What do you think?
Rate this book
Terrorists or Freedom Fighters?: Reflections on the Liberation of Animals
The first anthology of writings on the history, ethics, politics and tactics of the Animal Liberation Front, Terrorists or Freedom Fighters? features both academic and activist perspectives and offers powerful insights into this international organization and its position within the animal rights movement. Calling on sources as venerable as Thomas Aquinas and as current as the Patriot Act―and, in some cases, personal experience―the contributors explore the history of civil disobedience and sabotage, and examine the philosophical and cultural meanings of words like "terrorism," "democracy" and "freedom," in a book that ultimately challenges the values and assumptions that pervade our culture. Contributors include Robin Webb, Rod Coronado, Ingrid Newkirk, Paul Watson, Karen Davis, Bruce Friedrich, pattrice jones and others.
402 pages, Paperback
First published June 1, 2004
14 people are currently reading
675 people want to read
About the author
Steven Best
20 books43 followersSteven Best is an American animal rights advocate, author, and associate professor of philosophy at the University of Texas at El Paso. A writer for The Chronicle of Higher Education described him in 2005 as "one of the leading scholarly voices on animal rights."
Best is co-founder of the Institute for Critical Animal Studies (ICAS), formerly known as the Center on Animal Liberation Affairs (CALA). His academic interests are continental philosophy, postmodernism, and environmental philosophy. He is known for his post-structuralist notions of revolution, based equally in animal rights and sexual liberation. He is the editor, with Anthony J. Nocella, of Terrorists or Freedom Fighters? Reflections on the Liberation of Animals (2004), which has a foreword by Ward Churchill, and the companion volume on revolutionary environmentalism, Igniting a Revolution: Voices in Defense of the Earth (2006).
In December 2004, Best co-founded the North American Animal Liberation Press Office, which acts as a media office for a number of animal rights groups, including the Animal Liberation Front (ALF), though he has said that he is not himself an ALF activist. He came to public attention in 2005, when the British Home Office told him it intended to use counter-terrorist measures adopted in light of the July 2005 London bombings to prevent him from addressing an animal rights rally in the UK. Best responded by alleging that Britain was becoming a police state.
Excerpted from Wikipedia.
Best is co-founder of the Institute for Critical Animal Studies (ICAS), formerly known as the Center on Animal Liberation Affairs (CALA). His academic interests are continental philosophy, postmodernism, and environmental philosophy. He is known for his post-structuralist notions of revolution, based equally in animal rights and sexual liberation. He is the editor, with Anthony J. Nocella, of Terrorists or Freedom Fighters? Reflections on the Liberation of Animals (2004), which has a foreword by Ward Churchill, and the companion volume on revolutionary environmentalism, Igniting a Revolution: Voices in Defense of the Earth (2006).
In December 2004, Best co-founded the North American Animal Liberation Press Office, which acts as a media office for a number of animal rights groups, including the Animal Liberation Front (ALF), though he has said that he is not himself an ALF activist. He came to public attention in 2005, when the British Home Office told him it intended to use counter-terrorist measures adopted in light of the July 2005 London bombings to prevent him from addressing an animal rights rally in the UK. Best responded by alleging that Britain was becoming a police state.
Excerpted from Wikipedia.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 20 of 20 reviews
August 6, 2011
After a good start, this book became a bit of a disappointment. Partially this could be the result of its being dated (copyright 2004); the appendix essay by Rod Coronado I found to be a bit self-indulgent and I could not help reading the hypocrisy in it (he has gone from vegan to vegetarian, and perhaps at this point is not even that!). I also was made very aware by how male-dominated direct action activism is. Equally irritating is the suggestion that if you are not involved in direct action you are not doing enough. Of course, I would claim that direct action can be as simple and above-ground as TNR, but that was not what the majority of the authors of the book claimed. The anonymous appendix essay by a female direct-action advocate gives some pause for thought as well. Does she strategize? I see her action of paint-bombing a fast food restaurant as not particularly worth the risk.
