Behind the Mask (2006)

“I don’t believe you can ever challenge the law without Direct Action.”

Behind the Mask, directed by Los Angeles animal rights lawyer Shannon Keith examines why some animal rights activists feel compelled to break the law and risk jail in order to liberate animals from factory farms and laboratories. The title refers to the ideas behind the acts of those who wear masks when raiding those nasty little laboratories and farms. If there’s another film out there that bothers to ask people in depth exactly why they feel so strongly about the issue of the treatment of animals, and why they break into facilities to save animals and expose the treatment meted out, I don’t know about it.

Now let’s be perfectly clear here; the Animal Liberation Front is not an organization. So you can’t write off and ask for a membership card and you can’t join. That said, the Animal Liberation Front has guidelines which are posted on the website www.uncagedfilms.com , the website created by the makers of Behind the Mask. Labeled a terrorist group, ALF has been around now for decades, and as with all marginalized groups, they have become ‘unnewsworthy.’ The film’s tagline is: The film the government doesn’t want you to see, but I’d argue that it’s a film that corporations don’t want you to see. Although of course, government and corporations are connected in the most advantageous and powerful ways.

The film examines some of the methods used by ALF, and we see footage of raids on various labs and farms. Various animal activists (some of whom have served prison time for their actions) address issues involved in animal liberation. Some see animal liberation as the “modern day underground railroad.” Others raid labs, breaking the law, in an attempt to bring the treatment of lab animals to the attention of the public. One PETA activist describes her harrowing undercover work in a laboratory, and Ingrid Newkirk, president of PETA addresses the idea that every consumer can do something by simply not purchasing products from companies who test on animals. One of the arguments that supports the testing of animals is that it is a necessary process for its contributions to human medicine. Dr. Vlasak, a trauma surgeon addresses the absurdity of the argument that animal testing contributes to human medicine (it doesn’t): “the vast majority of all animal research is never ever useful for treating human health issues.”

Interviewee Rod Coronado addresses one of the criticisms of ALF by stressing that “it’s very easy to prevent human fatalities when carrying out Direct Action.”

Given the subject matter, some of the footage is grueling. Animals die on screen in the most disgusting and appalling ways using so-called efficient methods. I’ll admit some of the footage disturbed my sleep for several nights, but I expected this when I started the film. And to be honest, I think this is one of the reasons the general public shy away from the details of what goes on in the labs and slaughter houses; we don’t want to educate ourselves about the issues because part of us knows full well that the process of exactly how that bacon ended up in the supermarket shelf, for example, is full of earth-shattering violence and disdain for the suffering of animals. Some of the footage includes scenes in slaughter houses, and some of the footage exposes the conditions that exist in the labs–along with some horrendous photos of lab animals. One scene, for example, shows a burly lab tech punching a Beagle unconscious telling the dog “you had your chance.”

The film also makes the point that the vast pharmaceutical companies use pressure to pull media ads targeting laboratory animal abuse. While the film points out that Direct Action and economic sabotage have closed several facilities (a rabbit farm, for example), the point is not made that some of those closed down are very small time operators with fairly easy access. The huge laboratories, which are as secure as Fort Knox, remain largely untouched. I have a sneaking suspicion that some of these actions just make insurance companies fatter and richer, and I loathe insurance companies.

One great interview in Behind the Mask reinforces the idea that animal liberators have become increasingly marginalized–and often painted with the same brush as terrorists when we see the lead singer of Goldfinger, John Feldmann whose house was surrounded by helicopters and a SWAT team after his wife attended an animal rights protest.

One of the arguments made in Against All Odds: Animal Liberation 1972-1986 (a brief history of the development of the Animal Liberation Movement which argues that animal liberation, herded into illegality, has moved in the wrong direction) is that marginalization is the natural result of the intense criminalization of protestors–for example in the sentencing of acts of simple trespass. By blocking legal avenues for protest, society gets what it creates–illegal actions. To quote Victor Serge “Thus we have neither to approve nor disapprove of illegal actions. We say: they are logical.”

Ultimately, animal liberation raises some complex, uncomfortable moral questions. Have acts of animal liberation brought the issue of animal exploitation in factory farming and laboratory testing to the public’s attention? Or do people just tune out at the mention of ALF? Unfortunately it’s going to be very, very difficult to create a paradigm shift against the eating of meat–although this may happen with the seeming increasing number of meat contamination cases that make the headlines and enter public consciousness. But I do think the area of laboratory testing is ripe for education. The film makes the point that laboratory testing that involves animals is an “industry that regulates itself.” Most of the ‘public’ simply don’t know what’s involved in product testing, and if they did, it’s likely that a certain percentage would boycott corporations that operate with such flagrant, disgusting and careless disregard for animal life.

