Animal Rights in Britain

[ARRS Administrator Note: The original text did not consistently use quote marks to mark off quotations. In creating the HTML version, therefore, I have had in several instances to make a best guess about where a quote ends and Mr. Wicklund's text begins again. Also, the original text includes reference numbers beside many of the quotes, but the references at the end are not numbered.]

Introduction

However, I knew that the animal rights movement originated in Britain, and that it was further along in its progression. Because of my involvement in the States, I was interested in visiting Britain to study this allegedly more advanced and effective movement. Of course, on my departure to Britain, I had no idea that I would find myself hitch-hiking all over the country, living in squats, and fraternizing with convicted felons. I found the movement in Britain to be full of determination, perseverance, and optimism. The activists could see the gains they were making and were empowered to continue on in the fight for the animals. Their wealth of love was transformed into anger because of the injustices inflicted on animals, and this anger served to energize the movement. As could be expected, I enjoyed many unique and exciting experiences while obtaining the needed information to write this paper.

By the time I had returned home, a vast amount of information and personal experience had been accumulated. With the large quantity of information I obtained, the hardest part of writing this paper was in deciding what aspects of the movement to write about. All of the information collected seemed to be important and relevant, but after hours of frustration, I decided that it would be best to try and use this paper to help fulfill SPAN's mission of increasing understanding and peace.

To do this, I will give a brief overview of the animal rights and animal liberation movements in Britain in the hopes of imparting upon the reader a better understanding of the beliefs and actions of the activists. This paper has been written for people who are both within the movement and outside of the movement.

The basic philosophies behind animal rights will be briefly described. This will be followed by a description of the key players within the British movement. Finally, we will look closely at the kinds of actions the activists are involved in, and why.

What this paper will not be is the documentation of the abuses inflicted on animals. That has been done very well in many other books such as Diet for a New America by John Robbins, or Animal Liberation by Peter Singer. However, in some instances, minimum descriptions of the suffering animals endure will be necessary to impart upon the reader a better understanding of the motivation which drives activists to fight in their behalf.

With this said, let's begin by taking a brief look at the underlying philosophy behind animal rights: the idea that animals deserve equal consideration.

The Philosophy

Although the moral arguments for the rights of animals have been around for centuries, it wasn't until philosopher Peter Singer published the book Animal Liberation in 1975 that the animal rights movement took a firm hold. This book has radically altered the way in which many people look at nonhuman animals. Because his philosophies helped form the foundation of the animal liberation movement worldwide, it is imperative that they are briefly presented here to give a context in which to understand the rest of this paper. The following is a summary of Singer's beliefs as found in his book Animal Liberation.

Singer promotes a utilitarian philosophy that seeks to maximize pleasure and minimize pain. However, his ideas differ from many of the utilitarian philosophers before him in that he is concerned with all individuals who have the capacity to suffer and/or experience pleasure:

Pain and suffering are in themselves bad and should be prevented or minimized, irrespective of the race, sex, or species of the being that suffers. (17).

The interests of every being affected by an action are to be taken into account and given the same weight as the like interests of any other being. (5).

Due to the fact that most people in our culture have been brought up eating animals for food, wearing them for clothing, hunting them for sport, or using them in various other ways, the idea that animals deserve the same moral consideration as other humans do might be treated skeptically. Singer responds by asking the skeptic, what is the morally relevant distinction between humans and animals that allows us to exclude animals from our sphere of moral concern or lessen the importance of their suffering?

People who oppose Singer's philosophies have suggested that such qualities as our ability to reason, create, speak languages, or -- ironically enough -- our ability to morally reason are sufficient enough to justify the fact that society treats human suffering as more deserving of consideration than equal amounts of animal suffering. Singer contends that these attributes are arbitrary in that there are many humans who also lack these characteristics. Infants, people with severe mental retardation, or senile people can lack the above mentioned qualities, or at least do not possess these qualities to the extent that animals do. Therefore, if these qualities are what really determines who is and who is not deserving of moral consideration, it would be reasonable to treat these humans in a similar fashion to the way we treat animals. Yet society would be morally outraged by the idea of wearing the skins of the retarded or eating baby stew. This outrage would occur because it is not the above mentioned qualities that determine who is deserving of moral consideration.

The idea that our intelligence, creativity, moral capacity or ability to speak are exclusively human traits is continually being challenged by new studies that demonstrate otherwise. Yet Singer argues that even if these characteristics were exclusively human, they still would not give us the right to dominate animals:

If possessing a higher degree of intelligence does not entitle one human to use another for his or her own ends, how can it entitle humans to exploit nonhumans for the same purpose? (6).

If a being suffers, there can be no moral justification for refusing to take that suffering into consideration. No matter what the nature of the being, the principle of equality requires that its suffering be counted equally with the like suffering -- insofar as rough comparisons can be made -- of any other being. If a being is not capable of suffering, or of experiencing enjoyment or happiness, there is nothing to be taken into account. So the limit of sentience (using the term as a convenient if not strictly accurate shorthand for the capacity to suffer and/or experience enjoyment) is the only defensible boundary of concern for the interests of others. To mark this boundary by some other characteristic like intelligence or rationality would be to mark it in an arbitrary manner. Why not choose some other characteristic, like skin color? (9)

In the past, morally arbitrary lines have been drawn within the human species which excluded Jews, homosexuals, blacks, and women to name just a few. As a direct result, these groups of people were severely oppressed. The societies of the day saw "those people's" suffering to be inconsequential, and they were happy to remain ignorant of the extent to which those groups were exploited. Today we look back in horror at those times, and see how harmful drawing arbitrary moral lines can be. Animals are still arbitrarily excluded from our moral sphere, argues Singer, and similar to the oppressed groups of the past, their suffering is considered inconsequential and is under-represented.

Singer uses the word speciesism to describe our discrimination against other species. Speciesism, which was first coined by the British animal protectionist Richard Ryder, "is a prejudice or attitude of bias in favor of the interests of members of one's own species and against those of members of other species" (6). Singer sees racism and sexism to be analogous to speciesism:

Racists violate the principle of equality by giving greater weight to the interests of members of their own race when there is a clash between their interests and the interests of those of another race. Sexists violate the principle of equality by favoring the interests of their own sex. Similarly, speciesists allow the interests of their own species to override the greater interests of members of other species. The pattern is identical in each case. (9)

If this philosophy were to be adopted by all, society would be in need of a major overhaul. Singer writes, "What we must do is bring nonhuman animals within our sphere of moral concern and cease to treat their lives as expendable for whatever trivial purposes we may have" (20). This is easier said than done. To put Singer's principles to work means learning how the choices we make affect animals' lives, and carefully re-evaluating and changing our lives to minimize the suffering we cause them. In practice, people who adopt Singer's beliefs typically forego the eating of meat, eggs, and dairy products; stop wearing leather, wool, silk, and fur; and avoid animal circuses, rodeos, and zoos.

To the average person, such changes would seem drastic and prohibitive of accepting such a philosophy, but for thousands of people, these beliefs and consequential actions have become second nature. Moreover, these beliefs have motivated hundreds of people to actively fight for the animals. Through the actions of these concerned people, awareness on animal issues is increasing and more people are becoming involved.

As the movement has grown, the number of different pro-animal philosophies has grown as well. Books that show the link between vegetarianism and feminism, racism and speciesism, and Christianity and animal rights have all emerged. Tom Regan, another well-known philosopher, has published The Case for Animal Rights, which attempts to portray the weaknesses in Singer's arguments while advocating a whole new set of beliefs to establish a moral foundation for animal rights. Furthermore, each individual activist will have his or her own views and interpretations of animal rights and animal liberation philosophies. For our purposes, though, this brief summary of Singer's arguments will do. For a more in-depth look at the philosophies supporting animal rights and animal liberation, refer to the books listed in Appendix 1.

The Animal Liberation Movement's Effects on Britain

In campaigning against animal agriculture, activists stress the importance of adopting a vegetarian or vegan diet. A vegetarian diet excludes the flesh or by-products of slaughtered animals including meat, fish, seafood, poultry, gelatin, etc. A vegan diet is more strict than a vegetarian diet as it excludes all products derived from animals such as milk, eggs, or honey. The importance of a vegan diet is that it is devoid of food products that require the mutilation, exploitation, and butchering of animals.

Even though these diets sound restrictive to most people, vegetarianism and veganism are on the increase in Britain. According to a survey done by the University of Bradford, 28,000 people become vegetarian every week in Britain, with an estimated 3.6 million people or 7% of the British population currently practicing vegetarianism. In less than a decade, the vegetarian population has more than doubled, and five decades ago there were only an estimated 100,000 vegetarians (Road to Victory, Arkangel 9). These statistics show the vegetarian population to be increasing at more of a geometric rate than in a linear fashion. This increase in the vegan and vegetarian population is a result of the campaigns by animal liberationists who expose the cruelty of raising animals for food.

This dramatic increase in the vegetarian population has changed the face of Britain. As can be imagined, the availability of vegetarian and vegan products have increased dramatically. In Britain, there are a wide variety of vegan options. As the vegan and vegetarian population grows, the demand for these products has increased and been met. It was comparatively more easy for me to eat a vegan diet in Britain. Almost all restaurants and pubs had at least one vegan dish available and many vegetarian dishes. Many vegan convenience foods were available, and every major city I went to had vegetarian or vegan health food stores and/or restaurants. Also, most people were aware of veganism and the issues that surround it. Unlike in the U.S., I never had to explain to a waiter what a vegan could and could not eat as they already knew.

Tricia, an activist that I interviewed who works for Zoocheck -- an organization that is trying to phase out zoos -- got involved with animal rights about 16 years ago through her involvement with an animal rescue group. Her views on the availability of vegan food represents the view of many of the activists who I spoke to:

It's very easy to be a vegan nowadays. There is really no excuse not to be. All the things that you feel you are missing out on -- chocolates and other confectioneries and cheese alternatives -- they are all there. It is very easy to be vegan. Not only are the foods available, they are clearly marked with "suitable for vegans" on the labels.

Another more recent telephone poll was conducted by The People newspaper. Over 81% of the callers were opposed to all testing and only 1.4% of the callers said that all animal experiments should continue. This was one of the paper's largest polls with over 36,000 people participating. ("Road to Victory," Arkangel 3, p. 50)

Of course, it is hard to measure what effect the public's opinion has had on curtailing the vivisection industry, but it is nice to note that since the mid-seventies, the official yearly figure for the number of animal experiments in the United Kingdom has decreased by over 3 million ("Editor's note"). This is a significant victory for the animals and the movement.

As the public has been educated on animal issues, more people are getting involved. The movement has grown to the extent that now all issues of animal abuse are being campaigned against. Not only are the main areas of animal abuse being fought against, such as the fur, meat, dairy, egg and vivisection industries, but also the less obvious cruelties are being campaigned against such as circuses, zoos, dolphinariums, environmental destruction, angling, and leather.

The movement has grown so much that some animal rights groups don't even campaign directly against animal abuse, instead they work to help set up local animal rights groups and provide them with services. Co-ordinated Animal Welfare (CAW) is one such group. Their main purpose is to act as a resource for local groups. They have a video and photographic library available for groups to use. They also provide other services free of charge to local groups and individual activists. These services include typesetting leaflets, assistance in planning campaigns, and advice on how start and run a local group. As with most local groups, CAW has no paid staff.

Jim was one of the activists I met at CAW. He has been involved in the movement for over 16 years and has seen the public's change in attitude as a result of the animal liberation movement:

Whereas ten years ago you would get people who would come up and spit in your face at a stall, now people come up and put money in your collecting tin.

If you go and do school talks, you'll find that there is nowhere near the level of argument against you that there was ten years ago. If you try and do a school talk now about vegetarianism, it's difficult to provoke a larger debate in the classroom because so many of the children already are vegetarian.

From my own experiences in Britain, I was very surprised and encouraged at the public's level of awareness and support of animal issues. Their awareness and support were very apparent to me when I talked to them at street stalls. Many passers-by were vegan and aware of the scientific arguments against vivisection.

So in many ways, the movement has started moving society towards a more compassionate way of life. Fewer experiments involving animals are conducted, people are more aware of the issues, animal abuse is being fought on most, if not every, front, and veganism is on the increase. The movement up until now can be described in one word: effective. Results are what the movement wants, and that is what it has received. Of course, such a dynamic and determined movement cannot be completely described in one word. The next chapter will discuss another word that describes the movement: fragmented.

