You call what these protesters do, harassment, intimidation and morally reprehensible. Your rhetoric is somehow preferrable to my sarcasm?

My words are not attempts to defelct the argument. I find what was presented as absurd and naive; those are valid assesments of a position. There is no argument, I don't think there are two sides to this issue. There is such a thing as evil in this world; there is right and there is wrong. I don't feel the need to acknowledge anyone's "right" to support torturing animals. As I have said repeatedly, I am all for peaceful, diplomatic, mainstream efforts that endeavor to achieve results and solutions. It's also a fact that those attempts have often not worked very well and as each day goes by, more and more animals are tortured and suffer painful, slow deaths. When do you say, enough? I feel the same about people who climb redwoods to prevent their being cut down, about civil disobedience to protest the war and many other non-violent, interruptive actions to make one's case. Ypu say they are counter-productive, I disagree. The squeaky wheel gets the grease in this world and sometimes, not always, more dramatic action is called for.

The huge fallacy in your argument . . . as is again exhibited in the majority of your last post,
is that you put forth many reasonable means of protesting corporate actions such as economic boycotts, etc. What about "I agree and support all those actions" do you not understand? I have said that repeatedly. I just don't think that one can always extend the deadline for one's grievances to be adressed indefinately.

I have seen many videos which were shot at animal testing facilities, many. Have you? Any cause or war requires all sorts of different participants with differing skill sets and abilities. There is a place for diplomatic, slow, efforts and there is a place for more urgent activism.

Thanks for the dialogue; it's enough. You may have the last word if you wish.

John, why do you feel the need to be flippant in your posts? You say things like 'absurd', 'naive', 'nonsense', and 'kumbaya' as a way to deflect the argument. Is that a measure of your personality, or the strength of your position? Be big, don't belittle.

Of course, how could music possibly contribute to peaceful, nonviolent revolution in society? Where is the power in that?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H52-6d92lHs

To reiterate, there are more efficacious ways to foster change.

If someone harasses and intimidates you and your family in your home, and destroys your property, are you going to stop blogging? Probably not. You may switch your phone number, alert the police, fight back, move somewhere else. But likely, the harassment will only strengthen your position, because the moral reprehensibility of the tactic is a betrayal of the argument which motivates it. The two (motivation and tactic) have to be consonant to have any force.

If, however, you do yield to the harassment, no matter. Other voices, other hands, will take your place. And so it is with these laboratories. Harassing researchers and workers does not advance the animal welfare cause. The opposition just digs in its heels, calls out the police, and replaces anyone who resigns. There is nothing timely or effective about your approach. You may think so, because you see "results" or get a response, but the change (if any) is temporary and illusory. Even if a laboratory does close, another will take its place. The system perpetuates. Animals continue to suffer and die. The cycle continues, round and round.

Instead of harassing individuals in their homes, our energy would be better spent educating consumers about the laboratory abuses and urging them to boycott the companies/products which benefit from Huntingdon and others. Similar to the Montgomery bus boycotts of the civil rights era, which lasted more than a year, and during which Martin Luther King's home was bombed, the consistent appeal to what-is-right (and their consistently noble approach) made a positive, favorable impression on the larger public. A year later, legislation was passed to desegregate the Montgomery buses.

Corporations are "people" too, but their inspiration is profit-driven, not conscience-driven. We must pinch them in the purse for them to feel it at all. Not all publicity is good, and publicly shaming big corporations, like McDonalds, whether on environmental issues or animal welfare, can eat into their sales. Their shareholders don't like a shaky bottom line, because there is no solid foundation on which to stand. If McDonalds can assuage the concerns of pesky activists, they create for themselves a better public image, and profits continue to grow, and everyone is "happy." When McDonalds demands tougher standards at its meat-packing plants, or that its cattle don't come from rainforest-cleared land, the whole industry shifts. Suppliers amend their practices or risk losing huge clients like McDonalds, or in some cases they shut down entirely. That is timely, effective change.

