county services, education(overcrowded schools, busing), racial tension, economic development that supports community-owned businesses, health care access and other issues to participate in larger political movements(and it’s definitely not lack of concern in many cases because often these issues impact them more). Many of the local activists involved in the anti-war movements do not like this, but hey, there are only so many hours in the day as some friends say. Too many fights that hit you at home and that takes it out of you.
Still, to protest global warming by burning SUVs which probably releases quite a bit of toxic smoke and products which may contribute to the global warming problem(albeit in a smaller way) even putting aside the destructive nature of the act just seems like an ill-advised means of getting that message across. Like I said, to most people there would probably be a huge disconnect between the issue and the action.
“But I don’t agree with the crime either.”
Oh, believe me, i am not asking you to.
“That’s where I think the race and class privilage comes in and yes, it’s probably akin to “dangerous” to silence the voices of men and women of color who participate in this movement, but many others stay clear of it altogether and that needs to be addressed as well.”
I agree with that. And I certainly do not deny the great sense of entitlement that is rampant among White, middle-class activists. That is definitely something that we must address.
Fifteen years in prison for trying to get medical assistance for three undocumented immigrants?
The Crime of Compassion
Dead in their Tracks
No More Deaths
No, fifteen years in prison for assisting violators of our national borders.
thanks for the links, radfem! i hadn’t heard of this case. that’s just messed up. i’ll be sure to put something up about it on my blog.
Well, I suppose they should have just left them to die of heat stroke instead. That would serve them right for setting their feet and “violating” our pristine borders! But things are better, in the late 1800s, Mexican nationals were lynched instead. Death by heat stroke is just so much more humane in terms of reducing their numbers and it makes so many people sleep better at night because they can blame actions on a level of desparation they will never feel. “Operation Gatekeeper” was a perfect means of doing that. “Operation Gatekeeper” has contributed to the deaths of hundreds of undocumented immigrants, since its implementation, mostly due to exposure, hypothermia, hyperthermia and related conditions.
I’d rather see ICE(formerly known as Border Patrol/INS) spend its time and energy hunting down real traffickers of humans, rather than waste its time pursuing people who just aren’t cold enough to watch someone suffer and possibly die in front of them because that person doesn’t have a green card or citizenship.
The funny thing is that a lot of BP agents would rather spend their time doing the former too. You’d be surprised at how many of them don’t like doing the dirty work of an administration that winks at businesses that hire cheap labor to maximize their profits while criminalizing through show, these laborers and their families. And their jobs have become even more dangerous with all those half-crazed Minutemen/vigilantes running around.
I found a link to it this morning, while looking for another article.
The federal prosecutor’s comments were somewhat lukewarm for how they usually act, so I think he inherited or was assigned a case he doesn’t want. And if they were truly smugglers, I think they would have taken the plea bargain of diversion but they chose to fight the case in court.
The founder of No More Deaths, I think used to do sanctuary work for Central American political refugees who were fleeing persecution and death in LA nations(i.e. Guatamala, El Salvador) whose leaders were put into power by U.S. sponsored coups and usually were trained by the U.S. in facilities including the SOA.
Well, I suppose they should have just left them to die of heat stroke instead.
Or called the Border Patrol.
I sympathise with Luer’s objection to inefficient vehicles, but very strongly disagree with his reckless and unhelpful method of communicating his opinion. However, the sentence seems extraordinarily harsh, unless he has a long history of previous convictions, indicating that he would be likely to (even inadvertently) endanger the lives of others in the future by arson or other actions.