In the meantime, watch Behind the Mask and inform yourself about exactly how animals are treated. One thing we can all do is stop supporting companies that test on animals by simply not buying their products. For more information on corporations that test on animals, visit www.caringconsumer.com

Behind the Mask is available at www.akpress.com

Against All Odds: Animal Liberation 1972-1986 by J.J. Roberts

“If vivisection was against the interests of the ruling class they would abolish it very quickly, either by the use of their legislative powers, or more quickly by decisions made at Board meetings. Commercial forms of animal abuse such as vivisection and factory framing are in the financial interests of the ruling class, and bloodsports are an essential part of their social fabric. The parliamentary campaign is in fact asking us to petition the ruling class to act against their own best interest.”

At around 118 pages, Against All Odds: Animal Liberation 1972-1986 by J.J. Roberts traces the Animal Liberation movement during its crucial formative years. Focusing on Britain, the book (which takes the form of a thick booklet) is an overview of the landmark events that took place during this period. Additionally, the book examines tactics that worked, tactics that failed and argues that by 1984, the animal liberation movement “enjoyed widespread public support.” And of course, with this statement, we have to ask where did all that public support go? Was it lost or hijacked and can it be reclaimed?

The author argues that vivisection has always created “people who have taken direct action against it,” but that in 1972, some of those in the Hunt Saboteurs Association “decided to embark on a campaign of direct action against vehicles and other property used by the hunt.” This led to the formation of The Band of Mercy–a group that led raids on fox hunting kennels. But by 1973, the Band of Mercy expanded their activities to include other forms of animal abuse. The arrest and imprisonment of activists caused the Band of Mercy to cease, but by 1976 “ALF was born with the remnants of the Band of Mercy.” The author states that these early ALF years did not at first involve economic sabotage or arson.

The 80s saw the formation and growth of a number of regional Animal Liberation Leagues (NALL, SEALL). Tracing the formation, activities and eventual destruction of the various regional Animal Liberation Leagues, the book covers a fascinating history of direct action. What’s so fascinating here is the realization that NALL (Northern Animal Liberation League) policy was to “involve as many people as possible in campaigns to expose the animal abuse to the public.” And this, the author argues allowed NALL to “portray themselves as public guardians.” Describing NALL tactics, the book points out that “the raid itself was a means to an end, not an end in itself.” With minimum damage to gain entry, NALL raided numerous laboratories to gather evidence of animal abuse. It’s incredible in today’s political climate to imagine the sort of 400 person strong, nationally coordinated raid that NALL conducted. However, the author argues that failure to “maintain an active core of experienced members” led the NALL to strategic failures and their eventual demise. And one of NALL’s biggest mistakes was to fail to organize a defence campaign for those arrested and facing lengthy political trials.

While NALL had some great successes (evidenced by the widespread approval of NALL amongst the British public and the sheer numbers of those participating in the raids), the book argues that by 1983, the NALL’s policy to seize and expose evidence was “already dated theory.” In one SEALL (South East Animal Liberation League) raid for example, “none of the research papers ever surfaced to be used against” the laboratories in question–thus making the tactics of raid, seize and expose meaningless. In fact, it seems that the police adapted over the years to ‘deal’ with the raids, and this brought down arrests and lengthy conspiracy trials against raid participants. In some cases, those just protesting outside of the laboratories were summarily rounded up and arrested and lumped together in these conspiracy trials along with those who were found in the labs. As a result, massive arrests led to the SEALL’s “decision to move away from the chaos of mass action.”

For anyone interested in the subjects of Animal Liberation, this modest appearing booklet makes for a fascinating read. Charting the major actions against some of the most notorious labs, the ugly prolonged trials of activists (including the Trial of the Wickham 19), we see exactly how Animal Liberation morphed into new configurations–shaped by necessity, the legal system and the political climate. In 1984, the year in which the “Animal Liberation movement enjoyed widespread public support” activists “staged mass raids” at six animal research labs. As a result, more than 80 people were charged, and by 1986, 24 people–sentenced to a cumulative 41 years went to prison for their roles in an Eastern Animal Liberation League “anti-vivisection raid on the Unilever’s …research laboratory at Bedford.” The disastrous Unilever raid and its repercussions “may be viewed as a turning point where the animal liberation movement temporarily abandoned the attempt to build a mass movement and turned towards the militancy of the few.”