Some of these essays are inspiring, but many of them go over the same thing again and again, which makes the book difficult as a whole to get through - tedious and boring in places.
Some of these essays are inspiring, but many of them go over the same thing again and again, which makes the book difficult as a whole to get through - tedious and boring in places.
July 20, 2014
Excellent. Some of the essays annoyed me; not radical enough, you know. But the good ones were good, and there were a few great ones! I'll have to go back and re-read this one.
September 2, 2011
Struggle for animal rights. Excellent book.
May 12, 2020
A humbling history of animal rights. I was expecting an onslaught of doctrine (there was a bit), but there was refreshing critique and contemplative reflection. This is a must read for those new to the animal rights movement. It grounded me and provided foundations in my understanding and appreciation for the movement. Not 5 stars mainly because points were repeated and could have been condensed.
January 25, 2008
Amazing. I'm a geek and social thought theory, but there are essays that don't require you to like theory. There are a couple essays that pissed me off, but overall it was an excellent representation of the underground animal rights movement and how it interacts with the above ground movement.
July 25, 2015
I was eager to read this book because it features so many notable names of the animal rights movement collected in one volume. All weigh in—both in support and in opposition—on the use of illegal tactics in the name of animal rights, normally referred to as Animal Liberation Front activities.
One of the best essays was that of Karen Dawn, who analyzes media stories about animals through her blog DawnWatch. Dawn examines the way in which some specific ALF actions against the foie gras industry were reported in local media.
Karen Davis of United Poultry Concerns also offers up some thoughtful commentary in support of “open rescue” in lieu of covert ALF raids. However, in the years since American activists began trying open rescue—that is, removing a few desperately sick animals from massive poultry factory farms and being completely open about their identities while doing so—law enforcement began cracking down hard. Activists are now being imprisoned for years for saving a few birds worth pennies to industry. Some activists have since switched to undercover work in which they accept jobs at factory farms and covertly record the goings-on, with the intent of both showing the public what really happens in the food industry and exposing those workers who do violate either the law or company guidelines to prosecution. Industry and their allies in government have struck back with ag-gag legislation,, which criminalizes not the hideous cruelty, but rather photographing it. The famous John F. Kennedy quote, "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable," comes to mind.
In Bruce Friedrich’s essay in support of the ALF, he makes an argument echoed by a few other writers here, claiming that that illegal activities benefit the image of law-abiding activists, who are the vast majority:
The second way in which the ALF activities are, practically speaking, useful to the movement is that they shift the debate. In the same way that John Brown made William Jennings Bryan respectable, ALF activities make the rest of the movement respectable. … I think it’s equally true that those who work on the radical fringe push that fringe outward and make others, formerly radical from society’s vantage, seem far more mainstream. And that, of course, is our goal: to alert society to the fact that animal liberation is every bit as reasonable, as a movement and philosophy, as was abolition of slavery and suffrage for women.
Yeah…good try, but, um, no. The animal rights movement has gained in visibility, but it remains a painfully small segment of the American populace. This allows the far, far more powerful animal industries to steer the debate and paint the entire movement with a broad brush.
Ironically, a few paragraphs later Friedrich himself acknowledges how a comment he made at a conference was picked up on by the opposition, and was splashed across anti-animal rights advertisements created by a meat industry front group. Property destruction and threatening messages are a great gift to the PR departments of the animal exploiters and their apologists, who can then gleefully use their superior funding to convince the general public that we’re all “terrorists” who shouldn’t be listened to anyway. Several years ago, I can remember a syndicated columnist who appeared in my local newspaper, who warned readers that they shouldn’t be duped into thinking that most animal advocates are good, law-abiding citizens—rather all of us are dangerous, violent criminals. I of course fired a letter to the editor right back at that one (which was heavily edited by the paper and didn’t even appear in the same edition the column originally appeared in), but the highly offensive column would have appeared nationwide in every newspaper that subscribed to its syndicate.