If pressure can be applied to certain keystone corporations in the cosmetic/cleaning product industries, with the help of compassionate consumers, then operations like Huntingdon can also be shut down. Most people don't know about animal testing labs, and puppy farms, and all the rest. It is our responsibility to do a better job in making it known to the public. Most people would be reviled to learn the truth, and would naturally recoil from supporting those practices. Also, alternatives to animal testing exist -- and they are continuing to be developed and refined -- and we must dialogue with industry to encourage this, more and more. Consumers will respond, too, because compassion sells.

Our tactics should reflect the goals we wish to achieve, in style and scale. Over and out.

Sorry, some people aren't willing to hold hands and sing Joan Baez songs for 50 more years while another hundred thousand Beagle's and kittens are tortured and die slow, painful deaths. If you think doing so give you the moral highground, please do so. I have a different take.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Cheers.

Well, doctors who perform abortions are making money off their practice, as far as I know. Anti-abortion activists sometimes harass, and have even murdered, those doctors -- out of some sense of moral imperative and urgency to stop what they perceive as a crime against humanity. You might use the appellation of fetus, with no viable rights beyond the mother's choice, but others regard a defenseless, voiceless unborn child who deserves protection and a god-given right to life. Similarly, proponents of animal exploitation also don't recognize the rights of animals beyond their human utility (whether for food, clothing, medicine, work or amusement), whereas you and I would regard animals as fully sentient beings deserving of respect and protection.

Therein lies the comparison. It doesn't require a huge stretch of imagination.

My concern is not with the abortion issue. What I have been advocating, and which you don't seem to appreciate, is that there are more productive, meaningful ways to engage in dialogue; to reconcile different (even opposing) perspectives; and to arrive at long-lasting change.

Like I said, I don't expect you to agree with me. I am not writing here to convince you otherwise. I have been sharing my thoughts in the spirit of a free, open exchange of ideas. However, I have said my piece. I have nothing more to add.

I am on the right side of this issue, no matter what your rhetoric and comparisons to abortion rights might proclaim. There are many human beings on this planet whose belief systems and actions are predicated on a mindset that is abhorent to me. People who "for profit" torture and kill defenseless animals are among them, they do so with full knowledge of what they are doing and clearly have no moral compass . . . in my opinion.

Your comparison of the abortion issue and the animal-rights issue is with all due repsect nonsensical. A woman chooses the abortion of a "fetus" in most cases after a personal, careful, thoughtful process and evaluation of her health, future and body and there is no profit motive for doing so.

The corporate managers and workers at animal testing labs and research facilities do so for profit and profit only and what they do causes unimaginable pain and suffering.

Let's agree to disagree and move on, this is going nowhere. You have the right to your opinion and thanks for expressing it.

It must be reassuring to always be on the right side of every issue. As for those on the wrong side, who may differ from you by choice or circumstance, they are worthless and hopeless. Screw 'em.

You wrote, "I see little value in caring for people who participate in the torture and slaughter of animals" [i.e., the unnecessary abuse and destruction of life].

Your careless, cavalier disregard for others -- your absolute, unsympathetic righteousness -- is what exacerbates conflict, rather than helps to reconcile opposing perspectives. Yours is the same thinking as any fundamentalist anti-abortion advocate. In their eyes, too, the distinction between right and wrong is equally certain and clear. There is a moral imperative that compels them to action. They have little concern for those who facilitate the waste and destruction of life. They just want the abomination to stop.

Of course, you are derisive and dismissive of the abortion counter-example. Yet just as animal experiments are seen as inhumane and unnecessary, some folks see abortions as inhumane and unnecessary. There are alternatives to animal experiments, just as there are alternatives to abortion (e.g., giving up one's baby for adoption). A couple images depicting precious life and the sacred urgency of their cause:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3171/2297902612_2ca02462c6_o.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3168/2297109673_cb1a477aa2_o.jpg

To offer a different scenario, perhaps someday you will have vehement protesters at your front door, harassing and intimidating you (and your family) for your new media journalism. They may argue that your progressive politics is contributing to the moral decay of society. You might not agree with their outlook or approach, but you can't deny their rights to free speech and peaceable assembly. Will their disrespectful tactics really help to create a brighter tomorrow for everyone?