Also covered are the subjects of militancy, the impotency of parliamentary action, and decentralized structure vs. centralized organization. The author discusses some of the tactics used by various groups: including property destruction and Contamination. While the author notes that Contamination as a tactic can be vastly successful in terms of economic sabotage, the cost when considering antagonizing public opinion is far too high. Indeed the booklet cites the example of Sinn Fein’s use of violence and argues that although Sinn Fein warned police of planted incendiary devices, these warnings were not always passed on to the public. Hence, according to the author, for anyone even considering the use of violent or potentially life-threatening tactics (arson, explosive devices, contamination, etc), it’s simply not intelligent to put the police in the equation if you are counting on warning away the public because you may very well create a highly damaging PR event in which certain things are expendable.

Possibly the single most astonishing fact here is that Animal Liberation groups gathered conclusive evidence that pet/companion dogs and cats were stolen and fed into laboratories for experiments. Makes you wonder about all those dogs and cats that supposedly vanish from the planet every year, doesn’t it? Especially since vivisection labs are not exactly open to public scrutiny….

Available at: www.akpress.org

Making a Killing: The Political Economy of Animal Rights by Bob Torres

“The centrality of classifying animals as property should not be underestimated when it comes to considering the depths of animal exploitation woven into our society and economy. Having animals categorized as property gives us the ability to exploit them as a resource for even minor human wants.”

Anarchists disagree on a lot of issues but agree on others. Most would agree that hierarchy in this world–forced upon us at birth and ingrained through every aspect of culture is unacceptable. Most would agree society reinforces hierarchy through its many institutions, and that hand-in-hand with hierarchy comes unequal wealth and power distribution. And again, most anarchists would agree that capitalism has a huge role in oppressing and exploiting people; domination and hierarchy thrive in the fertile ground of an economic system that views people as units for production. But just how do animals fit into the capitalist equation? That’s a question asked by social anarchist Bob Torres in the book, Making a Killing: The Political Economy of Animal Rights. Torres takes a fresh and fascinating look at the way we treat animals, and in presenting his argument that animals are just as much a part of the corporate machine as humans, he argues that with a “baseline” of veganism:

“As a needless and unnecessary form of hierarchy, anarchists should reject the consumption, enslavement, and subjugation of animals for human ends, and identify it as yet another oppressive aspect of the relations of capital and a needless form of domination.”

Now to some, that statement–as we absorb it–makes perfect sense. But other anarchists will reject this position. Is it extreme to see that animals are simply tools in the capitalist machine? If we embrace this position, then surely the next thing is to reject the consumption of animal products, just as we reject other forms of capitalism that insidiously and persistently attempt to weave into every aspect of our lives.

Torres, a philosophy professor at St. Lawrence University presents his antispeciesist argument to the reader, and after finishing the book, I have to say that Making A Killing is one of the best books I read in 2007. Torres has managed to clarify many of the problems I had with issues connected to the animal rights movement, commodification of animals, and the animal agriculture industry. Torres presents irrefutable arguments regarding the treatment of animals, and he does this by combining Marxist economic theory with anarchist beliefs.

Arguing that there are “similarities with how humans are exploited as labor power” and “how animals are exploited as commodities,” Torres walks the reader through his belief that agriculture animals are members of the working class, with animals “mere ends towards the production of greater capital.” Holding absolute power and dominion over animals, we treat them in a range of ways–at best they are seen as property, at worst they are enslaved in the violence of the capitalist money making machine. Forced to labor and produce, “animals are nothing more than living machines, transformed from beings who live for themselves into beings that live for capital.”

But beyond examining animal agriculture, Torres also explores the exploitation of animals in vivisection. Citing some of the ridiculous and redundant aspects of animal experimentation, he notes that with a death toll of a “conservative estimate of 20 million animals per year in the United States alone” vivisection “is big business.”

Another issue covered in the book is the bizarre contrast in the way we treat animals. Torres argues that some species are granted special status, companion animals, for example. While they would seem to be higher on the hierarchal chain of worth assigned to them by humans, Torres notes that they still “seem to occupy a sort of nether-world between animal and human,” and that they are still fundamentally (legally) viewed as property. There’s a current trend afoot to encourage the ‘gentrification’ of companion animals by draping dogs and cats in designer jewelry. The capitalist system has undoubtedly seen the benefits of feeding the idea of companion animals as fashion accessories–there is–after all BIG money to be made on these consumerist trends.