The Major Players

After my first protest in Britain, I asked a fellow protester named Paul about the British animal movement. He told me that the British movement is actually divided into three movements: the national societies, the local groups, and the direct action groups. He said the local groups and the direct action groups support each other, but there is hostility between the nationals and the locals and direct action groups. This concept ended up to be an all-pervading aspect of the movement. To explain the rivalry, it is best to start by defining the terms "nationals," "locals," and "direct action."

The Nationals

By this definition, many groups that campaign nationally are not considered "nationals" because they support, or at the very minimum, do not condemn direct action. For an outsider, this can all be very confusing. I will try to simplify things by briefly introducing the national groups that are relevant to this paper. It can be assumed that all other groups mentioned in this paper fall into either the local group or direct action categories.

The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals is the oldest surviving animal welfare society. It was formed in 1824 by radical animal activists. One of its earliest secretaries was thrown into prison for the Society's debts. The person who paid bail was a vegan who never left London because he didn't believe in exploiting horses for human transportation (Webb interview). As time went on, the radical activists were removed from the Society and the views which it had originally held were moderated. Today the RSPCA is the wealthiest animal group in Britain. It does not advocate vegetarianism or the abolition of vivisection although many of its members do. Because of these stances, the RSPCA is considered to be an animal welfare group instead of an animal rights group.

The National Anti-Vivisection Society was founded by Miss Francis Power Cobbe in 1875, when there were only about 300 animal experiments being performed each year. NAVS' history is unfortunately one of unsuccessful attempts to pass legislation which would ban or curb vivisection in Britain. In 1973, NAVS set up the Lord Dowding Fund for Humane Research, which awards grants to researchers who do not use animals at any stage in their research ("100 Years of Campaigning"). This has helped encourage non-animal based research and is a large part of the total activities of NAVS. NAVS is also responsible for organizing the annual World Day for Laboratory Animals March in London each year. In 1992, around 22,000 people congregated in Hyde Park to speak out against vivisection in Britain ("Mobilized" July-Sep. 1992). The National Anti-Vivisection Society is one of the leading national anti-vivisection societies in Britain.

The British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection is another well-known national group. This organization was founded in 1898, ironically by the same founder as NAVS, Miss Francis Power Cobbe. She broke away from NAVS and started the BUAV after it passed a resolution stating:

The Council affirms that, while the demand for the total abolition of vivisection will ever remain the ultimate object of the National Anti-Vivisection Society, the Society is not thereby precluded from making efforts in Parliament for lesser measures, having for its object the saving of animals from scientific torture.

Today, BUAV has about 13,000 members and employs about 34 full-time staff. In their factsheet "BUAV -- a background", they state "The BUAV conducts non-violent campaigns within the constraints of the law; it does not involve itself with illegal activities." What the BUAV does do is produce literature, organize meetings, demonstrations, boycotts, undercover investigations, and provide speakers for schools and community groups, as well as lobby parliament.

In 1987, the BUAV started the "Choose Cruelty-Free" campaign, which educated the public on cosmetic testing, and called for a boycott of companies that tested their products on animals. BUAV's most recent campaign is "Paradise Lost" where an initial undercover investigation revealed the evils of capturing primates in the wild for use in vivisection laboratories. The campaign is designed to educate the public and calls for a boycott of the four major airlines -- British Midland, Lufthansa, Air France, and Northwest Airlines -- which continue to transport primates to labs.

The League Against Cruel Sports is the national organization against bloodsports. It works under the idea that wild animals deserve the same protection under the law as domestic animals (Wildlife). This would make it a criminal offence to inflict unnecessary pain on wildlife. As they see it, this would make all bloodsports illegal. LACS is not involved in direct action, but they campaign by distributing literature, picketing hunts, undercover investigations, and lobbying parliament. They also spend their money buying land to make into wildlife sanctuaries where hunting is not allowed.

Respect for Animals is the new national organization that has sprung up to replace LYNX in fighting the fur industry. Previously LYNX had done this job, but it met its unfortunate demise after being defeated in a lawsuit filed against them by the Swalesmoor Mink Farm. They were fined over #140,000 for damages and had to close down because they couldn't pay ("Mobilized" Jan.-Mar. 1993). LYNX was known for their television advertisement that featured fur-clad models strutting down a catwalk before an audience of eager onlookers. At the end of the catwalk they spun around, drenching the horrified crowd with blood. Respect for Animals is now doing LYNX's job of supplying slick advertisements to remove the myth that fur is glamorous while driving home the reality of animal suffering, which the fur industry tries to hide ("Poster Launch").

Animal Aid is the national organization that deals with all animal rights related issues. Their recent campaigns have included the "Living Without Cruelty Campaign" and their sponsorship of the "Veggie Pledge Month." They have over 15,000 members and "membership is open to all, though we do insist on peaceful campaigning methods" (Take the Veggie Pledge 11). Their main focus is to increase public awareness through stalls, advertising, literature, talks, and other means. They produce the bi-monthly newsletter Outrage, which updates members on their campaigns and other animal rights related information.

The smallest of the national societies is Animal Concern Scotland. It started in 1876 as the Scottish Anti-Vivisection Society, and changed its name in 1988 as they started campaigning against all areas of animal abuse. Currently it has a membership of only 600 members. John Robins, the organizing secretary, told me in an interview that Animal Concern wants to see animal's rights recognized "by law." They also try to campaign against issues that are not being campaigned against by other groups. ACS's most recent campaign is to try to protect seals from being shot on fish farms.

The Vegan Society was formed in 1944 by vegetarians who didn't see vegetarianism as going far enough and decided to renounce all animal products, including the eating of meat, dairy, eggs, and honey and the wearing of fur, leather, silk, wool, and down (Vegan 3). The Vegan Society, while against all forms of animal abuse, highlights the cruelties of the dairy industry in an attempt to educate both the public and other activists on the cruelties of milk production. They also produce the Vegan Shopper, a guide that lists which products are vegan and which products are not. Among the activists I talked to, there was no agreement as to whether or not the Vegan Society was a national organization, but in most cases I would say that it was considered more of a local group.

These are some of the "national" animal rights organizations that exist in Great Britain. Many other nationals exist like Compassion in World Farming, the Vegetarian Society, Living Without Cruelty, and the Edinburgh-based group Advocates for Animals, but for the purposes of this paper, the above introductions to the RSPCA, NAVS, BUAV, LACS, Respect for Animals, Animal Aid, Animal Concern Scotland, and the Vegan Society will be sufficient.

The Locals

Among local groups, civil disobedience is widespread and anti-government tendencies are common. Local groups have little money to work with as the majority of their funds are raised by collecting donations at public stalls. Because funds are short, most of the activists are unpaid volunteers.

There are too many local groups to name and describe in this section, so local groups will be described as they are brought up. But one local group which does need mentioning before we go on is the Animal Rights Coalition.

The Animal Rights Coalition was established only a few years ago. It is really not a group at all, but a neutral territory where all local groups can converge to discuss tactics, campaigns, and the future direction of the pro-animal movement. Its purpose is to help unite local groups, and act as a resource by printing literature for them. In the future ARC hopes to become an information base where local groups can look to find the names and addresses of their local animal abusers and animal abuse establishments.

Through ARC, local groups can plan and organize nationwide campaigns, and direct their own futures. ARC's office is in Manchester. Every month there are regional meetings. At these meetings, groups in each region congregate, update each other on their group's upcoming campaigns, and see what they can do to help each other out. This has worked well for the north-west region, which has been able to sustain a campaign against the circus at Blackpool because local groups take turns leafletting it every week. Every three months ARC has a national meeting where the groups from every region get together, usually in Nottingham because of its central location.

To help maintain unity among the local groups, ARC has a few policies. The first policy is that all groups involved in ARC remain completely autonomous from ARC and do not have to agree with or follow any of the suggestions made by ARC. They also do not hold a policy on the Animal Liberation Front, the group that carries out illegal actions for animals, because they want all local animal rights groups to be involved whether they support the ALF or not. Of course, by the very nature of ARC being a coalition of local groups they tend to be very pro-ALF.

The Direct Actioners

The Hunt Saboteurs Association has been around for decades keeping hunters from killing wildlife. They currently have around 3,000 to 5,000 members, although you don't have to be a member to "sab" (short for sabotage). HSA takes on all forms of bloodsports including hare coursing, mink, fox and stag hunts, grouse shoots, and angling. Because most hunting is done with hounds, a saboteur's job is to destroy the hunter's influence over the hounds by imitating the hunter's horn and voice calls, thereby gaining control of the pack and leading them astray. For sabotaging angling or grouse shoots, other methods are used, such as scaring the potential victims away from the hunters, or by physically getting between the hunter and hunted. For angling sabs, this could include pulling the fishing line out of the water, while with grouse shoots it involves standing in front of the guns.

The other main direct action group is the Animal Liberation Front. It is very difficult, actually it is impossible, to find a list of members who are actively taking part in ALF activities because their actions are highly illegal and can result in heavy prison sentences if they are caught. They operate under three main principles. Their overriding principle is that no action should harm or seek to harm human or non-human animal life. Within the confines of the first principle, they carry out their two objectives to liberate animals from torturous and abusive conditions and to economically sabotage the animal abuse industries by destroying their property.

Acting on these principles, the ALF has undermined much of their opponent's industries, saved thousands of animals, and increased the publics awareness on animal issues. By carrying out illegal operations they have entered into many off-limits places, gathered photographic and video footage of abuses, liberated the animals, and destroyed the equipment of torture. News releases are then typed and sent to the media along with the gathered evidence resulting in the abusers being publicly exposed, the public becoming more educating, and the saving of many individual animals.

The Hunt Saboteurs and the ALF will be discussed in much more detail later. For now, these brief introductions will suffice.

[ARRS Administrator Note: Recently (end of 1994/beginning of 1995) a new group, the Justice Department, has appeared on the scene. This group is not bound by any self-asserted prohibitions against harming humans. Indeed, one of their main goals is to harm and/or kill abusers of animals.]

Disunity Defined

The first issue regards waged employees at animal societies. Some activists, primarily within local groups, feel that campaigners should not be paid at all as this steals money away from the animals. This is not the main belief, however. The majority of activists within the local movement think that full-time campaigners should not be paid more money than they need to live reasonably well. Robin Webb, the current Animal Liberation Front Press Officer, expressed in an interview to me the opinion of most of the activists I spoke to:

I think its understandable if one is giving all of one's time to the animal liberation movement to be paid a reasonable amount to live on. I do not believe that it is right for people to be paid market rates for salaries. Animal liberation is not something to make a profit out of, not something to make a good living out of. The animals need help. Any spare pennies that are left over should be to finance the battle itself. The battle against exploitation, the battle against abuse, not to give someone an increased standard of living. That is not what animal liberation is about.

Many of the workers at the national societies are accused of being paid too much. This obviously is going to create some conflict as it is somewhat of a personal attack on the national workers. Yet the local activists have a legitimate concern, as high salaries not only take money away from the "battle against abuse," but have the potential to cause other problems too.

High salaries could encourage people who do not really care about animals to get involved, or make the opposition more willing to infiltrate the societies. In 1990, Richard Course, who had been the executive director of the anti-bloodsport society League Against Cruel Sports during the eighties, was now trying to persuade parliament and the Labor Party to support hunting. Course's apparent change of heart prompted Ronnie Lee to write in the magazine Arkangel, "If it is possible to achieve power and wealth through involvement in animal protection, then this fact is bound to attract people who will be more motivated by self aggrandizement than by a genuine concern for the animals." (One People) The conclusion the activists made from Course's actions is that he never did properly care for animals, but was in it for the money. Now activists are skeptical of high paid activists, especially if they are constantly condemning ALF actions, which leads into the next internal battle.

Because the ALF uses non-traditional actions to promote animal rights, some activists are wary of being associated with them. In 1989, John Bryant, the Chairman of Animal Aid and a Wildlife Officer of LACS, was quoted as saying, "The ALF are the scum of the earth and the sooner the police lock them up the better for all of us... Thanks to them we have virtually no chance of obtaining any legislation outlawing vivisection." ("Two Johnnys") Statements like this anger other activists who are either involved with the ALF or are highly supportive of them. The fact that other animal activists make statements calling the ALF "terrorists," "hooligans," and people who are "setting the movement back ten years" aggravates local activists even more. As Conchita wrote in Arkangel:

It is sad to read constant condemnation of the ALF from so called animal rights people. The core of the matter as I see it, depends on which side of the fence you are sitting on. If you are an animal screaming for help in a blood-drenched slaughterhouse, or in terminal bondage of steriotaxic restraining chairs, would you be so critical of your savers? The ALF are unpaid soldiers, risking their freedom to save others.