Regarding animal advocacy groups, in general they suffer from a lack of resources and concerted, sustained efforts. The basic, obvious suggestions I put forth are not meant to be novel, but they can be applied more strategically, broadly and forcefully. Profiteers do not just walk away from their positions of privilege. They are compelled to do so. However, there is a force more powerful than violence and coercion. It involves a committed group of thoughtful, compassionate, engaged citizens. You may turn your nose up at the notion -- in part because it operates over a longer timescale than you like -- but even at great sacrifice, if you do everything in love, goodness and truth will prevail. As Martin Luther King, Jr. once said, "Let us realize the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice."

You put forth ideas as if they have not already been done; they have been done for decades and are being done as we speak. There are countless polite, well-behaved animal rights advocacy groups who do those things. Nothing changes, that is what in your well-meaning naivete you do not understand. The corporate powers that be want to manufacture and sell products to make money and are not concerned with animal rights; they are only concerned with being able to certify they are safe so they torture and kill defenseless, helpless animals to prove the products safety.

When one is in a status-quo situation, day after day, month after month, other measures are called for. Many consider it a moral imperative to take action.

I would never advocate or countenance violence, but I see little value in caring for people who participate in the torture and slaughter of animals. I could care less about their privacy or whether they have a job or not.

As it is, animal rights and environmental activists are perceived as (potential) extremists, as militant fanatics, who are willing to destroy property, attack and possibly kill those involved in practices they find unconscionable. Animal rights advocates have thrown paint and urine on people. They have broken into and flooded people's homes. They have put 'bombs' on people's cars. That's no way to win friends and influence people.

There are other, better ways. For starters... Work with local, state and federal representatives to legislate in favor of animal welfare and alternative practices. Work with law firms and enforcement agencies to prosecute abuses. Media and PR campaigns to raise consumer awareness of these laboratories, as well as educating the public about alternatives to animal experiments. Dialoguing with industry, university, and other involved groups to develop and promote the use of alternative practices. Dialoguing with researchers about the same. An ongoing protest-presence at corporate headquarters and major distributors/vendors that is respectful, dignified, non-harassing, non-threatening, non-intimidating. And organize a broad economic boycott against the companies' products & services to affect their profits.

Those who are in positions of power, privilege, advantage and authority do not often (if ever) readily abnegate their standing. At all times, activists must be willing to suffer and endure the outrageous ire and resistance against them, without retaliation. One must be committed to truth, to compassion, to the moral high ground. Slowly, the walls of the status quo weaken. Eventually, they crumble.

Everything changes. Yet we must care for the conditions on which that change occurs, if we are to have favorable, long-term results.

Please specifically detail what you think are the "better ways to advocate for animal welfare".

Of course women should have the right to make choices regarding their bodies, lives and health. I bring up the abortion issue as a counter-example to help illustrate what it looks like from the other side of the argument, when you don't agree with the opposition/protest.

People should not be terrorized in their homes or elsewhere. There are other, better ways to advocate for animal welfare and to move our society towards alternative medical, agricultural and environmental practices. By now, in the progressive movement, it should go without saying: We must be the change we wish to see in the world.

Peace is not just the goal, it is the process. It is not a destination, it is a way of life. Peacework is never done. It is ongoing. It is the means to achieve the ends.

Peace out, bruh.

I assure you I understand, no need to patronize. Don't put words in my mouth, peace has more than practical value, it's "the goal" all decent human beings have for humanity and all living things. I also reject your premise on the un-born, they are fetuses and as to what we are doing about the horrific aspects of life; we try. Each in our own way, according to our individual belief systems.