Friedrich compares our movement to other historical liberation movements. However, there was never a time when 98% of Americans owned slaves, which is about the same percentage as eat animals today. Women can participate in the fight for their own rights, whereas animals cannot. The mainstream is more than willing to accept the “don’t listen to them, they’re all crazies” line fed to them by the animal use industries because, well, then they don’t have to make any changes to their lifestyles.
One of the best essays was that of Karen Dawn, who analyzes media stories about animals through her blog DawnWatch. Dawn examines the way in which some specific ALF actions against the foie gras industry were reported in local media.
Karen Davis of United Poultry Concerns also offers up some thoughtful commentary in support of “open rescue” in lieu of covert ALF raids. However, in the years since American activists began trying open rescue—that is, removing a few desperately sick animals from massive poultry factory farms and being completely open about their identities while doing so—law enforcement began cracking down hard. Activists are now being imprisoned for years for saving a few birds worth pennies to industry. Some activists have since switched to undercover work in which they accept jobs at factory farms and covertly record the goings-on, with the intent of both showing the public what really happens in the food industry and exposing those workers who do violate either the law or company guidelines to prosecution. Industry and their allies in government have struck back with ag-gag legislation,, which criminalizes not the hideous cruelty, but rather photographing it. The famous John F. Kennedy quote, "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable," comes to mind.
In Bruce Friedrich’s essay in support of the ALF, he makes an argument echoed by a few other writers here, claiming that that illegal activities benefit the image of law-abiding activists, who are the vast majority:
The second way in which the ALF activities are, practically speaking, useful to the movement is that they shift the debate. In the same way that John Brown made William Jennings Bryan respectable, ALF activities make the rest of the movement respectable. … I think it’s equally true that those who work on the radical fringe push that fringe outward and make others, formerly radical from society’s vantage, seem far more mainstream. And that, of course, is our goal: to alert society to the fact that animal liberation is every bit as reasonable, as a movement and philosophy, as was abolition of slavery and suffrage for women.
Yeah…good try, but, um, no. The animal rights movement has gained in visibility, but it remains a painfully small segment of the American populace. This allows the far, far more powerful animal industries to steer the debate and paint the entire movement with a broad brush.
Ironically, a few paragraphs later Friedrich himself acknowledges how a comment he made at a conference was picked up on by the opposition, and was splashed across anti-animal rights advertisements created by a meat industry front group. Property destruction and threatening messages are a great gift to the PR departments of the animal exploiters and their apologists, who can then gleefully use their superior funding to convince the general public that we’re all “terrorists” who shouldn’t be listened to anyway. Several years ago, I can remember a syndicated columnist who appeared in my local newspaper, who warned readers that they shouldn’t be duped into thinking that most animal advocates are good, law-abiding citizens—rather all of us are dangerous, violent criminals. I of course fired a letter to the editor right back at that one (which was heavily edited by the paper and didn’t even appear in the same edition the column originally appeared in), but the highly offensive column would have appeared nationwide in every newspaper that subscribed to its syndicate.
Friedrich compares our movement to other historical liberation movements. However, there was never a time when 98% of Americans owned slaves, which is about the same percentage as eat animals today. Women can participate in the fight for their own rights, whereas animals cannot. The mainstream is more than willing to accept the “don’t listen to them, they’re all crazies” line fed to them by the animal use industries because, well, then they don’t have to make any changes to their lifestyles.
