THE QUESTION OF VIOLENCE
For many people violence is synonymous with animal rights activists. This is hardly surprising given the biased manner in which the media covers any aspect of the animal rights movement. The reality is, or course, quite different to the fantasy created by the media. The vast majority of animal rights activists restrict their activities to those that are legal and most animal rights groups shun the use of violence. Even the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) has as one of it's guidelines, "To take all necessary precautions against harming any animal, human or non-human". The Animal Rights Militia and The Justice Department are the only animal rights organizations which openly advocate the use of violence in the fight for animal rights.
The decision to use and support the use of violence in the cause of animal rights is an intensely personal one that each and every animal rights activist ultimately has to make. Most of those who come into the animal rights movement initially oppose the use of violence, however, many activists come to support the use of violence over time. Those who come to support violence realize that peaceful means are doomed to failure because it is too easy for governments and corporations to ignore them. It is not so easy for them to ignore threats to their physical and economic security. While there is, obviously, a need for non-violent protests and educational campaigns these tactics alone will never be successful in achieving victory in the fight for animal rights. As with every other successful movement violence in the cause of animal rights is absolutely necessary.
Those who abuse and exploit animals will only change their conduct when the price of that conduct becomes too high. If the only price that a vivisector has to pay for his or her conduct is to be faced with a peaceful protest outside their lab there is no incentive to change what they are doing. On the other hand if the safety of the vivisector or his family is in danger there is a far greater incentive for them to stop what they are doing. If their homes or offices are burnt down then the cost of continuing to conduct "business as usual" will eventually be prohibitive. Even more minor damage to their property, such as paint stripper being poured on their vehicles, windows being broken or graffiti being sprayed on their vehicles, homes or businesses result in increased costs. If the costs are ongoing due to a concerted campaign of economic sabotage there will come a point where it is no longer feasible for them to continue to torture and kill animals. Even a relatively minor act of property damage is likely to result in an increase in security which costs the vivisector or the company that employs them. Obviously economic sabotage is not advised if a cell is planning a liberation since increased security will only make a successful liberation that much harder.
Obviously, the chief drawback to the use of violence is the cost if an activist is arrested. Physical attacks against the abuser or their families will result in lengthy prison terms, particularly if either the abuser or a member of their family is killed. A death in the course of an ARM action would almost certainly be prosecuted as a premeditated murder resulting in a life sentence for the activist. In the United States it is conceivable that a charge of capital murder would be laid making the activist eligible for the death penalty. In the cases where the violence takes the form of explosive devices or arson the penalties for these actions are severe and there is always the possibility that the abuser, their family or an innocent person will be killed by these actions. Only the most committed activist that is prepared to pay a severe price should consider undertaking these types of actions.
Another drawback to the use of these actions is the danger of public sympathy for the abuser. While the media and the public, in general, will react favorably to liberations when evidence of the horrendous treatment of the animals is shown the opposite reaction is likely to occur with assaults or deaths of abusers. In the case of the assault or death of an abuser or their families the media and the public will almost certainly consider the abuser to be a sympathetic victim, despite the horrors that they perpetrate against innocent and helpless animals on a daily basis.
It was John F. Kennedy who said "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." This is especially applicable to the fight for animal rights. Governments have repeatedly enacted laws that protect the abusers of animals while making it more difficult for activists to engage in activity to protest the actions of the abusers. In the United States Congress has essentially prohibited any type of protest or action against any animal "enterprise" with the passing of the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act. This act, which was spearheaded by the animal abuse industries and the Federal Bureau of Intimidation, makes activists who take any action against an animal "enterprise" a terrorist on the same level as those who fly airliners into buildings killing thousands of people. While other countries have not gone to this extreme most have enacted some form of draconian legislation to protect those who maim, torture and kill animals from anyone who dares question the morality or correctness of what they are doing. In acting to protect the funding that they receive from animal exploitation industries the politicians who spearhead and support legislation protecting these industries don't seem to realize that all they succeed in doing with these laws is to drive animal rights activists underground.
Violence is not only acceptable in the climate that we find ourselves in it is necessary. It is time that those who abuse and exploit animals feel a small portion of the fear and pain that they expose animals to on a daily basis. The animal exploiters and abusers, politicians and law enforcement have put up every possible roadblock to prevent peaceful methods of protest so now they have to face the violent revolution that they have made necessary. They have no one but themselves to blame.