I agree that activists need to rethink their strategies; we need to be more active. The Vietnam war ended in large part because of the Weather Underground, The Black Panthers and many others who committed acts of civil disobedience and broke the "law".

I don't expect you to understand or agree. Nor do I blame you. The immediacy of the issue demands action. As far as you are concerned, peace is a nice idea, but has no practical value. You are in the majority in your attitude.

Meanwhile, animals continue to suffer and die. Unborn children continue to be aborted. Humans continue to be exploited and slaughtered by the millions around the world. As people of conscience, what are we going to do about it? Right now. Today.

Change ... is ... slow. The Underground Railroad helped slaves out of the American South because of the urgency of their plight, at great risk to themselves. Even now, almost 200 years hence, has our culture been healed of its racism?

I do not support the terrorism laws targeting animal (or peace) activists. Nonetheless, activists need to rethink their strategies if they want to engage the broader public and to effect meaningful change.

Many people do not change. In the meantime, while they are not changing . . . (you put no time limit on your utopian dream of change), animals suffer horrific deaths and die.

You implicitly support then George Bush using the fear of terror to prosecute brave young persons like Kevin, that's your choice.

People can change. People do change. Even the ones currently doing horrible, abusive things. That is the essence of everything I've been discussing. Without the possibility for change, for redemption, there would be no hope in this world. And hope, as Mr. Obama reminds us, is not blind optimism, but rather a keen awareness of the struggles that lie ahead and a belief that, together, we can overcome them. Together = you, me, corporate executive, medical scientist, grassroots organizer, conscientious consumer, and Uno the Beagle.

Darkness is merely the absence of light. It's nothing to fear or rail against. If ignorance is the malady, wisdom is the medicine. Yes, in this case, peace is the way.

How many times do I need to say this? I do not feel that people who stick rods through live Beagle puppies brains and worse deserve respect and dignity. Your sentiments of love and peace are wonderful in many instances. Not in this case. Let's agree to disagree and move on.

Pacifism is not passivism. Mahatma Gandhi helped to liberate an entire nation through the principle that love conquers all. He wanted the British to leave India as friends -- and, after many years of struggle, they did.

If you want to do something easy, learn how to blow up the world. But if you want to struggle and work and fight for change, you will always champion humanity and love even your (so-called) enemies.

The goal may be to enact and enforce laws against animal exploitation, but we won't be successful unless our campaign is based on respecting the rights and dignity of others. We have to be better than that which we decry. The means and ends are not separable.

In the March issue of Hustler magazine they really nail the government on this. The Barbi Twins do an exclusive with one of the men who spent a year in prison for running a website about the labs. It is a must read I think you can get at www.hustlermagazine.com

You win by actions, by protests, by voting, by demonstrations and sometimes by fighting. As an example, there could be a law banning animal torture.

Please give me an example of a significant societal change that came about because of "love".

I'm talking about transforming a situation... transforming a system... transforming a society.

The idea is to bring people to their senses, not to their knees. You win over others not through diatribe, but dialogue.

Actions motivated from anger and hatred bring the results you have seen here with the SHAC-Attack.

Actions motivated from compassion and love (gasp) bring results of a different kind. It is the kind of lasting change we want. In the long haul, it is the only kind that works.

You make a faulty assumption when you suggest that I don't consider perspectives other than mine. I have considered their arguments and the conclusion I have come to after considering "their" perspective, is that animal torture, cruelty and death is beyond the pale and that those that participate willingly are despicable human beings.

I believe there is a difference between right and wrong. It's usually not that hard to discern.

The Golden Rule is either "those with the gold make the rules"... or "do not do unto others what you would not have them do unto you."

To wit, being vegetarian doesn't make one compassionate towards one's fellow human beings any more than being progressive makes one skillful in his thinking, discourse or action.

To be effective in creating the change we all desire, perhaps we can take a moment, now and again, to consider (and reconcile) perspectives other than our own.