May 10, 2024
A COLLECTION OF ESSAYS (PRO AND CON) DISCUSSING “ANIMAL LIBERATION”
The Foreword to this 2004 by Ward Churchill states, “unquestionably, those committed to the struggle for animal liberation are among the least understood of all contemporary oppositionists, not only in tactical terms, but philosophically. It is therefore fortunate that Steven Best and Anthony Nocella .. provide the present volume, providing … that it undeniably the most detailed and comprehensive overview of the thinking that has underpinned the sustained and … growing activism on behalf, not only of nonhuman animals, but the natural order in its entirety.” (Pg. 2)
Best and Nocella wrote in the Introduction, “This is a book about a new breed of freedom fighters---human activists who risk their own liberty to rescue and aid animals imprisoned in hellish conditions. Loosely bonded in a decentralized, anonymous, underground, global network, these activists are members of the Animal Liberation Front (ALF). Their daring deeds have earned them a top spot on the FBI ‘domestic terrorists’ list as they redefine political struggle for the current era…. They recognize a profound crisis in the human relation with the natural world, such that the time has long passed for moderation, delay, and compromise… ALF activists operate under cover, at night, wearing balaclavas and ski masks, and in small cells of a few people… skilled liberation teams break into buildings housing animal prisoners in order to release them… They seize and/or destroy equipment, property, and materials used to exploit animals, and they use arson to raze buildings and laboratories. They willfully break the law because the law wrongly consigns animals to cages and confinement, to loneliness and pain, to torture and death… motivated by love, empathy, compassion, and justice, animal liberationists are the antithesis of the ‘terrorists’ that government, industries, and mass media ideologues impugn them to be…. The goal of the ALF is… to free all animals from every form of slavey that binds them to human oppressors.” (Pg. 11-12)
They explain, “animals have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness… Even if animal ‘research’ assists human being in some way, that is no more guaranteeing of legitimacy than if the data came from experimenting on nonconsenting human beings… The blanket privileging of human over animal interests is simply speciesism… Thus, the ALF holds that animals are freed, not stolen, from fur farms or laboratories—and that when one destroys the inanimate property of animal exploiters one is merely leveling what was wrongfully used to violate the rights of living beings.” (Pg. 24) They continue, “While the ALF renounces physical violence against human beings, it also rejects the claim that destroying property is violence. The ALF is grounded on the principle that laws protecting animal exploitation industries are unjust, and they break them in deference to the higher moral principle of animal rights.” (Pg. 25)
They acknowledge, “by destroying property, activists do cause some kind of harm or injury to those who own the property or have a stake in it. People whose homes, cars, or offices are damaged suffer fear, anxiety, and trauma… From this line of reasoning, one could conclude that property destruction is violence. If sabotage is violence, it pales in comparison to what industries inflict on animals is the speciesist Gulags, factories, and killing fields/seas of industrial capitalism… Let moral outrage be put in proper perspective.” (Pg. 32)
They point out, “mainstream organizations don’t have to openly cooperate with or support the ALF to benefit from their actions. The ALF enhances their credibility and effectiveness by providing a militant alternative that makes them seem reasonable and temperate in comparison. The ‘moderate’ and acceptable path of change is defined only in relation to a more controversial and ‘extreme’ road. Mainstream wilderness organizations often got additional land designated as wilderness areas only because Earth First! and demanding far more.” (Pg. 46) They go on, “There are two faces of the ALF---the ‘benign’ one that breaks into prisons to release and rescue animals, and the ‘malign’ one that smashes windows, wrecks equipment, and torches buildings… Many animal rights advocates embrace both sides of the ALF, while others feel that its emphasis has changed from liberation to sabotage, leading it to a more ‘violent’ turn. In fact, the ALF has always pursued both pathways…” (Pg. 47)