The fact that nationals speak out against the ALF, who are viewed as highly effective, is aggravated by the fact that the nationals are predominantly involved in political campaigns that are viewed by locals as a waste of time. Personal interviews with people who work at nationals confirmed what the locals were saying. The nationals are "into politics in a very big way," but unfortunately are "not getting very far because the larger companies are fighting back" (Roxburgh). John Robins of Animal Concern told me that "It is not codes of conduct we want, it is legislation recognizing animal rights." Unfortunately, this has not happened.

The history of the legislative campaigns has been one of constant frustration. Few laws have been passed that have significantly benefited animals, and the ones that do pass are diluted and weakened (Spicer). Hopes and expectations are constantly dashed against the reality of the situation. Many activists have become completely disillusioned in trying to work with the government. Compromise is to be expected in writing laws, but compromise is something the local activists are not willing to make.

Because the locals see the nationals as wasting too much money for such little results, locals often speak out against nationals, refuse to donate money to them and encourage others to do the same. Obviously, this upsets those activists who work at the national organizations, further splitting the groups apart. Some locals, like Alistar Mullen who is currently serving time in prison for ALF activities, does not give the nationals any credit for what they've done as they feel direct action has brought about all of the victories:

For it is only through direct action and ALF activities that things have ever looked like changing; the reduction in numbers of animal experiments through ALF raids breaking down laboratory walls and exposing vivisection; the closing down of fur outlets through fire-bombing and disruptive picketing, butcher's shops through constant hassle, pack hunts through persistent sabbing; the destruction of labs; the stopping of animal research programmes; and of course the rescuing of thousands of animals.

These internal conflicts have resulted in wasted time and energy, hurt feelings, frustration, demoralization, and people dropping out of the movement. Activists who do not want to take sides have to walk on broken glass to pull it off. Of course, the real losers from all this infighting are the animals. Because activists who are bickering amongst themselves and are unwilling to work with each other are not fighting for the animals as effectively as they could. Many activists have realized this and steps are being taken to bring about unity in the movement. This is not an easy task, and there are no simple solutions. It is most likely that unity will never come, but the effort to create unity, if nothing else, is helping to keep the movement from becoming even more polarized.

Arkangel for Unity

The sentiments expressed by Janet Payne above are not unique and many activists have become frustrated enough with the problem of disunity to do something about it. One attempt at rectifying this situation is Arkangel. Arkangel is an animal rights magazine founded by the ALF activists Vivien Smith and Ronnie Lee in 1989. Arkangel had at its conception the idea of unifying the movement. In the first issue the editors wrote:

Arkangel stands for unity... We often feel we are part of a movement that is constantly tearing itself to pieces. Internal disputes continue to ravage the national societies. Local groups are torn asunder because of personal differences. Activists are insulted in the media by fellow campaigners. It often seems that animal protectionists hate each other far more than they hate the animal abusers. We want to do our best to change all that. It is important that there are differences in opinion. The movement could never make any progress if everybody always thought the same, but differences should be discussed rationally, within an atmosphere of mutual respect. We will try our utmost to help bring about that situation. ("Not Just Another A.R. Mag")

The next section of the magazine gives an update from the Hunt Saboteurs Association. News items of interest to sabbers and other activists are provided here. The following section is devoted to the illegal actions which had been done on behalf of animals, mainly Animal Liberation Front activities. In the first few years, the activities were just listed and explained, but now this has been substituted with press-cuttings on ALF activities. Again, this helps activists realize the importance of every group's contribution to the movement, whether they are nationals, locals, or direct actioners.

The remainder of the magazine is devoted to the comment section. Here, articles which have been submitted by animal activists are printed. This is probably the most important part of the magazine. It is important because it allows a format for activists to debate in a rational manner the pros and cons of certain types of actions, or express their thoughts upon anything which is related to animal rights or campaigning. To help facilitate this dialogue between activists, a no-censorship policy has been adopted:

Too many animal rights publications censor opinions that are not in accordance with those of the editors and many don't even have a letters page where people can present an alternative viewpoint. We feel this approach is very narrow-minded and positively harmful as it is only through rational debate and exchange of views that the movement can find the right direction. ("Not Just Another A.R. Mag")

Another appealing quality of the magazine is that it focuses on the positive: you'll find few, if any, reports of cruelty to animals in Arkangel and no gory photos of vivisection, etc. We know it is vital that such things are exposed, but there are plenty of other very good animal rights publications that do just that. Instead we want to concentrate on the positive side of things, to report what is actually being done to combat animal persecution and on the successes that are being achieved. ("Not Just Another A.R. Mag") And in each issue, there are a lot of successes to report on which are listed in the "Road to Victory" section at the end of each magazine.

When this is all put together, it makes for highly informative, exciting, and empowering reading, and although it is no longer edited by Vivien Smith and Ronnie Lee, the message of unity and animal liberation has remained the same.

In the six years that Arkangel has been operating, I can't say to what extent it has helped combat the disunity within the movement, but the opinions of the activists I have talked to have become more like the one Nick Newbury expressed in his article "For Unity":

Surely the animal abusers must heave sighs of relief when they see and hear us slagging each other off, for they know that they have no valid defence against our arguments and that a united attack against them would surely succeed eventually. To my mind every action that we take in the cause of animal liberation, whether it be handing out a leaflet, picketing a shop, giving talks, liberating animals or damaging animal abusers' property is a valid and important action. We all have different roles to play and, therefore, just because a person chooses a different form of protest it should not be condemned -- this applies not only to those members of Animal Rights Societies who condemn direct action, but also to activists who are dismissive of the campaigning tactics of local groups and national societies.

A Declaration of War

To begin with, I must admit that the majority of the people I was able to get hold of and talk to were locals. I feel this needs to be mentioned as I might have a bias towards the locals and this should be noted so that it can be compensated for. Furthermore, most of the generalizations I make will predominantly only represent the local groups' attitudes.

Animal issues in Britain are of great importance to the activists. Truly, the pro-animal movement is considered by the activists to be on par with the past movements to abolish slavery, child pornography, and other social ills. The fact that the animals cannot speak for themselves gives the activists even more of a responsibility to do as much as they can to end the abuse. Richard, a 16 year old activist who got involved about a year and a half ago, feels most adamantly, like most of the activists, that human intervention is what will help the animals as they have no means of recourse to improve their situation:

They [the animals] are the ultimate slave class in that sense because people get away with abusing them and torturing them and they can't do anything about it themselves, and that's why they need other humans fighting on their behalf.

Most of the activists see the struggle for animal rights as a war. This attitude might seem odd given our society's preconceived notions about animals, but for people who recognize the inherent importance in individual animal lives, the issue of animal suffering is not to be taken lightly. Six years ago, the editors of Arkangel wrote:

Our movement has largely the wrong attitude towards the struggle for animal liberation. We would do far better to consider it a war... By "war" I am not necessarily advocating violence. A war can be defined as "a strong effort to combat evil" and so a person who spends their time giving out leaflets can consider themselves just as much a warrior as one who engages in direct action. It is an attitude of mind. ("One People")

People who know the way animals are treated on factory farms and in vivisection laboratories often draw comparisons to Auschwitz and Bergen-Belsen. As with the concentration camps, the same tactics of secrecy and ignorance are used to perpetuate the exploitation, only today's victims are not Jews, Gypsies, blacks, and homosexuals, but animals. This war metaphor is furthered by looking at the extremes which activists go to try to help the animals: food contamination hoaxes, "stealing" animals from laboratories, and destroying animal abuser's property with bricks, crowbars, and fire. The siege mentality is also present within the movement as activists are cautious and suspicious -- always on the lookout for infiltrators, wary of people who ask too many questions or seem over-preoccupied with the more militant aspects of the movement.

Within this war metaphor is also the sense of urgency. No one expressed this urgency as well as Sam Remington did in his article "Apathy Kills" where he wrote, "Have you ever thought of time in terms of animals lives? If you don't I'd guess it's about time you did because the party games are over. The clock ticks on as the silent suffering continues." Behind thoughts like that is the desire to see change now.

But why are these activists so concerned with animals? As Richard already stated, the animals cannot fight for themselves, and as Singer has argued, animal suffering is no less important than the equal amount of suffering in humans. But most of the activists also see a connection between animal liberation as an extension of the fight for human liberation and the fight for the environment. These ideas of the connection of human, animal, and earth oppression are not new. As the long-standing activist, Robin Webb told me:

Human rights and animal rights have always been inextricably linked. Animal rights campaigners have always been in the forefront of human rights. At the inaugural meeting in 1824 of the RSPCA, two of the founding members, William Wilberforce and Fowell Buxton, were leaders of the fight to abolish slavery. Later in the 19th century it was RSPCA members and staff, using RSPCA premises who started the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. On demonstrations you will often hear the chant: "Human freedom / Animal Rights! / One Struggle / One Fight!" It's absolutely true, and animal rights people have often been in the forefront of human rights.

This makes sense as animals could presently be considered as the lowest common denominator in society's currently accepted morality. Animals have the capacity to suffer -- the quality needed to be deserving of moral consideration -- yet their suffering is seen as less important than human suffering. Humans also reign supreme over the animals. Activists feel that as long as we continue to justify our abuse of power over animals, we will continue to justify our abuses of power within our own species. However, if people could respect the rights of animals, how much more so will they respect the rights of each other. Fran, an activist who turned vegetarian over 18 years ago and became heavily involved in animal activism about four years ago, expressed this sentiment when he told me, "If we could get animal rights, then human rights would just drop into place."

So the battle lines have been drawn and the goals and objectives defined. Now we shall take a look at the actions which the activists take on their "Road to Victory."

Street Stalls

As I continued to walk down the road I saw another sign leaning against a rubbish bin showing the ulcerated and bleeding eyes of rabbits who had been used in the Draize Eye Irritancy Test to "safety test" cosmetics. When I saw this, I knew something was up. So I looked down the street and sure enough, there were two young women standing at a booth with leaflets and petitions shouting, "Sign our petition against animal experimentation!" and "Vivisection: the shame of the nation!" I approached the stall and expressed my support for them. They asked me to sign the petition, which I did, and gave them a pound for their efforts as well. This was the first time I had encountered the public street stall.

The stall is the most basic activity done by both local and national groups. This is one of the main ways in which groups educate the public, get petitions filled, and raise money to fund their campaigns. In fact, for most local groups, this is their main source of income. A four to six hour day can bring in up to 80 to 100 pounds depending on where the stall is and how the the stall is run.

Not only do the stalls bring in money, they also take the message of animal rights directly to the people. By circumventing the mass media, the message is received first hand to interested and even not-so-interested members of the public. Although many of the activists find street stalls to be boring, the necessity for them is never argued. Marianne, who used to be the research and campaigns officer at the National Anti-Vivisection Society and is currently the National Secretary of the Campaign for the Abolition of Angling, speaks very highly of street stalls:

Street stalls are great. You can raise money and give out leaflets. People come up, get involved, and want to find out more, especially children. They will come up and take things for a school project. So it's a great way to get out into the public and educate them. It also gives you more confidence. If you speak to people and answer their questions, it prepares you to go to the press and get interviewed. It makes it easier to answer their questions, because you are more used to it.

Throughout my journeys in Britain, I discovered every group has a different style or gimmick that they used on their street stalls. In Glasgow, the Animal Rights Education Network had a stall that could be more accurately described as a fortress. Under a huge canopy and surrounded by tables, they had a TV and VCR that continuously played animal rights videos. Buttons, T-shirts, and bumper stickers were available for sale, as well as a library-load of free literature on all subjects imaginable and many opportunities to sign petitions. Another group brought two liberated beagles to their tables. The beagles were showered with love and affection, and their collecting tins were showered with pounds and pence. Some stalls were very plain with just a table and literature. Others were impossible to not notice such as the National Anti-Vivisection Society's travelling stall which includes a 30-foot inflatable beagle and many door-sized full color display boards. But regardless of how the tables were set up, they all served the same purpose of educating the public and raising funds for the activists.

Marches: A Declining Form of Protest

Yet even with such successful marches as NAVS' World Day March, the popularity of marches is currently on the decline in Britain. Activists feel that marches are not as effective as they used to be. They think too much time and money is wasted in travelling and organizing national marches. They are also disappointed by the media coverage, because the marches are not covered as well as they used to be. Furthermore, march routes have to be approved by the police force who have the authority to change the route, which they often do to the dissatisfaction of the activists. From the activist's point of view, marches are not worth the time and energy involved in organizing them as they feel far more could be done with the same amount of resources.

Activists are no longer interested in organizing marches. The Animal Rights Coalition has advised local groups to do more local protests instead of national marches. "Days of Action" are also going to become more popular. This is where groups all over the country protest in their local area the same form of animal abuse on the same day. There have been days of action against McDonalds and the leather industry.