How intellectually brilliant of you to integrate Hitler into your discourse. That pretty much sums you up doesn't it.

I see. The freedom to peaceably assemble and protest, and upholding the right to privacy, is only for issues you agree with. How very noble and just.

And one wonders why the animal rights movement is not taken seriously... or why it makes so little headway in its efforts.

Until protesters understand and exemplify true compassion for all living things -- including their fellow humans -- they will not be successful in transforming the hearts/minds of a culture that allows for such abomination.

And yes, just to bring the conversation full circle, let us not forget that Hitler was a vegetarian.

No, it's not ok for right-to-lifers to harass, intimidate, humiliate and castigate abortion doctors and their families in the privacy of their homes . . . . abortion is a woman's choice, what she does with her body is up to her.

People that make money on the pain and suffering of innocent animals who can't defend themselves are as I said scum and I have zero empathy for them.

Approach? Soul force? Love transforms? Kumbaya baby; I am no pacifist. I am sure you would countenance approaching Hitler with love and the soul force too. I only wish that those that torture and abuse animals rot in hell.

No word games. This is reality. According to your reasoning, it is also okay for right-to-lifers to harass, intimidate, humiliate and castigate abortion doctors and their families in the privacy of their homes. According to anti-abortion advocates, these doctors are killing sacred life, and their profitable practices must be stopped by any means necessary.

I'm sure that tactic will get the desired results: and we'll all live happily ever after.

It must be comforting to always be on the right side of any issue... (Kinda puts the 'fun' back in fundamentalism.) But it is not a matter of belief. It is a matter of approach. Nonviolence is not meant to be harassment or intimidation. Maybe by nonviolence you mean 'non-physical harm'. Whereas by nonviolence I mean 'satyagraha'. Truth force. Soul force.

Love transforms. Hate does not. Hate and anger beget more of the same.

Good luck.

It's a matter of what you believe isn't it? I am not playing a rhetorical word game. I believe that those that participate in cruelty to animals for profit are scum and deserving of being humiliated and castigated. Period.

Right. So, thousands of animals are being sacrificed every day. And thousands of fetuses are being aborted every day. If you are an anti-vivisectionist or an anti-abortionist, the moral urgency is the same. Your words could be couched from either perspective. Yet the hateful, arrogant lack of concern for those on the other side of the argument is what subverts any meaningful progress on these issues.

I guess, then, to be fair, you are in favor of 'right to life' advocates protesting vehemently outside the homes of abortion doctors. (Or whatever the cause, regardless if you are in support.)

We can agree to disagree. I see no moral equivalency in a woman's right to choose what to do with her body and beagle puppies being tortured by the thousands. Your comparing the two is absurd.

If the workers who do such things to defenseless animals don't like people protesting outside their house, tough shit. Get another job. I couldn't have any less sympathy for them.

I'm not expecting meat consumption to change overnight, any more than I am expecting animal experimentation to change overnight. It doesn't mean we can't, or shouldn't, move in different directions, as a culture or society. Case in point: I was raised eating meat. And now I don't. How or why did I change? Through the kind and generous example of others.

As for labeling meat as being organic, or humanely farmed... um, ok. When Whole Foods tells me that an item is made from love, or when Wal-Mart tells me that an item is made in the USA... I take it on faith. It's all about marketing. Making money. Who knows for sure how meaningful or valid the label is.

To return to the crux of your post, though...

How would you like it if people were showing up in front of your house, protesting "peacefully," but essentially harassing you and your family, and making you, your spouse and children feel scared and unsafe in your own home?

"Hi, honey. Tough day at the office? By the way, how come there is a belligerent mob in our front yard?"

"Oh, don't mind them... They're just expressing their constitutional, god-given first amendment right to free speech. They don't believe that protecting and saving lives is important... that the sacrifice is worth it, in the work I'm doing."