Torres also blasts the animal rights groups who seem to have been effectively co-opted by capitalism (this should come as no great surprise to anarchists). While he acknowledges, “critiquing PETA is seen as a special form of heresy,” he cites several examples to back up his criticism; PETA’s granting the ‘Visionary” award, for example, to Temple Grandin for redesigning slaughterhouses “to decrease the amount of suffering that animals experience in their final hours.” According to Torres, this “defies rational comprehension” and is “at the very least contradictory.” Torres argues this is just one example of the many “Faustian bargains” mainstream organizations make with the animal agriculture industry in order to maintain “bureaucratic concerns.” He notes that we opt out of our responsibility by imagining that animal welfare groups are there in place to oversee the job for us. If the animal welfare groups are out there improving animal slaughter in order to ensure that happy animals end up on our dinner tables, then we can eat meat with a clear conscience.

Torres really hits some chords when he points out that in many ways, animal activist groups simple end up helping corporations develop great new business strategies and yuppie market niches. Citing the blatant example of Whole Foods, Torres notes that “they’ve been able to convince people that are supposedly opposed to animal exploitation to sign on to a business and marketing model that relies on the exploitation of animals, albeit in kinder, gentler ways.” Whole Foods, and other similar corporations “get to appear as the ‘ethical’ choice for consumers who care, but who don’t care enough to give up foods that exploit.” We’ve all seen the ads–ranging from Amish chickens to my personal favorite–’tasty veal without the cruelty.’

One of the things I particularly like about Torres’s book is that there is no aim to make us wallow in guilt. Guilt as an issue comes up only in connection with sneaky marketing ploys used by corporations designed to ensnare us into guilt avoidance. Torres makes his arguments with clear concise rationality, and he offers facts and figures without emotional hyperbole. The book ends on a surprisingly optimistic note with suggestions for readers. I’ve long been troubled by animal commodification and exploitation and Making a Killing: The Political Economy of Animal Rights synthesized these issues for me by placing animals “within the larger dynamics of capitalist exploitation.” The book includes an index (always appreciated by this reader), and scrupulous notes for further reading. Excellent.

17.95
AK Press
171 pages

Igniting a Revolution: Voices in Defense of the Earth edited by Steven Best

 “Fighting corporate ecocide by any means necessary short of physical violence.”

Igniting a Revolution: Voices in Defense of the Earth edited by Steven Best and Anthony J. Nocella, II is a hefty collection of essays examining the “emergence and intensification of ‘radical’ or ‘revolutionary’ environmentalism.” While the book’s foreword is quick to stress that the “essays do not represent the whole spectrum of opinion in the environmental movement” the topics covered here certainly examine the current most dynamic and controversial ideas. “Profound dissatisfaction with mainstream environmentalism” has led to a paradigm shift within the movement. Radical direct action tactics–ranging from civil disobedience to cybertage, hacktivism and acts of sabotage–are occurring on a daily basis across the planet. Exactly how this state of affairs occurred, and why growing numbers of people see traditional environmentalism as a failure is one of the many subjects covered in the book.

Included here is a great analysis of the birth and growth of the environmental movement, the significance of Earth First! and Greenpeace, the break-away and significant incidents within the movement–along with the formation of the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) and the Earth Liberation Front (ELF). In 1995, ELF was virtually unheard of in North America, but by 2005, the FBI identified ELF as “America’s greatest domestic terrorist threat.” Meanwhile, whopping sentences are handed down for those sentenced for acts of sabotage–Jeff Luers received a 22-year sentence for torching 3 SUVs. According to the FBI, these acts of sabotage are acts of Ecoterrorism, but according to ELF operatives, the acts–conducted against a global environmental crisis–are acts of “corporate ecocide.”

Due to the wide spread of issues covered here, some essays will undoubtedly appeal or seem more relevant than others. Topics include: Murray Bookchin’s Social Ecology, Deep Ecology, Eco-Racism, Eco-feminism, Freeganism, and Primitivism. Of particular value is “Revolutionary Environmentalism” by Mark Somma–an essay stressing that a “new social movement” and a “positive vision of a new society” are necessary components of any revolutionary change. Somma analyzes shallow vs. deep ecology and includes the Platform Principles of the Deep Ecology Movement. The essay outlines the components of radical environmentalism–and argues that a moral reevaluation and an ecological education must occur before a fundamental political and economic change can take place. In the essay “What is a Morally Defensible Level of Consumption?” author Robert Jensen asks some tough, direct, and highly relevant questions. Adam Weissman’s essay “The Revolution is Everyday Life” argues that eco-sabotage is an “incomplete model of resistance,” and that “new approaches to living” that are outside of the seductive capitalist model must be explored.

And on another note, there’s the essay “They Took Ulrike Meinhof’s Brain.” Apparently, after her death, the West German government removed Meinhof’s brain for testing with the absurd goal of discovering the “biological causes of her ‘deviant’ behavior.” How sick can you get?