ARCO's Abolitionists - A Vegan Forum

I was (re) reading the 6 principles of the AR movement that Gary Francione promotes, and got puzzled when I got to the last one, which is: We recognize the principle of nonviolence as the guiding principle of the animal rights movement.

What exactly does this word "nonviolence" encompass? Is it referring to only physical violence which could harm PHYSICALLY a living being (human in the case of AR), or would it also refer to economic sabotage which entails, for instance when it comes to some ALF type actions, smashing of laboratory equipment, for instance?

If some person decides to daub the windows of, let's say, a fur shop, with some anti-fur slogans, the owner of the shop could say he felt "violated". If someone refers to a vivisector as a torturer, the vivisector could feel that these words themselves are violent. One definition of "violence" is: notably furious or vehement.

Where exactly would the followers of these principles written by Gary Francione draw the line between non-violence and violence?

Diana wrote:I was (re) reading the 6 principles of the AR movement that Gary Francione promotes, and got puzzled when I got to the last one, which is: We recognize the principle of nonviolence as the guiding principle of the animal rights movement.

What exactly does this word "nonviolence" encompass? Is it referring to only physical violence which could harm PHYSICALLY a living being (human in the case of AR), or would it also refer to economic sabotage which entails, for instance when it comes to some ALF type actions, smashing of laboratory equipment, for instance?

If some person decides to daub the windows of, let's say, a fur shop, with some anti-fur slogans, the owner of the shop could say he felt "violated". If someone refers to a vivisector as a torturer, the vivisector could feel that these words themselves are violent. One definition of "violence" is: notably furious or vehement.

Where exactly would the followers of these principles written by Gary Francione draw the line between non-violence and violence?

This q reminds me of a booklet Peter Singer wrote in the 1980s about what represents legit actions "for the animals". I think it was published by Animal Aid. Essentially Singer argued against any activity which caused psychological harm. However, in theory, as you point out Diana, that would rule many things out - including speaking out in support of veganism if, say, that caused butchers or others in the meat industry psychological damage due to anxiety that their livelihoods are threatened.

There is obviously some line drawing needed here. Personally, I have always supported the ALF when they physically liberation nonhuman prisoners from factory farms and the like. Technically, that is theft of course because speciesist law regards nonhuman others as items of property. A victim of theft may well feel violated - but I'll reserve my concern for the nonhuman prisoners in this case. I have never thought smashing the window of a fur shop constitutes violence - but I think the notion of a "home visit" is extremely problematic.

Of course - on another level - non-veganism is a form of violence - and we could even raise the deaths caused by the raising and reaping of plantfoods. I think the wearing of leather shoes is an act of violence since it means a person has taken the skin of someone else and wrapped their feet in it.

Do you think that this issue could lead to a wide-ranging discourse is a problem?

RY

Rags: When we get the authorisation from the municipality to have our info stalls, there is always a paragraph written in bold letters which states that we must not show pictures or photos that could hurt the sensitivies of the public, as well as the sensitivities of those who have commercial interests in the fur industry. It seems to be only the fur people's "sensitivity" they worry about which leads me to believe that there must be some kind of collusion between the authorities and the fur lobby in our town.

I don't know whether they view our hurting these so-called "sensitivities" as violence or not. Probably. Anyway, as it is highly unlikely that anyone who is involved in the commerce of fur does have any sensitivities, these rules they give us are senseless. It would be comical if it wasn't so pathetic.

The newspapers regularly talk of "violent action" when a fur shop gets daubed or something like that. They seem to consider that violence is not only when someone's physical integrity is threatened.

I would be interested to know where Gary Francione draws the line between violence and non-violence, as this seems to be an extremely grey and subjective area.

Rags, you asked in your post: Do you think that this issue could lead to a wide-ranging discourse is a problem?. Could you please rephrase, as you seemed to have missed a word or something and I'm not sure 100% that I understood it.