Imagine anti-abortion activists doing the same thing -- posting the home addresses and phone numbers of doctors on their website, and encouraging others to harass these doctors and their families. Advocates for the rights of animals and the rights of the unborn are passionately and urgently in support of protecting the lives of the helpless and voiceless.

There is something called the right to privacy. There is something called terrorism. It is arguable that these families, in their homes, feel terrorized. Violence is not just physical. There is violence in words, demeanor and overall approach. Many in the 'life rights' movements fail to recognize or embody this truth.

I am an animal advocate, if you haven't guessed. But not all nonviolent strategies are created equal. If one's tactic does not foster the respect, sympathy and moral outrage of the broader public, the campaign will go nowhere.

I agree with your last sentence completely. But the reality is that billions of people were raised eating meat and that is not going to change overnight. Whole Foods markets for example is a huge chain sells only meat, fish and poultry that is humanely raised and sustainable.

That's quite different than putting steel rods through the heads of live Beagle puppies to test cremes used only for beauty products.

What's the difference between animals suffering and being killed for human consumption, versus animals suffering and being killed for our science/industry/medicine? They are both selfish and unnecessary practices. We don't need to test our cleaning or cosmetic products on animals any more than we need to eat animal protein.

If we're going to talk about closing down abusive animal experiment laboratories, it's equally valid to talk about reforming or closing abusive animal farms.

Are you suggesting that 'progressives' buy their meat from local mom & pop farmers who humanely raise and slaughter their animals? How realistic or sustainable is that, on the large scale that it would actually make a difference?

Whether talking about personal health, world hunger, environmentalism, or animal welfare, a plant-based diet is the wisest choice. Unequivocally.

I assure you that far more progressives are vegans, but that's not the point is it. One can choose to consume humanely raised and treated animals that are not products of factory farms and corporate agri-business. No one is promoting making meat consumption illegal.

This post is about animal cruelty labs and labeling non-violent animal rights protesters terrorists.

So, naturally, everyone here is vegan, because if you care about animals, or if you are an environmentalist, your lifestyle choices would reflect this. Correct?

Great post!

I hope the next president repeals that inane law.

Zoey that was very moving and thoughtful, thank you. The way animals are treated in this country is abominable and people shut their eyes to it for the most part, in large part due to the fact that it's so emotionally hard to watch some of these hidden camera videos and films and even think about. People also feel helpless.

Factory farming and the meat industry are also the biggest single causes of global warming, yet people do nothing about it.

This case is indicative of how the fear of terror campaign and the laws it has wrought can be used for purposes other than protecting us from Al Qaeda, etc.

I had to fight to watch that video, and sadly that footage was not the worst of it. I get this sick feeling that follows me around after watching these kind of documentaries of the plight of animals in the research fields and in the meat industry. It makes me feel so helpless when confronted with this evil being perpetrated with help from the Government by Wealth worshipers.
The mainstream media has me in a state of disbelief. My Mom has been glued to the cable news stations for days watching the race between Hillary and Barack, and all the news stories that I have overheard (which seem to be repeated over and over, I keep thinking their has to be more going on, why are these stories repeated over and over?) are the same old same old, kidnappings, trial of man accused of murdering pregnant girlfriend, economy woes. But nothing about this. Why isn't this a story? Most Americans would be horrified by the practices of these research companies. If some random American were to do any of the things shown in that video against their dog they would be arrested and charged with animal cruelty. It seems to me that under this law that the SHAC 7 was convicted under, that a man who has dog fights in his basement for a cover charge could go after the police who busted him. They disrupted his money making enterprise, right? Maybe my analogy is to simple but The law is "simple" (simple as in another fucked law supporting the rich no matter the cost to other people, or animals.
Sometimes I think about starting an Fuck Patriotism challenge. Like with the Blasphemy challenge, you make a video. In the video you would say something like, "I'm an American and under the standards of patriotism set by the current Presidential administration " I am not a patriot!" I need to go Kiss my sweet little girl and soak in some of her wonderful innocence. To bad that the world will soon rob much of it from her.