Later, they add, “This book is … the first volume every written on the ALF…. [it] is an anthology of essays by leading supporters and critics of the ALF from WITHIN the animal rights movement… the animal rights community differs considerably over the proper means to achieve this end, and so this book presents both defenses and critiques of the ALF. In addition, this anthology brings together the thoughts of prominent activists and academics, thereby creating a rare encounter of perspectives…” (Pg. 49)
Kim Stallwood explains, “The media coverage tended to glamorize the people and the actions and, as it continued, a new wave of activists became interested in direct action. This new group tended to be younger, unemployed, and anarchist. They placed animal liberation within a larger context of opposition to the state, the military-industrial complex, capitalism and socialism. They did not embrace nonviolence. They saw illegal direct action for animals as opportunities to violently confront the society they rejected… At the same time, it became increasingly more difficult to successfully liberate animals because security and police activity increased. This caused a shift primarily toward acts of ‘economic sabotage,’ which included ‘bricking’ butcher’s shop windows, arson, food poisoning threats, letter bombs, incendiary devices, and so on.” (Pg. 83-84)
He outlines, “I believe in direct action that *is motivated by a sense of compassion for all beings (human and nonhuman alike); *tells the truth about animal cruelty and all resulting harms it causes to people and the environment; *is accomplished with adherence to nonviolent principles to all beings… and property; and *is undertaken only after all consequences of the direct action and its impact on all people and animals are carefully considered by the protagonists, who are willing to honestly and openly accept the consequences.” (Pg. 88)
Mark Bernstein acknowledges, “I believe that animal liberationists must admit that there are times when they intentionally terrify. They want people who indulge in particular practices to feel uncomfortable. In the best of all worlds, this discomfort would provide an opportunity for reassessment, but… the liberationist ultimately hopes for a change of behavior…. Liberationists, by and large, do not intend that the scientists feel concerned about their own personal safety, but they do want them to realize that their working conditions will degrade if they continue maiming and killing animals.” (Pg. 100)
Lawrence Sampson argues, “The Animal Liberation Front should be commended. After all, it’s easier to think than to act. It’s more convenient to have a belief than to act on that belief… in this day and age, where any sort of nonmainstream, secular, or divergent thought or ideology gets you branded a ‘terrorist,’ it is a courageous thing indeed to take action toward the implementation of what a person thinks is right or just. It is perhaps the saddest statement on the mindset of society that acting on our beliefs is so unusual, indeed so rare, that it can be easily demonized.” (Pg. 185)
Karen Dawn notes of a newspaper article about 10,000 farm-raised minks being released into the wild, “The article did describe the havoc created by the loose animals… It asked, ‘What is more cruel to the mink: being raised and killed in a cage, or being freed and possibly killed in the wild?’ A neighbor, who lost companion animals to the mink and was furious about the release, nevertheless gave this valuable quote: ‘I mean, c’mon, it’s 2003. No one needs to wear fur coats.’” (Pg. 221-222)
Tom Regan points out, “the central question … asks, ‘Is the use of violence in defense of animals ever justified?’ Some animal rights advocates … understand the meaning of ‘violence’ … [as] causing physical harm to a sentient being, human or otherwise…. I personally disagree… and I am not alone. Ask any member of the general public whether firebombing an empty synagogue involves violence. Ask any lawyer whether arson is a violent crime… The response is overwhelmingly likely to be, ‘… OF COURSE these acts are violent.’… our language is not tortured or stretched when we speak of the ‘violent destruction of property.’ The plain fact is, we do not need to hurt someone in order to do violence to something.” (Pg. 232-233)
This book will be keen interest to those studying the animal rights movement.