NAVS will continue to hold its World Day March, but ARC is hoping that the number of marches will decrease dramatically and that no more than three to four a year will be held as activists should use their limited resources in a more effective way.

The Manchester Meat March and Spontaneous Protest

After the Anti-Meat March we all congregated outside of city hall. Speakers had been planned for the occasion. The speakers, like the rest of the marchers, were extremely dissatisfied with the way things had turned out. As they spoke, plans for further actions were being plotted. People were angry at how ineffective the protest had been so far, and they wanted to make sure that changed. The anger that drives the activists started to swell as the last speaker finished. Quickly the hundred and fifty or so activists took up their signs, banners, and bull-horns; split up into many groups; and protested outside of each of the fast food restaurants in town. No Kentucky Fried Chicken, McDonalds, or Burger King was safe.

The protesters were angry and determined to tell the world that eating meat is on the same moral plane as cannibalism. Storming down the streets, activists would congregate in front of the nearest fast food restaurant, where their voices swelled into massive chants. Everybody at the restaurants and in the streets now knew that there was an animal rights protest in progress.

In fact, people in the streets might have thought that the city had been taken over by animal rights activists. Protesters were on every street chanting and holding signs. Groups with megaphones were chanting, marching down the roads, and handing out literature. People could not ignore the issue. It was a very empowering experience for the activists.

After about half an hour we all congregated at a McDonalds in the center of town and activists just started sitting down. Before the employees or the police knew what was happening, around 100 activists had sat down and blocked the entrance. Literally hundreds of people gathered around to see what all the excitement was about. The chants continued. Activists who were not sitting down were handing out leaflets and partaking in dialogue with interested spectators, trying to explain the reasons behind what the activists were doing and the importance of veganism.

Then, without warning, a wall of mounted police formed, separating the protestors from the spectators, and ensuring that the spectators could not see what was to follow. The activists were sandwiched between McDonalds and the wall of horses. Quickly, another wall of foot police moved in from one side and started picking up the activists and pushing them to "move along." Of course, there was nowhere for them to move as the police were blocking the only exit. This, however, did not seem to bother them, and they continued to pull the activists to their feet and push them onto other activists who were sitting down and confused as to what was going on.

In an instant, mass confusion broke out. Soon the whole street had turned into a jumble of horses, protestors, spectators, and cops. Activists were getting arrested left and right, thrown to the ground, handcuffed, and thrown into the van. One spectator who was trying to complain about the brutality of the police was arrested and thrown into the van as well. As the activists and spectators dispersed, the confusion died down. In the end it turned out that 6 people were arrested. Some protestors stayed at McDonalds to continue protesting, some went back to the Town Hall to congregate, and some went to the police station to wait for their friends to be released.

This was the first of many times while in Britain where the "peace" officers had caused an escalation of the situation to mass confusion. From my point of view, the police were not maintaining law and order, but using their force in an attempt to intimidate and silence the activists. In the long run, those tactics are probably counterproductive to the police officers' objectives as it only stirs up more of the anger which fuels the movement, and provides the sensationalism needed for media coverage. However, I was still disturbed with the authority's reaction, but I was hopeful from what I saw of the activists, because I knew from this protest that they were determined to get the animal's message out regardless of the obstacles they would face.

[ARRS Administrator Note: Recent protests against the live-export trade at Shoreham and Brightlingsea (January 1995) have been characterized by extreme police brutality, acknowledged and excoriated by the mainstream British press.]

These post-march activities were typical of most of the larger protests I had been on while in Britain. The anger caused by the injustices inflicted on innocent beings is always present and acted on at these protests. Many protests result in arrests, although most of the arrests are unwarranted. This can be shown by the large amounts of money that activists have won by sueing the police for wrongful arrest. Activists also like to make sure that all of their activities are effective. Protests never ended until the activists were satisfied that they had accomplished something.

Impromptu Actions and the Grand National Disaster

One example of the power of the impromptu nature of protest was the disruption of the Grand National, the world's most famous steeple chase. Every year the steeple chase is held at the Aintree Race Course in Liverpool. And every year horses are injured, mutilated, and killed while hurling themselves over thirty massive fences on the four and one-half mile track. In 1989 four horses died on the day of the Grand National. Horses are killed by heart attacks from the stress of the run, or suffer broken necks, pelvises, and legs as a result of tripping and falling over the steeples (Grand National Horse Slaughter). The race also poses dangers for the riders, but at least they know what the risks are and are willingly involved. The horses have no choice in the matter. And if the jockey is injured, he or she knows that they will be given medical attention, while if the horse is injured, he or she is more likely to wind up dead.

From an animal rights perspective, the Grand National is a terrible event for animals, and so on April 3, 1993, the day of the race, the activists were out there protesting. Jim from Co-ordinated Animal Welfare, who happened to be one of the protesters involved in this action, gave me the details of the event. It started out as a protest outside of the gates. People going in were handed leaflets and told about the cruelty involved in the races. Meanwhile, the activists could see through the fence onto the racing field. They watched in the races before the Grand National the agony and stress of the horses jumping the steeples, the injury of the horses who crashed into the steeples and tripped over them, landing on their faces, and the indifference of the spectators to the horses' suffering. From witnessing these things, the anger swelled up inside of them, and they knew they had to do more. Jim told me that once they saw the animals crashing into the ground they were "forced into a position" to stop it. After putting together a quick plan, many of them entered the stadium and got into position.

Just before the Grand National was to start, some activists charged onto the track with banners and occupied the first steeple. The horses, jockeys, and people involved in firing the starting gun were made a little anxious by this ordeal. It was apparent, however, that the stadium had been expecting this type of protest and the activists were quickly removed and arrested by the police and security guards, who led them off of the field.

The horses and jockeys got back into position. Just as the gun went off, a second group of activists emerged to occupy the course. This was not expected. The police scrambled around to get the activists, and the jockeys and starters were somewhat unnerved by this second event.

When everyone was back into the starting position, they were fairly tense and nervous wondering if this was going to be the real start of the race or if something else was going to happen. Under this additional burden of stress, one of the riders had a false start. The jockeys saw the flag man signalling a false start and some of them stopped to restart, but others of them figured that it was more animal rights activists trying to mess them up, so they kept on going, and going, and going. Nine out of over thirty horses ran the Grand National that day. The entire race was called off and declared null and void. This had to be done because the horses who had ran the course would not be able to recover to run the course again for a long time, if ever.

The activists rejoiced in the fact that over 25 horses had been saved from the perilous track which would have inevitably been the death of some of them. Furthermore, Jim estimated that the track lost an estimated total of #100 million because of returned bets and the loss of money for advertising the event. Again, anger and determination had lead the activists to take impromptu actions to try to increase the effectiveness of their protest.

But was this action that great a success? I think the April 4, 1993 Sunday Telegraph, a relatively conservative national paper, put it best when it wrote:

When Emily Davidson threw herself under the King's horse at the Derby in 1913 in the cause of votes for women, she was fatally injured, but the race was run. Yesterday at Aintree, the greatest steeplechase in the world was destroyed by animal rights activists who succeeded...beyond their wildest hopes.

Anybody Home?

Educating the public had done a lot of good in getting people to oppose vivisection, but the researcher's labs seem impervious to public opinion as vivisection continues unabated.

Picketing the researcher's labs is also not seen as a very effective tactic in bringing about change. Frustrated activists stand outside protesting while the researchers would watch from inside, laughing amongst each other. The animals continued to suffer. The activists felt as though the lab itself was impenetrable. Hidden behind huge walls of concrete and steel, with electronic surveillance and security guards, their like-minded peers, and with the funding from the government, the military, the corporations and other institutions, the researcher's experiments were safe. Ideologically they were safe, physically they were safe, and financially they were safe. The animals continued to die.

Frustrated by the ineffectiveness of traditional tactics, some activists have looked to attack the issue from other angles. Robin Lane is one such activist. He is an activist who was involved in the group South London Animal Movement, which campaigned against vivisection at the Institute of Psychiatry. Realizing SLAM's protests outside the lab didn't seem to be achieving much, they decided to try to attack the institute from a different angle. They thought about going after the funders of the animal experiments:

The deeper and deeper that we delved into the institute, the bigger and bigger it seemed to become. We found that the U.S. Army was actually funding some of the experiments, and the tobacco companies were funding the experiments, and the Medical Research Council -- which is a front for all sorts of dodgy people -- were funding the experiments. We figured that instead of trying to bash our way into the institute to try and close them down -- which we saw as a bigger and bigger unlikelihood -- we decided to focus or campaign on an individual vivisector...and I think that achieved an awful lot.

The vivisector that SLAM decided to campaign against was Dr. Brian Meldrum, who worked at the Institute of Psychiatry inducing epilepsy in baboons by using strobe lights. Meldrum was also a spokesperson for the vivisection industry, appearing on television many times in attempts to justify vivisection. So SLAM targeted his research.

A leaflet was printed that explained the research Meldrum was involved in and 5,000 of them were distributed to every single household in the area. They also held many protests at Meldrum's home. At one protest a 30 foot banner that read "ANIMAL TORTURER LIVES AT 128" was displayed in front of his house. Another time, Lane dressed up as Meldrum and another activist dressed up as a monkey. Lane pretended to perform epileptic experiments on her. Lane told me "crowds of people used to gather around, they were quite a bit amused by it all."

For Meldrum's birthday, they held a "chimps tea party" where activists dressed up in monkey suits and sipped tea in his driveway. Lane described the incident that followed:

His wife came out and started screaming at us. I rushed forward with this banana, and she fell into the hedge. It was reported in the paper that I had attacked her with a rubber banana. It was a real banana actually. It was quite a laugh at the time, but it was a very serious campaign. But even with all the home protests and incidents like the one above, Lane told me that they never got any hassle from the police as it was a purely legal campaign.

The local papers weren't very sympathetic. Once we were all there with animal masks on and the press came along, and took a photograph of us all. When it appeared in the newspaper, what they had done was darken the picture and made the masks, which were like rabbit and cat masks, look like balaclavas, and focused it on one person, and had a big headline, "Animal Terrorists!" So that's the sort of thing the press do.

Yes, I think it really was. I think that if a local group's campaign gets national and local newspaper coverage, and local TV coverage, I think that is an extremely good thing... If you're going to have that much of an effect on an animal abuse establishment figure, your going to get bad publicity.

Furthermore, the campaign against Meldrum's research turned out to be a thorn in the side of the Institute. People at the institute did not like all of the bad publicity that Meldrum was bringing down on them, and were afraid to associate with him for fear of their research being targeted next.

Because directing protest at individual experiments seems to be an effective way of fighting vivisection at universities and research institutions, more groups are starting to do just that. The Animal Rights Coalition supports this idea as well.

Vivisection is a Scientific Fraud

For this reason, vivisection is not only campaigned against on moral grounds, but also on scientific grounds that show the ineffectiveness of animal research in understanding human disease and testing drugs. Many activists feel that the arguments one uses against vivisection are just as important as the actions taken against it. Chris Pedler is such a person. He is involved with Animal Research Kills, a group based in Bristol that tries to expose the medical fraudulence of vivisection. He explains the reasoning for using the scientific arguments:

From the early days of vivisection, when over 110 years ago the first laws purporting to "control" animal experimentation were introduced, the moral and ethical arguments against vivisection have not only failed miserably to stop it, but have allowed it to expand from a few hundred animals per year in those early days, to over five million. The reason for this sad state of affairs is the almost exclusive use of moral arguments against vivisection.

The general scientific arguments against vivisection are as follows. If a researcher wants to find out about the immune system of a cat he or she would not study dogs. Similarly, one who was interested in learning about the behavioral patterns of a pig, would not study rats. So why do vivisectors who want to learn about human diseases study rats, dogs, pigeons, monkeys, and even squid?

These animals differ from us anatomically, genetically, physiologically, psychologically, emotionally, and socially. Extrapolating information from humans to animals can prove to be fatal. Drugs such as Chlormycetin, Cliquinol, Isopreterenol, and Phenformin, were thoroughly "safety tested" on animals, but many people died as a result of using them (Kupsinel 8). Animals absorb, metabolize, and eliminate drugs differently from humans, which can seriously alter a drug's effects.

Many drugs that are poisonous to us can be safely consumed by animals. Sheep can eat arsenic. Cyanide is safe for owls. Other drugs that are beneficial to us are harmful to animals. If penicillin had been tested on guinea pigs, this valuable drug may not have been available, as it is fatal for them. Aspirin kills cats. Numerous examples such as these exist which show that animal research is not reliable (Kupsinel 1). The conclusion is that testing drugs on animals does not ensure drug safety for humans. Vivisection seems to be more concerned about looking for answers where they are convenient, not reliable.