The issue of violence, I think, has two facets. One being the moral legitimacy of it and the other being the practicality of it. As far as moral legitimacy goes, if one considers non-humans to have the same moral standing as humans, then one should ask, would violence be appropriate in this situation if it were being done to humans. If there was a holocaust committed against humans, most people would probably say that taking up arms and committing violence would be morally acceptable. I know this sounds rather radical and absurd on face value, but even killing would be morally legitimate. Would killing a Nazi in order to save a Jew destined to be exterminated by morally acceptable? I would say yes, and so would most people.

Then comes the issue of practicality, since committing violence is impractical in the sense that it won't solve any real major problem and since it will most likely harm the overall goal, one should not engage in these forms of acts. And since its not practical, it is morally wrong. Though it is not inherently wrong.

One of the things I plan on doing in my philosophy career to develop a theory of just violence (similar to just war theory) from a sentientist outlook.

I was looking through James's blog for a series of exchanges with Jerry Vlasak on violence and came across this:

in reference to GF Aug 13 2007: A Comment on Violence which included the quote:

Violence treats others as means to ends rather than as ends in themselves. When we engage in violence against others—whether they are human or nonhuman—we ignore their inherent value. We treat them only as things that have no value except that which we decide to give them. This is what leads people to engage in crimes of violence against people of color, women, and gays and lesbians. It is what leads us to commodify nonhumans and treat them as resources that exist solely for our use. All of it is wrong and should be rejected.

Second, for those who advocate violence, exactly against whom is this violence to be directed?

So I can't tell if damaging someone's property would qualify as violence against them. However, I'm also pretty sure he would be against it because it would get in the way of vegan outreach. That's the impression I'm getting in general - that even if the action itself is directed at property, the effect generated is negative and therefore highly problematic. So the question of whether it's classified as violence or something close isn't quite so important.

Tuesday, 14 August 2007 A Commentary by Karin Hilpisch on Gary Francione's Blog Entry entitled "A Comment on Violence."

The controversy about violence starts off with the question what violence is resp. what it is not; a vast area which requires far more consideration than I'm prepared to spend on it, at least in this post. Just one note: as far as violence, by whichever actions constituted, is linked with violating the law, and doing so in a significant manner to which the legislative response is the Animal Rights Terrorism Act, this response is certainly suited to achieve one thing: to impede or to complicate legal activism, the most effective form of which is abolitionist education.

and a recommendation of this:
Jeff Perz: Exclusive Non-Violent Action: Its Absolute Necessity for Building a Genuine Animal Rights Movement

Diana wrote:Rags: When we get the authorisation from the municipality to have our info stalls, there is always a paragraph written in bold letters which states that we must not show pictures or photos that could hurt the sensitivies of the public, as well as the sensitivities of those who have commercial interests in the fur industry. It seems to be only the fur people's "sensitivity" they worry about which leads me to believe that there must be some kind of collusion between the authorities and the fur lobby in our town.

Rags, you asked in your post: Do you think that this issue could lead to a wide-ranging discourse is a problem?. Could you please rephrase, as you seemed to have missed a word or something and I'm not sure 100% that I understood it.

That municipality information is shocking - and it is rather interesting why the fur business is singled out. Would this sort of thing extent to TV/media appearances? Presumably it would be easy to hrt the sensitivities of animal exploiters with public disclosure of their activities. Shocking indeed.

As for the comment about wide-ranging discourse, I meant to say that, since you were trying to tie down Francione's position, I'm aware that these conversations can spread due to the subjectivity involved in defining violence.

Rags

panthera wrote:I was looking through James's blog for a series of exchanges with Jerry Vlasak on violence and came across this:

in reference to GF Aug 13 2007: A Comment on Violence which included the quote:

Violence treats others as means to ends rather than as ends in themselves. When we engage in violence against others—whether they are human or nonhuman—we ignore their inherent value. We treat them only as things that have no value except that which we decide to give them. This is what leads people to engage in crimes of violence against people of color, women, and gays and lesbians. It is what leads us to commodify nonhumans and treat them as resources that exist solely for our use. All of it is wrong and should be rejected.