The Foreword to this 2004 by Ward Churchill states, “unquestionably, those committed to the struggle for animal liberation are among the least understood of all contemporary oppositionists, not only in tactical terms, but philosophically. It is therefore fortunate that Steven Best and Anthony Nocella .. provide the present volume, providing … that it undeniably the most detailed and comprehensive overview of the thinking that has underpinned the sustained and … growing activism on behalf, not only of nonhuman animals, but the natural order in its entirety.” (Pg. 2)
Best and Nocella wrote in the Introduction, “This is a book about a new breed of freedom fighters---human activists who risk their own liberty to rescue and aid animals imprisoned in hellish conditions. Loosely bonded in a decentralized, anonymous, underground, global network, these activists are members of the Animal Liberation Front (ALF). Their daring deeds have earned them a top spot on the FBI ‘domestic terrorists’ list as they redefine political struggle for the current era…. They recognize a profound crisis in the human relation with the natural world, such that the time has long passed for moderation, delay, and compromise… ALF activists operate under cover, at night, wearing balaclavas and ski masks, and in small cells of a few people… skilled liberation teams break into buildings housing animal prisoners in order to release them… They seize and/or destroy equipment, property, and materials used to exploit animals, and they use arson to raze buildings and laboratories. They willfully break the law because the law wrongly consigns animals to cages and confinement, to loneliness and pain, to torture and death… motivated by love, empathy, compassion, and justice, animal liberationists are the antithesis of the ‘terrorists’ that government, industries, and mass media ideologues impugn them to be…. The goal of the ALF is… to free all animals from every form of slavey that binds them to human oppressors.” (Pg. 11-12)
They explain, “animals have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness… Even if animal ‘research’ assists human being in some way, that is no more guaranteeing of legitimacy than if the data came from experimenting on nonconsenting human beings… The blanket privileging of human over animal interests is simply speciesism… Thus, the ALF holds that animals are freed, not stolen, from fur farms or laboratories—and that when one destroys the inanimate property of animal exploiters one is merely leveling what was wrongfully used to violate the rights of living beings.” (Pg. 24) They continue, “While the ALF renounces physical violence against human beings, it also rejects the claim that destroying property is violence. The ALF is grounded on the principle that laws protecting animal exploitation industries are unjust, and they break them in deference to the higher moral principle of animal rights.” (Pg. 25)
They acknowledge, “by destroying property, activists do cause some kind of harm or injury to those who own the property or have a stake in it. People whose homes, cars, or offices are damaged suffer fear, anxiety, and trauma… From this line of reasoning, one could conclude that property destruction is violence. If sabotage is violence, it pales in comparison to what industries inflict on animals is the speciesist Gulags, factories, and killing fields/seas of industrial capitalism… Let moral outrage be put in proper perspective.” (Pg. 32)
They point out, “mainstream organizations don’t have to openly cooperate with or support the ALF to benefit from their actions. The ALF enhances their credibility and effectiveness by providing a militant alternative that makes them seem reasonable and temperate in comparison. The ‘moderate’ and acceptable path of change is defined only in relation to a more controversial and ‘extreme’ road. Mainstream wilderness organizations often got additional land designated as wilderness areas only because Earth First! and demanding far more.” (Pg. 46) They go on, “There are two faces of the ALF---the ‘benign’ one that breaks into prisons to release and rescue animals, and the ‘malign’ one that smashes windows, wrecks equipment, and torches buildings… Many animal rights advocates embrace both sides of the ALF, while others feel that its emphasis has changed from liberation to sabotage, leading it to a more ‘violent’ turn. In fact, the ALF has always pursued both pathways…” (Pg. 47)
Later, they add, “This book is … the first volume every written on the ALF…. [it] is an anthology of essays by leading supporters and critics of the ALF from WITHIN the animal rights movement… the animal rights community differs considerably over the proper means to achieve this end, and so this book presents both defenses and critiques of the ALF. In addition, this anthology brings together the thoughts of prominent activists and academics, thereby creating a rare encounter of perspectives…” (Pg. 49)
Kim Stallwood explains, “The media coverage tended to glamorize the people and the actions and, as it continued, a new wave of activists became interested in direct action. This new group tended to be younger, unemployed, and anarchist. They placed animal liberation within a larger context of opposition to the state, the military-industrial complex, capitalism and socialism. They did not embrace nonviolence. They saw illegal direct action for animals as opportunities to violently confront the society they rejected… At the same time, it became increasingly more difficult to successfully liberate animals because security and police activity increased. This caused a shift primarily toward acts of ‘economic sabotage,’ which included ‘bricking’ butcher’s shop windows, arson, food poisoning threats, letter bombs, incendiary devices, and so on.” (Pg. 83-84)