Because vivisection is an invalid form of research, it follows that prevention and human based research should be emphasized more. Treatment is not a realistic and effective way to combat today's epidemics of cancer, AIDS, diabetes, and heart disease. Our health care system should be based on prevention. The former English vivisector, Dr. Robert Sharpe now spends his time arguing against vivisection on scientific grounds. He points out that preventive measures based on human studies, not vivisection, have improved our life expectancy and the quality of our life. The improvements in our hygiene and sanitation, living and working conditions, and food supply drastically reduced deaths from infectious diseases like typhoid, TB, whooping cough, measles, scarlet fever, and diphtheria before specific drugs or vaccines became available (Better Than Cure 2). Today's health epidemics are also largely preventable, while treatments for them are non-existent or harmful. Preventing disease is the ideal situation, and Sharpe argues that our limited resources should be channeled into prevention and human-based research, instead of animal research that gives us false results and diverts our attention from effective means of research.

Although prevention can help curb our current medical epidemics, we must continue to study human diseases to learn about how to prevent and treat them, but human-based research should be used. Clinical and epidemiological studies, postmortem research, in-vitro tests using human tissue, and computer and mathematical modeling produce data relevant to humans. Major discoveries such as how AIDS is transmitted, the link between cancer and smoking, and the risk factors for heart disease have been discovered through human-based research, and confused by animal research (Sharp, Basic Mistakes 13).

This is a brief overview of the scientific arguments used against vivisection, for more detail on this subject read The Cruel Deception by Dr. Robert Sharpe, or Slaughter of the Innocent by Hans Ruesch. With this information, activists try to combat the idea that animal research is necessary for human health.

Disabled Against Animal Research and Exploitation

DAARE was founded by Sue Croshaw who was diagnosed with chronic juvenile arthritis at the age of two. This incurable disease is responsible for destroying all of the cartilage in her joints and confining her to a wheelchair for life.

Croshaw became interested in the subject of animal research after she saw an image that was very personal to her, being used in an advertisement to raise money for a charity that funded vivisection. The image was of a person in a wheelchair. For the next few months, she researched the issue of vivisection and found out about its scientific unreliability. This inspired her to form DAARE which, as with most anti-vivisection groups in Britain, argues vivisection with both moral and scientific arguments:

DAARE believes it is in all disabled people's interest to campaign for the abolition of vivisection. Artificially induced diseases in animals have no relevance to man. Therefore, results obtained from animal experiments can never be reliably applied to people with disabilities and chronic diseases. (Disabled Against 6).

I interviewed her in the front room of her house, and I will never forget it. Whatever weakness her body had was compensated by the strong soul she had inside. She was a bound and determined animal activist. "I had an affinity with the animals because I was disabled," she said. "Their pain was my pain. I could understand that, because I was also a victim of research and doctors and hospitals. So I understood what they were going though in a basic kind of way."

I remember how it tore her up inside to know that the vivisectors were using her as an excuse to perform animal experiments. She told me of the experiments that were going on at Bristol University to mimic her condition. They were using cats and opening the front or side of their skull to expose their brain. They would then cut the nerves and leave them exposed to see how much damage they could create. Even though this research was supposedly for her benefit she retorted "I find this absolutely appalling, and I would fight against it."

But she is also angered at the vivisectors for another reason. She is angered by the way the vivisectors continually exploit disabled people by presenting them as weak, feeble, and in need of help, to gather sympathy for their research. I asked Louise how she felt about Andrew Blake, the founder of one of DAARE's opposing groups, Seriously Ill for Medical Research. She responded:

I don't like Andrew Blake, because to me, he puts the disabled movement back many, many years. People who are trying to fight for their rights as normal human beings...are being set back by him. He is constantly showing that he's weak, he's feeble, you must feel sorry for him--look at him, he's a poor disabled person in a wheelchair. Hundreds of disabled people are trying to get away from this image, and trying to educate the public not to think of us as second rate human beings...

As a movement, and as a group, he is absolutely appalling, but I do feel very sorry for him because he's as much a victim, if you like, of what the vivisectors are doing to him. They're rubbing their hands, they're thinking "Great, we've got somebody in a wheelchair who agrees with us." He doesn't know the facts. He doesn't at all. He's very ignorant about it. All he knows is that he's got a disability and that they're going to help him. They've promised him this great utopia which is never going to happen. To that degree I do feel sorry for him.

But she definitely did not let her disability or society hold her back from acting on her beliefs. On November the 12th of last year she was involved in a raid at a laboratory in Thurgarton, which housed laboratory beagles awaiting vivisection. She and her friends took documents and exposed the company's evil practices. She explained it in this way, "I know that I must do this. I must fight for the rights of animals, and therefore my disability isn't going to hold me back." Louise was truly a unique individual. But she also contained that fire, determination, and anger that seemed to be common between all of the animal activists.

Campaign for the Abolition of Angling

Marianne told me that in the beginning of CAA, it was concerned primarily with educating anglers, but that this did not prove to be too effective as "they tend to have barriers up." So in the last few years CAA has been spending more of their time educating the public. They distribute literature, publish the newsletter "Pisces," and have made a video against angling which has helped to educate the public on the cruelties of fishing.

So what is wrong with fishing for sport? Marianne explains:

Fish are vertebrates. They have a back-bone, a central nervous system and a brain... If you stick a hook in their mouths, they feel pain. If you drag them out into the air, they are suffocating. If you handle them, it removes their mucous layer, which protects them from infection when they go back into the water. So even if anglers say they just throw them back...[it still causes trauma, stress, and pain].

There are also the effects on the environment; all the tackle-victims when anglers lose and discard line, hooks, and weights. Particularly water birds like swans get tangled up in it and get hooks down their throats... There is also the damaged bank-sides and all the litter that anglers leave around. They are certainly not conservationists in any way.

She adamantly opposes angling and is frustrated with the way people conventionally view it:

To sit out by the water and say how beautiful it all is and then to murder one of its species doesn't seem to coordinate to me, but that is how people actually treat angling -- it's a gentle pasttime instead of being a bloodsport which it is.

While I was in Britain, I was never involved in sabbing any angling matches, but I did manage to get involved with many pleasure angling sabs. At the sabs I participated in, the most effective tactic was just talking to the anglers. We would ask them questions about what they were doing, why they were doing it, and whether or not they thought it was cruel. These questions helped start a dialogue with them which allowed us educate the angler on the cruelty of angling. Because most anglers were fishing to "get away from it all," just speaking to them was usually enough to get them to pack up once they realized that we were not going to go away. But sometimes this was not enough and we would toss small stones into the water near where the line was to scare away the fish. However, sometimes this was not even enough to pack them, as was the case at the impromptu angling sab before the Anti-Meat March.

One of the activists who had gone for a walk through the park near where we were all congregating for the march had spotted some anglers at a fishing hole. He quickly notified us. Soon, about thirty of us started marching off toward the pond. When we arrived one of the activists was already talking to the anglers.

As gently as if he was talking to an infant child, he questioned the fisherman and his practices. He told him about the cruelty, stress, and harm involved in hooking a fish, in handling them, even with a wet cloth, and in storing them in keep nets. He spoke of the ability that fish have to feel pain. He spoke of other kill-free ways to enjoy the environment. He paused. The fisherman continued to fish.

Without concern for himself, or a moment's hesitation, the activist jumped into the pond fully clothed. He started swimming his way over to the line to snap it, but by then, the angler knew he had lost. The angler reeled in his lines and with hurt pride started packing up. But he was not alone as the seven other anglers had been packed up by the other activists.

Looking around, we saw the anglers' trash everywhere. Strewn about were Styrofoam cups, empty popcorn bags, beer cans, and spools worth of non-biodegradable fishing line tangled in the weeds, left on the ground, and floating in the water. This garbage is hazardous to the environment and its occupants. Birds, dogs, cats, fish, and even ponies can get tangled and cut up in the discarded or "lost" fishing line. Swans have starved to death from lacerated beaks and throats that resulted from them swallowing discarded tackle (Anglers Kill Them All). So we cleaned up the trash and collected handfuls of fishing line in front of the now highly embarrassed anglers.

This sab was similar to most of the angling sabs that I had been on in that it was impromptu. Most pleasure angler sabs usually occur before or after another animal rights event. An unfortunate similarity between all of the angling sabs I was on was that at every water hole or channel we sabbed, it was always easy to find lengths and lengths of discarded fishing line and litter, which we always did our best to get rid of.

CAA would be considered a local group as they have no paid staff and support direct action. Their policy statement is as follows:

The Campaign for the Abolition of Angling does not take part in illegal activity, but recognizes the effectiveness of non-violent direct action and sympathises with those who carry it out. (Pisces 1).

Hunt Sabotage

Angling sabbing is a form of direct action, but the most abundant form of direct action in Britain is the more terrestrial hunt sabotage. The Hunt Saboteur's Association is a group whose main purpose is to use non-violent direct action in defense of wild animals. Currently they have 3,000 to 5,000 members, but up to 9,000 people who hunt sab (Campbell). There are approximately 150 local groups throughout the country which are "entirely independent and organize their own activities without recourse to the national Committee" (New Member's Pack). HSA also publish the newsletter Howl, which includes local sab group updates, information on effective tactics, and other news relating to bloodsports and hunt sabotage.

Hunt sabotage has been happening in Britain since the sixties and continues to be going strong. The HSA sabotages all "sports involving the torture of wildlife", including fox, hare, deer, mink, and otter hunts as well as hare coursing, badger baiting, game shooting, and angling. For each type of sabbing, there are different tactics used. But because most hunts are carried out in the traditional manner with packs of hounds, the saboteurs try to gain control of the pack by imitating the hunters horn calls and hollering. Once the saboteurs have control of the pack they can lead the pack away from any potential victims.

The majority of the population is against hunting. In 1991, an independent polling company found that 80% of the population disapproves of fox hunting, and are even more against stag and hare hunts (Wildlife Protection 38). Both the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats have adopted a policy to abolish all hunting with hounds (38). Furthermore, in 1992, a Gallup Poll found that 78% of the people disagreed with the Royal Family's involvement in fox hunting (Road to Victory, Spring 1993). Regardless of these statistics, no national law has been passed to ban hunts, but activists are managing to get many local councils to ban hunting on public lands. For the areas where those victories have not yet happened, the hunts continue, and the sabbers continue to sab.

When I was in Britain I was involved in sabbing grouse shoots, mink hunts, angling, and cub hunts. As I mentioned earlier, different tactics are involved for sabbing different "sports," but some tactics are more effective than others. Cub hunts are probably one of the most difficult hunts to sabotage.

In cub hunting, the hunters are training new hounds and teaching them to thirst for blood. To do this, older, more experienced hounds are sent out with young hounds who have never hunted before. Riders on horseback surround a small area of woods. The hounds are then sent in to scare all the cubs out. Cubs, who are more inexperienced with being hunted, are more likely to bolt when they hear the hounds running through the woods. When the cub runs from the cover, the riders holler to alert the hunter to the fact that a cub has been spotted. The riders then beat their saddles with their whips to scare the cub back into the forest.

Now the cub has two options, he or she can either bolt past the noisy riders on horseback, or turn back into the woods and try to evade the hounds. If the cub bolts, the hunters typically let them go as they will make "better sport" when they grow up. If the cub turns back into the woods, the hunter blows the horn which alerts the dogs to the whereabouts of the cub. Once the dogs pick up on the scent of the cub, they start a full cry and track the cub until they catch up and kill him or her.

Unlike fox hunting, the object is not to have a long drawn out chase, but to teach the new hounds how to track and kill a fox. Because of this, there are few ways in which hunt saboteurs can intervene and stop a kill from being made. In fox hunting the long chase allows for sabs to spray scents over the trail of the fox to mask the fox's scent and allows more time for the sabs to take control of the pack using horn and voice calls. But with cub hunting, saboteurs would be harmful in the woods as they would act as another hound that might cause a cub to bolt out of hiding. Sabs outside of the woods near the horse riders can also be counterproductive, as they just act as another rider who could scare a cub back into the woods to his or her death.

So the most effective tactic is for a few people to stand outside of the woods and get control of the dogs by imitating a rider's holler and then imitating the hunter's horn call which calls the hounds to him. If this is successful the hounds will be taken from the riders and then the saboteurs can take them and run with them, trying to take them as far away from the hunter as possible. This is complicated by the fact that the riders surrounding the woods are also going to stop the dogs from leaving the wood. But even if the hounds get past the riders, the riders are on horseback and can easily catch up to the hounds who are being led away by the sabs on foot.