Second, for those who advocate violence, exactly against whom is this violence to be directed?

So I can't tell if damaging someone's property would qualify as violence against them. However, I'm also pretty sure he would be against it because it would get in the way of vegan outreach. That's the impression I'm getting in general - that even if the action itself is directed at property, the effect generated is negative and therefore highly problematic. So the question of whether it's classified as violence or something close isn't quite so important.

Tuesday, 14 August 2007 A Commentary by Karin Hilpisch on Gary Francione's Blog Entry entitled "A Comment on Violence."

The controversy about violence starts off with the question what violence is resp. what it is not; a vast area which requires far more consideration than I'm prepared to spend on it, at least in this post. Just one note: as far as violence, by whichever actions constituted, is linked with violating the law, and doing so in a significant manner to which the legislative response is the Animal Rights Terrorism Act, this response is certainly suited to achieve one thing: to impede or to complicate legal activism, the most effective form of which is abolitionist education.

and a recommendation of this:
Jeff Perz: Exclusive Non-Violent Action: Its Absolute Necessity for Building a Genuine Animal Rights Movement

The Jeff Perz article is interesting. He acknowledges that, even in the case of property damage, whether we regard an action as violent or not will vary from case to case. For example, I read a report today about hens being removed from a battery unit in England. I would not regard that as violent - even if a lock or two was broken. In this action, a door was removed and I think damaged.

This sort of thing, for me, is a world away from throwing bricks through people's windows or sending death threats.

As for what gets in the way of vegan outreach, I'd say the physical liberation of nonhumans would be a positive help if only because I know a good deal about how the mainstream media works and, whether we like it or not, if the intention is to reach as many people as possible at once, we need sometimes at least to 'use' the mass media. Surely the physical removal of nonhumans from 'farms' and labs is a direct challenge and rejection of their property status even if they are subsequently transported to "good homes" to live out the rest of their lives. In this circumstance, it would seem that to name such nonhumans refugees is appropriate.

Rags.

to clarify, I wasn't thinking about liberations, so much as vandalism. Not sure what their stance would be on liberations.

rags wrote:

Diana wrote:That municipality information is shocking - and it is rather interesting why the fur business is singled out. Would this sort of thing extent to TV/media appearances? Presumably it would be easy to hrt the sensitivities of animal exploiters with public disclosure of their activities. Shocking indeed.

Rags

Actually, there have been documentaries on Swiss television at prime-time in the past with horrific footage of the fur industry (a Swiss animal protection society was very active in disclosing what was going on in China in the fur "farms" and their footage was shown all over the world).

I think this "clause" is particular to our town, which makes me think that there is a collusion between the Vice President (and responsible to the media) of the Swiss Fur Commission who has a well-known fur shop in my town and who likes to parade around the town in his full-length fur coat, attending parties and important "events".

One day, I would like to get a lawyer to find out WHEN and WHY this "clause" came into being, and if it is actually legal to put in a phrase like this. It sounds to me very much like it was put in there by a "friend" of the fur industry, and possibly a political pal or bridge buddy (who may or may not also be a member of the police force as it is the municipal police who actually give us our authorisations for stalls or demonstrations) of the fur shop owner I mentioned above. The fur shop owner is also the vice president of the local Association of Traders... which serves as an interface between the traders and the municipality. He is also a member of the Lions Club.

You can see a photo of this so-called "human" here : http://www.federationnationaledelafourr ... njamin.jpg

I dislike him intensely (understatement).

Diana wrote:One day, I would like to get a lawyer to find out WHEN and WHY this "clause" came into being, and if it is actually legal to put in a phrase like this. It sounds to me very much like it was put in there by a "friend" of the fur industry, and possibly a political pal or bridge buddy (who may or may not also be a member of the police force as it is the municipal police who actually give us our authorisations for stalls or demonstrations) of the fur shop owner I mentioned above.

There are legal offices popping up here & there in the US, dealing with animal rights-ish issues. I'd think that some large welfare org would be interested in something like that.