He outlines, “I believe in direct action that *is motivated by a sense of compassion for all beings (human and nonhuman alike); *tells the truth about animal cruelty and all resulting harms it causes to people and the environment; *is accomplished with adherence to nonviolent principles to all beings… and property; and *is undertaken only after all consequences of the direct action and its impact on all people and animals are carefully considered by the protagonists, who are willing to honestly and openly accept the consequences.” (Pg. 88)
Mark Bernstein acknowledges, “I believe that animal liberationists must admit that there are times when they intentionally terrify. They want people who indulge in particular practices to feel uncomfortable. In the best of all worlds, this discomfort would provide an opportunity for reassessment, but… the liberationist ultimately hopes for a change of behavior…. Liberationists, by and large, do not intend that the scientists feel concerned about their own personal safety, but they do want them to realize that their working conditions will degrade if they continue maiming and killing animals.” (Pg. 100)
Lawrence Sampson argues, “The Animal Liberation Front should be commended. After all, it’s easier to think than to act. It’s more convenient to have a belief than to act on that belief… in this day and age, where any sort of nonmainstream, secular, or divergent thought or ideology gets you branded a ‘terrorist,’ it is a courageous thing indeed to take action toward the implementation of what a person thinks is right or just. It is perhaps the saddest statement on the mindset of society that acting on our beliefs is so unusual, indeed so rare, that it can be easily demonized.” (Pg. 185)
Karen Dawn notes of a newspaper article about 10,000 farm-raised minks being released into the wild, “The article did describe the havoc created by the loose animals… It asked, ‘What is more cruel to the mink: being raised and killed in a cage, or being freed and possibly killed in the wild?’ A neighbor, who lost companion animals to the mink and was furious about the release, nevertheless gave this valuable quote: ‘I mean, c’mon, it’s 2003. No one needs to wear fur coats.’” (Pg. 221-222)
Tom Regan points out, “the central question … asks, ‘Is the use of violence in defense of animals ever justified?’ Some animal rights advocates … understand the meaning of ‘violence’ … [as] causing physical harm to a sentient being, human or otherwise…. I personally disagree… and I am not alone. Ask any member of the general public whether firebombing an empty synagogue involves violence. Ask any lawyer whether arson is a violent crime… The response is overwhelmingly likely to be, ‘… OF COURSE these acts are violent.’… our language is not tortured or stretched when we speak of the ‘violent destruction of property.’ The plain fact is, we do not need to hurt someone in order to do violence to something.” (Pg. 232-233)
This book will be keen interest to those studying the animal rights movement.
February 29, 2008
If you've ever wondered what the fucktards in the A.L.F. are thinking, this is a pretty excellent book. It basically convinced me that I'm not nearly radical enough and I should start breaking into shit and burning shit down immediately. (attn FBI: You don't need to put me under surveillance. While the book did convince me, I'm entirely too lazy to follow through)
Also, my friend Anthony Nocella was an editor of the book, so support my homie.
Also, my friend Anthony Nocella was an editor of the book, so support my homie.
February 22, 2018
One of the best and most thought provoking books I’ve ever read. I challenge anyone to finish this book (it’s interesting and the contributors are great writers, so it’s a pleasure to read) and still tell me they think it’s ok for us to kill animals for food, research, and use them for our entertainment. The ALF (and others fighting for animal rights) are doing excellent work trying to protect the billions of animals our society continues to abuse each year, and this book does a fantastic job of showing you their reasoning. Would recommend to anyone, but especially to those wondering why some people are fighting so hard on behalf of animals.
June 15, 2018
A good way to understand the ALF perspective
The collection of writings were thought-provoking and interesting. Despite the title, it was fairly one-sided, with most writings being pro-ALF. This anthology doesn't contain a good objective description of the ALF and its history since all of its writings are very biased.
The collection of writings were thought-provoking and interesting. Despite the title, it was fairly one-sided, with most writings being pro-ALF. This anthology doesn't contain a good objective description of the ALF and its history since all of its writings are very biased.
September 14, 2022
Classic book. There are things I'd wish were done differently, however, it's the only book I'm aware deals with the ALF's early history.