But even against such insurmountable odds, sabbing cub hunts is still effective. I spent one week involved in cub sabs near Nottingham and the surrounding areas. Hunts which would typically kill seven or more cubs each day out would walk away with only two or less kills a day when we showed up. Some days we even managed to keep the hunters from making any kills.

The hunt saboteurs eventual goal is to abolish all bloodsports although their immediate goal is to save as many animals as possible. With some sports like grouse shooting where wealthy people pay private land owners to shoot, the hunt saboteurs can cause a little economic sabotage of their own. People will pay in the area of #5,000 to partake in the grouse shoots. The organizer of the shoot promises the paying customers a certain number of kills or their money back. Hunt saboteurs who disrupted and even forced the cancellation of some shoots cost the shoot organizers #150,000 pounds in North Yorkshire alone in 1992 ("Road to Victory" Spring 1993). So through disruption and economics, the hunt sabbers are hoping to save animals and abolish the hunts.

Hunt Violence

Unfortunately, hunters who are willing to kill for sport, also seem willing to kill to ensure that their "sports" continue. This brings us to the issue of hunt violence. Hunt violence has become more and more of a regular occurrence between hunters and sabbers. Rat started sabbing when he was 18 years old, over eight years ago, and he has witnessed hunt violence many times:

I've seen a lot of [hunt violence] on numerous occasions. Simple things like people getting whipped, ridden over; riders getting off their horses and hitting people with all sorts of weapons: bike chains, padlock chains; their favorite thing is pickaxe handles, spades -- just anything really, anything they can get their hands on.

It is very odd feeling to be hunt sabbing as you are often very close to the hunt supporters and security who sometimes come off as friendly and sociable, but in a split second turn around and hit you in the nose. Sabbers need to always be on their toes, watching their backs, and travelling in groups.

I remember my first non-angling hunt sab. It was Sunday, July 24 and sabs from West London, Oxford, Brighton, and other locations congregated near Bath to sab the Ytene Mink Hunt. There were around seventy of us altogether. The large numbers were needed for safety reasons, because in the past the Ytene had been very violent.

With mink hunts, the hunter, hounds, and supporters walk up and down the river banks where the mink live and let the hounds sniff to pick up the scent of the mink. When the hounds get a scent they "sound" and follow the scent to the mink's lair. Once the lair is found, the terrierman digs out the mink or if the lair is large enough, he or she puts their terriers into the hole to catch and drag the mink out so that the dogs can kill him or her.

What the sabbers try to do is get control of the dogs by using voice calls and running the hounds. If the hounds are running they are less able to "look" for scents and generally just follow the rest of the pack blindly, which means they are going to be unable to find or kill any mink. If the hounds pick up on the scent of a mink, then it's the sabber's duty to find the mink hole and physically place themselves on top of it to keep the terriermen from digging them out.

My first encounter with a hunt supporter was when I was walking on the edge of the river bank in front of the Ytene pack. As I was inexperienced, I unknowingly allowed myself to get separated from the main group of sabbers. Trying to understand the situation, I was paying more attention to the pack then what was going on around me. From behind, an elderly hunt supporter gave me a sharp yet concealed shove toward the ten foot drop that I was standing next to. As I was not paying particular attention to my balance, I almost fell in, but managed to save myself. Bewildered, I turned around and the man said, "Be careful you don't fall in." He then smiled and laughed at his wit. Needless to say I never let myself stray vary far from the group of sabs again.

Another incident during the day was when the hunt decided to hop a fence so that they were no longer on public land, but on their own private land. One of the sabs from Oxford jumped up onto the step ladder which the hunters were using to cross over the fence and wrapped herself around it so that no one could use it. One of the hunt supporters came up from behind her and rammed the end of his walking stick into her behind. The numerous amounts of police that were standing around managed to overlook this. They also managed to not see the old man on the other side of the fence when he shoved the end of his walking stick into her face. He claimed that it accidently happened as the cane was fumbling around in his hand and had "just slipped". The old man who had just hit her in the face then had the nerve to politely ask her to move. The way this man was acting, it seemed as if he had a split personality. Of course the sabber stayed put through the hits and harassment and replied that she was not going to move so that they could go and kill defenseless animals. At this, the hunters decided to circumvent her and just jumped the fence and carried on with their hunt.

Because they were now on private land, we had to follow them on the other side of the river which was still public. Whenever the hounds sounded, we jumped into the river, swam across and covered the mink hole so that the terrier men could not get at them. One time, six of us were standing in the river covering up a mink hole in the river bank. The hunt supporters had the wise idea that they would dig down from on top of the river bank to the mink hole that was five feet below them. Of course, this was ludicrous. The real reason they were digging is because the spade was only a few inches away from the heads of the activists who were covering the hole. There were enough hunt supporters gathered around the diggers so that the police could not see what was happening, and they started "digging" madly, the activists were having to duck and dodge the spade, but luckily the hunters "lost interest" as soon as two cam-corders and a photographer arrived and started documenting their activities.

Cam-corders and cameras have become standard equipment with activists as they produce evidence which manages to convict hunt supporters, terriermen, and hunters of hunt violence in court. It was video footage that forced the two hunt supporters of the Bicester and Waddon Chase Hunts to plead guilty to pushing a sab under an all terrain vehicle which the other one was driving ("Sabbing News").

Even David Henshaw, an animal rights opponent who wrote the book Animal Warfare in an attempt to discredit the movement, admitted the violence that activists were often victims of:

Beatings were regularly handed out oftentimes while the police stood by and did nothing. During demonstrations against hare coursing at the Waterloo Cup course in Lancashire, Eddie Coulson, a peaceful saboteur, was severely injured in a violent attack by a courser; Coulson's skull was cracked in the incident, inducing epilepsy in the victim. (96)

Which of these two men got arrested for causing a breach of the peace? My picture captures a delightful moment in English country life. A jolly huntsman, Mr. Mark Evans, is having some sport with an anti-hunt demonstrator, Mr. Patrick Kelly. Mr. Kelly had the gall to complain to a policeman that he had been whipped and head-butted. He was promptly arrested and held in a police cell at Alton.

I was taking pictures of him, because I was so shocked to see someone like that. It was terrifying. It was like a scene straight out of Northern Ireland, you don't expect to see something like that in Cumbria. Then all of a sudden he came rushing towards me and swung the hammer at me, missing me by an inch. (Elliot)

Mike Hill

Mike was too nice for this world. There was not hurt nor malice in his soul. He thought good of everyone and everything. He was quiet, unassuming, softly spoken and gentle with those abandoned animals in his care. ("Obituary").

The hunt had not made any kills that day. The huntsman packed up the hounds in a blue trailer which was being towed by an open-top pick up truck. To keep the hunt from picking up and hunting somewhere else, three sabs, including Mike Hill, jumped onto the back of the pickup truck to keep them from moving. This however did no such thing.

Alan Summersgill, who was driving the vehicle, drove off at high speed. Summersgill was driving erratically and at high speed over country lanes towing the pack of hounds and three terrified sabs. The sabs were having trouble hanging on and decided that they would jump off if ever the vehicle slowed down. Unfortunately Mike panicked and jumped off the truck when it was still going an estimated 40 mph. He did not clear the truck properly and was crushed by the trailer. The remaining sabs tried frantically to get Summersgill to stop, but to no avail. Finally they smashed in the back of the window, which did make him stop. One ran back to Mike and found him lying dead in the road. The other sab ran to the nearest house to call an ambulance.

No charges were brought against Summersgill by the police even though he left the scene of the accident and had been driving in a reckless manner that could, and did, endanger life. Summersgill was released by the police that day. At the inquest a verdict of "accidental death" was brought by the coroner. Activists were outraged, but not surprised:

Let us make no mistake, Mike's death was the culmination of the trends over the last ten years of hunt sabotage on the Cheshire Beagles (and indeed trends that are echoed all over the country with other packs). Firstly, there is a sustained level of violence against sabs and secondly a complete absence of police interest in the violence. There has not been one single prosecution by the Cheshire police for any of these attacks by the Cheshire Beagles over the last ten years, the worst of which resulted in a Liverpool University student receiving a triple fractured jaw. Because the police have never acted against the hunt they have continued to take the law into their own hands, dishing out violence willy-nilly. Now they have killed a hunt saboteur -- has anything changed? It would appear not.

Although the police basically ignored the death of a sab, the police reaction to a few broken windows was substantial:

To date, over 40 people have been arrested and charged with riot (not released with a pat on the back like Alan Summersgill) which carries a possible 10-year sentence. Virtually all of these people were arrested by association -- there is no evidence that they did any damage, they were just present. Only one person was actually arrested at the demonstration. All of those arrested that week were refused bail and remanded to prison -- even someone who was seven months pregnant. An appeal was made and eventually bail was eventually granted. One of the conditions was that each and every person had to put up #1,000 security. For most of the people concerned this was difficult and an added burden. They had spent several days in custody yet Summersgill was not even held for 24 hours. These arrests and consequent home raids by the police and CID compounded the grief and frustration the activists were suffering. Most activists were in a state of shock and bewilderment at the entire ordeal. And from this the anger grew.

After the protest at Alan Summersgill's house, he and his family had moved out. Three weeks after Mike Hill died, Summersgill's #75,000 bungalow was gutted by fire (Hudson).

Although these incidents had taken place in 1991, for the activists I met, it was as if he had died just the other day. Mike Hill was still alive within the hearts and minds of the individuals within the movement. They have not forgotten him, and I doubt they ever will. Considering the fact that some people were still mourning his death when I visited Britain, they were obviously not ready for the news that a second sab had been killed.

Tom Worby

The hunt eventually boxed up their pack and drove the hound van down a narrow lane away from the meet, as about 30 saboteurs strolled along in front. Eyewitnesses allege that the driver of the hound van began revving the engine and nudging the vehicle forward. The saboteurs quickly scrambled for the side; however Tom Worby's jacket apparently became snagged on the left wing mirror, and he was dragged a considerable distance before gaining a foothold on the truck's running board. Saboteurs allege that the young man banged on the window to encourage the driver to stop, but the vehicle continued and Thomas lost his grip and fell to the roadside, only to rebound underneath the vehicle. His head was crushed by the rear wheels of the seven-ton truck and he died shortly afterwards. The sabs then asked three huntsmen to go up to their house and call an ambulance, the hunters responded by saying, "Oh we're not going that way" and later, after the police had summoned an ambulance, hunt supporters taunted the activists and laughed saying, "He deserved it." (Pearce) All of this was very hard for the activists to deal with, but what they were not expecting was the massive media onslaught that they received.

The Saboteurs then held a memorial gathering in Parker's Piece, Cambridge, where 500 people gathered to mourn the tragic death. It was a dignified and somber memorial despite a hunt supporter who stood by and continued to hurl abuses at the people. The media all showed, but instead of reporting on the event, they used it as another excuse to reprint the same distorted and incorrect stories of Nazi infiltrators and the "problem child" ("Sabbing News").

As with the death of Mike Hill, the 53 year old huntsman Alan Ball, who had drove the vehicle, was questioned by the police and released. It was decided that no further action would be taken against him.

Both of the deaths have been tragic and demoralizing. The incidencts that followed have reinforced the activist's ideas that they live in a corrupt society that is maintained by the press, which prefers to spew misinformation in an attempt to protect the status quo. Although these "setbacks" -- for lack of a better word -- have been hard to deal with, they have also caused the activists to look deeper into themselves and find the stores of untapped determination, anger, and energy to fight harder and prepare for the battle ahead. From what I witnessed, the movement is still as strong now, if not stronger, as it had been before the tragedies, and people are still turning up in droves to sab the hunters.

But the death of the activists has forced all activists to step back and re-evaluate their commitment to the animals. The chant that I had so often heard at protests took on a whole new meaning:

What do we want? - Animal Liberation!
When do we want it? - Now!
Are we going to fight for it? - Yes!
Are we going to die for it? - YES!

The Story of the Animal Liberation Front

The Animal Liberation Front is the direct action group that carries out exclusively illegal actions for animals. The ALF was concisely summarized in the first issue of Arkangel:

The Animal Liberation Front carries out direct action against animal abuse, rescuing animals and causing financial loss to animal abusers, usually through the damage and destruction of property. Their short term aim is to rescue as many animals as possible and directly disrupt the practice of animal abuse; their long term aim is to end all animal suffering by forcing animal abuse companies and individuals out of business. It is a non-violent campaign, activists taking precautions not to harm any person or animal. Because ALF actions are against the law, activists work anonymously, either in groups or individually, and do not have a central contact address or any centralised organization or co-ordination. ("Animal Liberation Front" 26)

His involvement with radical activity started when he got involved with the hunt saboteurs after watching sabbers getting attacked by members of the hunt on a television program. Soon after joining the saboteurs, he started to realize that even they were not going far enough. Lee told me in an interview:

What really got me into even more radical direct action was cub hunting... They send a load of foxhounds into the woods and they surround the woods with riders and people on foot who make a lot of noise. Some of the foxes will bolt for it, but the ones that are frightened and stay in the woods, they just get killed by the hounds...

