4 ms·

Even in the most extreme of cases, I don't see how claiming that A.L.F. even is a 'terrorist' organisation. Sure they 'liberate' the animals from their owners,

by pyre 14y ago

Even in the most extreme of cases, I don't see how claiming that A.L.F. even is a 'terrorist' organisation. Sure they 'liberate' the animals from their owners, but you don't call a burglar a terrorist. Seems these days like "breaking the law in the furtherance of a political cause" is the new definition of terrorism (rather than using violence to sow the seeds to terror), and we're creating more laws to make more terrorists. Gotta fuel the War on Terror somehow I guess...

polymatter 14y ago
Its worse because it trivialises actual terrorists and the people that gave their lives to protect us from them.
DanBC 14y ago
ALF is an umbrella term. There was an ALF press office, which would release information and propaganda. But anyone was free to perform an action and claim it for the ALF. Calling an organisation like that terrorist is problematic. But, still ... There was a campaign against department stores selling fur in the 80s / 90s. The claimed intent was to cause massive water damage from sprinkler systems. People would place incendiary devices into the pockets of clothes (one reason pockets are now stitched closed) and these devices would go off at night. Unfortunately sprinkler systems didn't go off, and stores burnt down. 'Out of hours' does not mean 'empty'; the lives of cleaners, for example, were risked by this campaign. There have been other arson campaigns against abattoirs, meat packing / distribution plants, dairies, etc. Animal rights activists have dug up corpses. There has been an extensive campaign of harassment against anyone linked to Huntingdon Life Sciences; this includes anyone providing any form of service to HLS. People think in terms of 'legitimate targets'. A company is a legitimate target. Anyone working for that company is a legitimate target. The children of, for example, a secretary working for that company are not legitimate targets. Early members of ALF got advice from IRA. Breaking the law to further a political cause is, perhaps, fine. But some of the extremes done in the name of animal rights are clearly terrorist offences.
- pyre 14y ago
  Maybe so, but the government likes to label all animal rights activists as terrorists. Even groups like ADL whose expressed mandate is to promote animal rights via legal means. My point wasn't that all animal rights activists are angels, but moreso that there is a bias against them from government/law enforcement. Some anti-abortion activists have bombed abortion clinics, but you don't see the anti-abortion movement labelled as a bunch of terrorists.
wooster 14y ago
That's hardly all the ALF does. Here's a partial list: http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2002/fall/from-push-to-shove/eco-violence-the-rec http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/br... And, despite what you say down-thread, the FBI also considers abortion clinic violence to be acts of domestic terrorism. For example, scan this list from the FBI: http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/terrorism-2002-2005 http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/terrorism-200... From the same document: Terrorism is defined in the Code of Federal Regulations as “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives” (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85). So, by that standard, firebombing feed trucks would be terrorism. Secret filming would not.
- pyre 14y ago
  | the FBI also considers abortion clinic | violence to be acts of domestic terrorism I was referring to the feeling I get from (generic) law enforcement in the US that "1 animal rights 'terrorism incident' == all animal rights people are terrorists," but "1 abortion clinic bombed == just an isolated incident." I think it stems from the idea that AR activists are "a bunch of dirty hippies" or anarchists, whereas anti-abortion protesters are just fine, upstanding Christians. Of course, none of this will be in official documents, much in the same way that DWB[1] is not an actual offence, or official department policy. [1] Driving While Black

by pyre 14y ago

polymatter 14y ago

Its worse because it trivialises actual terrorists and the people that gave their lives to protect us from them.

DanBC 14y ago

ALF is an umbrella term. There was an ALF press office, which would release information and propaganda. But anyone was free to perform an action and claim it for the ALF. Calling an organisation like that terrorist is problematic. But, still ... There was a campaign against department stores selling fur in the 80s / 90s. The claimed intent was to cause massive water damage from sprinkler systems. People would place incendiary devices into the pockets of clothes (one reason pockets are now stitched closed) and these devices would go off at night. Unfortunately sprinkler systems didn't go off, and stores burnt down. 'Out of hours' does not mean 'empty'; the lives of cleaners, for example, were risked by this campaign. There have been other arson campaigns against abattoirs, meat packing / distribution plants, dairies, etc. Animal rights activists have dug up corpses. There has been an extensive campaign of harassment against anyone linked to Huntingdon Life Sciences; this includes anyone providing any form of service to HLS. People think in terms of 'legitimate targets'. A company is a legitimate target. Anyone working for that company is a legitimate target. The children of, for example, a secretary working for that company are not legitimate targets. Early members of ALF got advice from IRA. Breaking the law to further a political cause is, perhaps, fine. But some of the extremes done in the name of animal rights are clearly terrorist offences.

pyre 14y ago
Maybe so, but the government likes to label all animal rights activists as terrorists. Even groups like ADL whose expressed mandate is to promote animal rights via legal means. My point wasn't that all animal rights activists are angels, but moreso that there is a bias against them from government/law enforcement. Some anti-abortion activists have bombed abortion clinics, but you don't see the anti-abortion movement labelled as a bunch of terrorists.

wooster 14y ago

That's hardly all the ALF does. Here's a partial list: http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2002/fall/from-push-to-shove/eco-violence-the-rec http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/br... And, despite what you say down-thread, the FBI also considers abortion clinic violence to be acts of domestic terrorism. For example, scan this list from the FBI: http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/terrorism-2002-2005 http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/terrorism-200... From the same document: Terrorism is defined in the Code of Federal Regulations as “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives” (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85). So, by that standard, firebombing feed trucks would be terrorism. Secret filming would not.

pyre 14y ago
| the FBI also considers abortion clinic | violence to be acts of domestic terrorism I was referring to the feeling I get from (generic) law enforcement in the US that "1 animal rights 'terrorism incident' == all animal rights people are terrorists," but "1 abortion clinic bombed == just an isolated incident." I think it stems from the idea that AR activists are "a bunch of dirty hippies" or anarchists, whereas anti-abortion protesters are just fine, upstanding Christians. Of course, none of this will be in official documents, much in the same way that DWB[1] is not an actual offence, or official department policy. [1] Driving While Black