Several essays oppose the "new" model of Open Rescue vs the clandestine style of the ALF. It's interesting how Open Rescue has played out in the two decades since these essays were written.
Several essays oppose the "new" model of Open Rescue vs the clandestine style of the ALF. It's interesting how Open Rescue has played out in the two decades since these essays were written.
March 15, 2023
On my never finished shelf not because I got bored but because it’s an anthology and I only read what I found interesting. Definitely worth paging through. I particularly appreciated pattrice Jones’ essay
July 13, 2022
This will be useful if researching direct action animal lib and activities on the border of VE. I didn’t enjoy it as a read for readings sake, but the info is useful.
December 29, 2023
One of the most important work in the Animal Rights literature.
The complete analysis of ethics and acts of ALF. Unbiased perspective from various scholars including legends like Tom Regan.
The complete analysis of ethics and acts of ALF. Unbiased perspective from various scholars including legends like Tom Regan.
November 3, 2011
I was really challenged by this book. What do we do to address ongoing situations of cruelty and abuse? Does lobbying, consumer pressure etc. bring about the desired effect on its own and what about the suffering that continues while we campaign in quite passive ways? How can we live with that? For example, since my youth I have been involved in campaigning against vivisection and factory farming, yet despite my efforts and the much bigger efforts of other campaigners and organizations, nothing has changed for the better. Worldwide, one billion animals a week continue to be slaughtered for food and millions are still subjected to disgusting experiments in laboratories in the name of research, medicine etc. We are drowning in the blood of non-human animals. Should human interests and human property always be valued more highly than other species? I think not.
So I have to admire those ALF activists who have managed to close laboratories, fur farms etc. through sabotaging property. And I was heartened to learn that their creed is to NEVER cause harm to any person. Sabotage of property is, of course, still an act of intimidation and violence, and therefore hateful. But what about the legal violence that happens to all those millions of non-human animals? That is much more hateful and we are morally bound to fight for the voiceless, the vulnerable, the suffering - be they human or non-human.
I was touched by the term - "the animal nations" - a neat way of expressing the wholistic view of sharing the earth with all the other species,and we just one among them.
So I have to admire those ALF activists who have managed to close laboratories, fur farms etc. through sabotaging property. And I was heartened to learn that their creed is to NEVER cause harm to any person. Sabotage of property is, of course, still an act of intimidation and violence, and therefore hateful. But what about the legal violence that happens to all those millions of non-human animals? That is much more hateful and we are morally bound to fight for the voiceless, the vulnerable, the suffering - be they human or non-human.
I was touched by the term - "the animal nations" - a neat way of expressing the wholistic view of sharing the earth with all the other species,and we just one among them.
October 20, 2008
A really good introduction into the world of animal rights activism--specifically the schism that exists between what are called "animal welfare-ists" and "animal liberationists". The difference between the two is kind of similar to the differences between radicals and liberals. One sees the option of the state and its machinery as a viable means to make change while the other takes matters into their own hands because they see the state as a broken system that exists to perpetuate itself and the violence it creates.
However you fall on the issue, the book has some really good essays--some aren't so great as with any anthology--but overall I remember really enjoying this piece of work.
However you fall on the issue, the book has some really good essays--some aren't so great as with any anthology--but overall I remember really enjoying this piece of work.
January 1, 2015
I found this to be a comprehensive guide to ALF, albeit a rather repetitive one. There were multiple good articles in this one but largely they are were heavy with repetition and statistics which those who have read things on animal rights before will know about. Although there were meant to be differing viewpoints and topics expressed in the book it still left me feeling like I was reading the same things over and over again. This is definitely a book intended for those in animal rights and not for individuals who are just curious. It is a very heavy, textbook-like volume.
August 16, 2007
I found this book to be very textual. It was difficult to read and I never finished it. I think it's a good resource, and if you like essays will really like it.
Read
August 20, 2012new
Displaying 1 - 20 of 20 reviews