We went to one or two of these events with other hunt saboteurs and there was really nothing we could do. There was really no way of intervening. There wasn't a chase where we could intervene and lay a false scent or spray something to cover the foxes scent, it wasn't like that. They were just all in the wood, killing these foxes, with all of these hunt thugs surrounding them and there was nothing we could do. So I thought that obviously it can't be done this way, and then I came up with the idea of just going to the hunt kennels the night before the hunt and damaging their vehicles so that they just couldn't go in the first place. A few of us got together when we started doing that, and that would have been in 1972.

The next year, the Band of Mercy took credit for attempting to burn down a research laboratory that was going to perform radiation experiments on animals. Neither of their two attempts were successful, but substantial damage was done.

They then successfully destroyed a seal hunting boat in East Anglia, and began a campaign against vehicles that were owned by companies that supplied animals to research laboratories.

In 1974, Ronnie Lee and Cliff Goodman were caught at a laboratory and sentenced to three years in prison. While Lee was in prison, he thought that it might be the end of that kind of direct action because few actions were still happening. But when he got out on parole a year later, he was pleasantly surprised to find many activists interested in getting involved in illegal actions for animals. This is when they decided to change their name to the Animal Liberation Front.

Since then, the ALF have carried out numerous successful raids on laboratories, factory farms, hunt kennels, fur farms, and all places of animal abuse. They have decimated the fur industry with an intensive economic sabotage campaign that destroyed property of the fur producers and retailers, and are constantly exposing the abuses that go on behind locked doors.

Ronnie Lee was eventually convicted again, this time for being caught with some liberated mice from a laboratory supplier. He was jailed for eight months. After his release he became the ALF Press Officer, where he disseminated information about ALF raids to the press and answered the media's questions. In 1986 he was arrested again on conspiracy charges. He was found guilty and sentenced to 10 years of prison. During his time in jail he and his friend, Vivien Smith -- who had just been released from jail for crimes involving the ALF -- started up the magazine Arkangel. Lee served six years and eight months of his sentence and was released on probation. He is now "at large," and still heavily involved in the struggle. He is still helping with Arkangel and is also trying to organize the set up of animal rights groups in other countries.

Lee's achievements are many and varied, but his biggest achievement will always be founding the Animal Liberation Front, which is now as much a part of the movement as the nationals had traditionally always been. The majority of the activists are in full support of actions carried out by the ALF. Yet how can so many people justify such blatantly illegal actions? That question will be dealt with in the next few sections.

The Nature of Violence

Webb became involved in animal activism about 12 years ago when he worked for an electronics company that was next door to a slaughterhouse. One day he had seen them unload pigs into the slaughterhouse, and that night his wife Margaret had a pork platter waiting for him at home. They both went vegetarian and within a few months had become vegan.

Since then, Webb has been involved in the movement in numerous ways. He has been the Assistant Director of Animal Aid, and was elected as a council member of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals in 1989. However, when he became the ALF Press Officer, he was expelled from the Society for bringing it into "disrepute." Besides being the ALF Press Officer, he is presently the Vice President of the Vegan Society, a committee member of the National Anti-Hunt Petition and a co-opted member of the Christian Consultative Council for the Welfare of Animals. The sincerity of his beliefs can be seen by the fact that all of these positions are strictly volunteer work. The commitment he had toward the animals was also present as he spoke to me about his beliefs and thoughts on the issues.

When I spoke to him, I spoke to him mainly regarding his involvement as the ALF Press Officer. He explained to me the policies of the ALF, which are to release animals from abusive conditions and place them in good homes, or in the wild if that is appropriate; to destroy property of equipment used in animal abuse; and an overriding policy that life should not be threatened or endangered. He wrapped it up by adding that, "Anyone can go out and undertake an action within those policies and claim it as the Animal Liberation Front."

One of the big distinctions that is made by the activists is the definition of violence. In their views, violence can only be done against individuals that have the capacity to feel. To say that one can be violent to property is to obscure the word. This would put true acts of violence like rape and murder on the same level as acts of graffiti, and vandalism, which are on two completely different moral planes. Individuals have a desire to be free of suffering. An inanimate object has no such interest and is not concerned if it is destroyed. Inflicting pain on an individual who desires to be free from suffering is inherently wrong. The destruction of property, on the other hand, is not inherently wrong, sometimes it is even the right thing to do.

If a demolitions expert destroys a building because it is unsafe and a potential hazard, then she has not done anything wrong. In fact, what she has done can be considered a good thing as she is possibly preventing a serious accident which could injure innocent people. Webb feels the ALF are analogous to this demolitions expert, as they destroy property to prevent the suffering of innocent animals:

If the property (inanimate object) is used to inflict or support the infliction of distress, suffering or death, then we have a clear moral duty to free the sentient creature from such inflictions so long as other sentient life is not harmed. Similar moral concern cannot be extended to inanimate objects; therefore the destruction of such objects is morally justifiable. (Violence)

Explaining the Reasoning Behind the Animal Liberation Front

In larger actions, video footage is taken of animal abuse in laboratories, factory farms, and fur farms, and then the animals are taken and the equipment is destroyed. Trucks used to transport animals to labs or slaughterhouses are firebombed. When the opportunity is available, entire buildings are burned down, assuming that this can be done without harming another individual. The extent of the ALF actions is limited only by the imagination of the individuals and their strict non-violence policy.

These larger actions are more rare than the smaller actions, but are still quite frequent. The few weeks before I talked to Webb, many large raids had happened. Ten beagles had been rescued from the Cheshire Beagle Hunt, and another seven dogs were rescued from an abusive farm in Lincolnshire. Two pigs had been rescued from a research unit, and 83 hens were liberated from a factory farm. Also, nineteen pens which were used for rearing pheasants who would become target practice for shooters, were burned to the ground.

So the ALF is definitely alive and well in Britain, but I asked Webb how he could justify the ALF, seeing that their actions are so extreme. He replied:

I think the only justification for the ALF existing is that animal abuse exists. I hear the activists being termed "extremists" and "terrorists," surely it's extreme to stitch up the eyelids of a kitten in a research laboratory, it's extreme to transplant the head of one monkey onto another, it's extreme to tear a young calf from his mother's side to steal her milk and condemn him to a short life in a veal crate, it's extreme to castrate a young piglet without anesthetic merely to argue that the meat will taste better when he's murdered. Surely that is true extremism, real terrorism against the weak and innocent. I believe that those who seek to end atrocities of that nature are only guilty of one thing, and that's compassion.

Many people would agree with Webb that something must be done to fight animal abuse, but would disagree with Webb that it is necessary to use illegal activities. But the illegality of their actions does not deter the activists because they recognize the limitations of the law, as Webb said:

Legislation isn't constant, laws are introduced, amended and withdrawn. What was legal years ago may be illegal now and vice-versa. What is constant is what is morally right and morally wrong. And in a nutshell, to break unjust laws in pursuit of justice cannot be wrong.

Laws are not infallible. In the past, child prostitution was legal, but it was still wrong. Activists feel that the current laws which support animal abusers and treat animals as property are wrong, and need to be changed to better reflect the interests of animals. But until then, the ALF activists will continue to break the law for the animals.

Now with other liberation movements in the past, the abolition of slavery and emancipation of women -- neither of which have been completely achieved yet, but we are a long way along the road -- people worked both within and without the law. Yet no one with hindsight would condemn those who broke the law in pursuit of the abolition of slavery and votes for women. I believe that history will show that those who've gone outside unjust laws in pursuit of justice for those who cannot fight for themselves were equally justified in doing so.

As with most people, the activists supported the underground railroad, which whisked innocent slaves away to freedom, and the French Resistance, who had no qualms with freeing imprisoned people from concentration camps. Because the activists saw it as morally right to break the laws to help people who were innocent victims of an oppressive system, they similarly see it as morally right to break the law to help the animals who are the victims of an oppressive system.

But many activists, regardless of whether it is right or not, feel that such tactics are counterproductive to the movement because the actions generate bad publicity. So I asked Robin Webb how the activists could justify the actions considering the amount of bad publicity they receive?:

The movement is not the be-all and end-all. The movement is there to help the non-human animals, not to protect its own image. I don't believe those who broke the law to help the slaves to escape were thinking of the image of the political campaign. I think they just wanted to help oppressed human beings to freedom in the same way that those who are trying to free non-humans aren't too bothered about the media reaction.

[Economic sabotage] decimated the fur trade in the United Kingdom. And that is not just a claim made by the ALF, it's a claim made by the British Fur Trade Association, who said two or three years ago that if it had been the lawful educational campaigns, they would still have fur shops up and down the country. It was the ALF attacks on their premises which drove people out of business. Direct action does work.

The ALF has definitely been successful in all three of its policies: non-violence, liberating animals, and economically sabotaging the industry. But many activists feel that the ALF has done a lot more than what it has set out to do. Brandon McNally, an ex-ALF activist who planted incendiary devices in department stores that sold fur, thinks, like many activists, that it was direct action that got the movement rolling in Britain:

Twelve years ago the majority of the population never gave a thought for the plight of animals in laboratories or factory farms. Most people were simply ignorant, or refused to believe the horror stories told by the small, scattered band of animal lib "fanatics" out leafletting town centres on Saturday afternoons. It was only when a large amount of groups of activists began to take direct action that the public and media began to take notice. Establishments were raided, animals were rescued, documentary evidence of horrifying goings-on was obtained and economic war was waged against the perpetrators.

Gradually, using the evidence and publicity, the hitherto largely dormant national animal rights groups began to attract more and more members and support.

In terms of publicity achieved by the ALF, it really stirred things up, created a lot of publicity in the newspapers and things like that. I think that also brought a lot more people into the animal rights movement. The publicity that is caused by ALF actions isn't always good publicity and the media often rant and rave about these "maniacs" and "lunatics." But from the animal abusers' point of view, they would rather these activities were not publicized at all. They would rather just carry on doing it and no one knows about it, no one thinks about it. So even if the people who take actions are termed lunatics and other insults given to them by the media, that still doesn't mean that that is a positive thing for the animal abusers, because their activities are still being exposed. Light is still being cast on what they are doing and they don't want that.

Robin Webb often calls the police to tell them when an ALF action is reported to him. This helps ensure that his door is not sledgehammered down by the police in the middle of the night when they learn about the raid. [ARRS Administrator Note: As of January, 1995, Webb is incarcerated for "incitement".] Recently, when Webb had called the police to report a raid, the Senior Officer requested that he didn't tell the media about it as it might give people bad ideas. Webb told him something he had heard the police tell him all too often, "I'm just doing my job."

Webb informed me that the media is becoming less inclined to report ALF actions, even if they are very newsworthy. The fact that the media and police are trying to censor publicity of ALF actions helps convince the activists that the publicity the ALF receive is helpful.

Because of the ALF's tremendous list of successes, it is not surprising that many activists are completely supportive of the them. But oddly enough, the support for them does not end at the borders of the animal movement.

Support for the Animal Liberation Front

Marianne, who used to work for the National Anti-Vivisection Society and is currently the National Secretary of the Campaign for the Abolition of Angling, is an avid supporter of the ALF:

Direct action...is necessary in a lot of cases because there are a lot of people who make a lot of money out of animal abuse -- or enjoy it a lot -- and they are only going to stop by someone directly intervening to save animals. That's not for everybody, because there are risks with that, whether it's within the law or not.

In this particular [raid] what we were concerned with was the dogs he was keeping in a very small van. We were aiming to rescue those dogs, rehome them, and then burn the van that they had been kept in so that he couldn't keep them. This farmer has over 100 convictions for animal cruelty and he has even been sent to prison for it. So the only way to stop him from keeping animals is to break the law. He's been banned for 15 years for keeping animals by the courts. So he doesn't listen to any compassionate arguments, so that was the only way to save those animals.

Marianne suspects that the reason they did not want to reveal the information is because there is an informer working amongst them. If the prosecution had disclosed the file on her and her friends, the informer would have been disclosed as well, and then the informer would have become useless to the authorities. That is the only reason they can think of that would keep them from revealing the documents.

Another activist, Rhian, from Wales is also supportive of the ALF and has been arrested for ALF activities, but was not as fortunate as Marianne and ended up spending several months in prison. She was arrested once for smashing the windows of the medical school in Liverpool. She was arrested a second time for smashing butcher's windows in Darby. I asked her to explain to me why she broke the law. She responded:

Oh, because when you go out demonstrating and then you think "Oh Christ, this is going to take me ages," so you just go run and smash their windows instead. It's just like you get frustrated and angry and you want something to happen and you make it happen yourself rather than waiting.

I would support any form of direct action that relieves animal suffering. I've got no right to say any less, simply because if I was that suffering animal, then I would want that direct action. So it would be absolutely stupid and illogical to say I don't believe in it. I would only not believe in it because I am sitting from a very cosy position. But if I was in agony I'd want a reliever from that agony.

Surprisingly, the support of the ALF did not end at the boundaries of the movement. Celia told me, "As regards liberating animals and breaking into laboratories, the public are there 100%. I don't believe any different." Although this is obviously an exaggeration, from my experience, her statement seemed true.

I remember the only street stall which I worked at that raised over #100 in one day. It was the street stall that featured two liberated beagles. The public were very happy for the beagles and gladly dropped their money in the collecting tin. The stall took in not just #100, but almost #200. This was the most successful stall I had ever been at, and the people in the general public expressed to us their support of the liberators.

But it is not just adults who are in favor of the ALF. On September 9, 1989, the Sunday Times reported on a poll of young people age 16-25. Sixty-five percent of the people polled, who knew of the ALF, supported their aims, and approximately 20% of them supported their methods. In the 16-19 age group, 25% of them agreed with the methods of the ALF ("Road to Victory" Spring 1990). Support for the radical actions of the ALF seem to come from all areas.

Ironically, it seems that the most vehement opposition to the ALF does not come from the public as much as it comes from within the movement. National societies often vehemently oppose the actions of the ALF and continually speak out against their actions. One of the debates that is continually rehashed is dealing with the issue of arson. This will be looked at in the next section.

Arson: Property Damage or Violence?

There is no doubt that actions such as liberation of animals and removal of evidence from places of animal exploitation have done a great deal to further our cause. If it had not been for illegally obtained evidence several campaigns in which we have been involved would not have been successful. While I have worked for this organization I have never condemned anyone who has broken the law, without risk to life, to help animals.

However there is more than a difference in tactics involved when you cross the line into lethal activities [arson]. I do not call these potentially lethal because I am sure that when department stores [which sell fur] have burned down lives have been lost. Any big building is a natural habitat for insects, rodents, birds and perhaps cats or even roosting bats... So far no human life has been lost but that is more by chance than design. (Robins, ACS News)

Sometimes this support even translates into action as in the year of 1991, where over 100 refrigerated meat trucks were destroyed by fire. This cost the industry #5 million, plus the added costs of increased insurance premiums and security costs. Robin Webb of the ALF Press Office told me of these actions. He added, "Although arson was used, no humans and no animals were endangered in any of those actions."

Robin Webb wrote in the latest issue of Arkangel his stance on arson:

It cannot be repeated too often that the ALF has always adhered to a policy of taking every precaution to not endanger life. However, it is not a perfect world. Even this page you are reading, recycled though it may be, would originally have cost lives to produce...the occupants of the tree, small though they may have been, enjoyed life which was important to them. Regretfully, one cannot remain in the real world to fight battles without there being casualties. So long as causing harm was not only unintentional but also minimized so far as possible then surely one can ask no more. ("News from the ALF Press Office")

But regardless of how the activists feel on the use of arson as a tactic, people like Ronnie Lee are continuing to try to keep the movement from being fragmented by such issues. He pleads for unity first:

The incendiary campaigners are "our people". Like us, their lives have been made a nightmare by the horror of animal persecution. A nightmare which has driven them to take action! And whether or not we agree with those actions, we must always stand in solidarity with our people vis-a-vis an uncaring world. (Robins, ACS News)

The ALF Press Office

When Lee was forcibly removed from his job by the authorities, Robin Lane took the position in August of that year. He continued to explain to the media the animal abuse which forced activists to liberate and devastate for the animals. This life was not all glamor and prestige though. Robin's flat was raided six times by the police who preferred to sledgehammer their way in, instead of knock. One time the Anti-Terrorist squad came around, which resulted in a six-hour-long psychologically grueling interrogation. Being the good activist he was, Lane answered every question with "no comment." After this incident he "officially" stepped down as the Press Officer, which kept the police off his back, although he continued to be the Press Officer until he was convicted for incitement in 1988.

Although there was a spell when no one was the ALF Press Officer, now Robin Webb is holding that position, and because of his legally clean record, is managing to maintain the position. [ARRS ADministrator Note: As of January, 1995, he is incarcerated for "incitement".] The Press Officer's main job is to speak to the media for the ALF. This can happen in many ways. An activist can call Webb and tell him that an action has happened, and then Webb would in turn call the media and inform them of the action and the animal abuse which they were trying to stop. But as usually happens, the media calls the Press Officer, explains to him what they know of the action, and Webb then answers their questions.

Another job of the Press Officer is to decide which actions fall under ALF policy. This is a safeguard that keeps the opposition from trying to claim an action as an ALF action when it is obviously not. For instance, the hunt supporter John Newberry-Street planted a petrol bomb under his own car and called the police pretending to be from an animal rights organization. The police realized something was up when the first officer on the scene could find no bomb, but Newberry-Street quickly produced the petrol bomb from under his vehicle. He was convicted in October 1990 and sent to prison for 9 months. He said, "I did it do discredit the animal rights and hunt saboteurs organizations." (Hunter) But with Robin Webb, the ALF are protected from the opposition who try to do actions outside of the ALF's policy and claim it as ALF.

The ALF Press Officer is also available for talks at meetings and protests where he encourages lawful ways of campaigning. Robin Webb has learned from the unfortunate convictions of his predecessors, as he told me, "I would not encourage anyone to go out and break the law."

The ALF Press Officer is a very important job as ALF activists such as Keith Mann would attest to. Mann, was arrested for the alleged firebombing of meat trucks, and held on remand for one year without a trial. Keith had been constantly switched from prison to prison, possibly to make it harder to receive the many letters of support sent to him, and to keep his spirits down. But it worked to his advantage as one day this summer, when they were moving Keith to another prison, he decided that he had had enough. While being put into the car, he broke away from the two officers, jumped the fence and was never seen again. But while he had been in prison, he had done a lot of writing, one of his letters was printed in Arkangel and explained the importance of the ALF Press Officer. (Another one of Keith's articles from Turning Point is reprinted in Appendix 2).

Mann argues that the Press Officer is not only "vital in highlighting the cruelty of animal abuse," but also in helping to protect the activists:

Some activists consider the actions themselves to be risky enough without putting their liberty in the hands of reporters, while others don't like speaking to them or are not confident enough to do so. With a press officer all the problems are overcome... I do believe it is of benefit to have someone to speak publicly about the reasons why people are prepared to take risks on behalf of animals, rather than to say nothing, or to risk losing activists who have put their trust in reporters. ("In Defence")

The ALF Press Officer is vital in helping the ALF to be as effective as they can be by explaining their actions to the media, exposing the abusers, protecting the activists, and disseminating accurate information on ALF actions. Robin Webb is highly supportive of the ALF, but at the end of the day, he like many activists, realizes the importance of all actions on behalf of the animals:

I think the ALF isn't the be-all and end-all. ALF is not the only way to achieve animal liberation, and it won't achieve it on its own. Education in schools is important. Putting pressure on those in government is important. Putting legal pressure on animal abuse establishments is important. What is important is that all areas are working toward the same ends. We're all walking down the same road in the same direction, and the only common enemy at the end of the road is the animal abuser. I wish that all strands of the animal protection movement would remember that, as too much time and energy is lost arguing tactics, arguing methods, and while that is being done, we're not fighting for those who need us. (Interview)

Summary and Conclusion

And from this fountain of love, anger spews forth -- anger at the injustices carried out against the weak, defenseless, and innocent. An anger that is impatient. It wants to see the suffering end not ten years from now, or even next week, but now. The activist's determination to see improvements now, leads many of them to push the rules to the limit, and sometimes even break them. But as the saying goes, all is fair in love and war.

And to the activists, this is a war. The activists are willing to risk their personal safety, security, and even their lives for their nonhuman friends. To them, everything is at stake. Their friends are being tortured and slaughtered by the millions on fur farms, in laboratories, on factory farms, and in the wild. And now the activists face the very real possibility that their lives will be taken, as Mike Hill and Tom Worby's lives have been taken, because of their beliefs.

It was a pleasure to live and work with such committed and sincere people. Their love and concern showed through their every action. Luckily for the animals, such sincerity and love is contagious. I believe that the beliefs held by these individuals will continue to spread, not only within Britain, but worldwide. The truth and simplicity of their message is compelling and the peaceful vision of the future it promises is something to strive after.

Appendix 1

• Adams, Carol J. The Sexual Politics of Meat: A Feminist Vegetarian Critique. New York: Continuum, 1993. Arguments that show the connection between the feminist and animal rights philosophies.
• Linzey, Andrew. Christianity and the Rights of Animals. The Biblical argument for animal rights.
• Regan, Tom. The Case for Animal Rights. Berkeley: U of California P, 1983. The in-depth explanation of the "rights" philosophy for animals.
• Ruesch, Hans. Slaughter of the Innocent. Hartsdale: Civitas, 1983. Supports the argument against vivisection and the eating of meat based on the human harms these practices cause.
• Singer, Peter. Animal Liberation. Rev. ed. New York: Avon, 1991. The utilitarian philosophy for supporting animal liberation.

Appendix 2

We are all often a little disgruntled at the way animal liberation people organize, we're not professional enough and so on. This is probably the case. However, when we compare ourselves to the opposition and similar organizations we are top dog. I'll explain: Look at the police, they have the officers, infinite resources, the power to smash anyone in their way. They've gone all out to smash the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) with intensive surveillance, phone tapping, house bugs, widespread raids and arrests; mailing lists have been stolen along with piles of other materials and equipment. People lucky enough to be granted "bail" are having to live as internal exiles with all kinds of restrictions -- they even have to ask the courts to leave their own county.

They're going to such extremes because it's become clear that the ALF is a force to be reckoned with. In the last couple of years the ALF has claimed responsibility for closing down the Oxford University cat breeding colony at Nuneham Courtenay after rescuing every cat and threatening to destroy the building; re-launching the Boots campaign after raiding their Thurgarton lab. Since then hundreds of Boots' windows have been smashed; Closing down Sky Commercial Rabbits in West Yorkshire, when they emptied the farm of rabbits and burnt it to the ground; destroying years of research on mice and costing the researchers over #1.6 million when they broke into the Royal London Hospital and rescued the biggest number of animals ever taken from a UK lab; ending radiation experiments on pigs after releasing video and documentary evidence of the Churchill Hospital, Oxford; Destroying around 100 cattle or meat lorries in under 12 months, causing #5.5 million worth of damage and increasing security and insurance costs. Dozens of other vehicles and buildings have been firebombed, including the Tropical Medicine Center, Edinburgh causing #200,000 damage; the Working Terrier magazine offices in Wigan and Xenopus Biological Supplier in Sussex were destroyed. In just over 12 months over 1,680 lab animals and no less than 1,900 other animals have been given freedom.

Despite the authorities' show of strength, activity continues unabated. Animal abusers are at a loss and they hopelessly defend their actions by telling the public what they do is necessary and not cruel or they bury their heads in the sand and pretend it isn't happening. Instead of changing their tactics by improving animal welfare or ending animal abuse, they attempt to protect their property by spending vast sums on security that invariably fails to stop some very determined people.

We also win on prisoner support. Most people in prison tend to find out the hard way who their real friends are. It's a different story for ALF prisoners. The amount of support I've had from friends and people I don't know is heartwarming. It's easy to forget or ignore people in prison, but be assured if you end up off the streets you won't be alone or forgotten. I'll get out of prison stronger and more determined, because I know I've got a lot of people behind me and a movement that I love. It's also been made clear to me that there is massive support for the ALF, and that we are stronger, more determined and better organised than the opposition and we're capable of changing the world. And we're right!

Don't ever feel beaten or alone, there are many people with you always. We will naturally have setbacks -- the killing of Mike Hill was a "setback" but if anyone uses his death as anything less than a bloody good reason to do twice as much then we've failed him.

I'll leave you with the words of an owner of a fleet of refrigerated meat lorries firebombed by the ALF: "They'd daubed paint on the wagons and smashed a few windows and they'd put sugar in the tanks. But I'd never suspected they'd go to these lengths -- never in a million years." They expect it now, and they know why.

Works Cited