by Ian Smith (Uncivilized Animals)
Animals have claws; the animal liberation movement should too. And many animals, when cornered or threatened, won’t hesitate to scratch somebody’s fuckin eyes out if that is what is necessary to secure their freedom and safety. Activists speculate and pontificate about what course of action animals would take but when we look at what animals actually do, what we see is attack and that should be inspiring.
This is why I have always supported the efforts of the Animal Liberation Front as well as other entities that do not share the ALF’s commitment to nonviolence.
With that said, I share the following two thoughts concerning the ALF:
First, defenders of the ALF consistently point out its adherence to nonviolence and its remarkable success in avoiding physical harm to humans and other animals. It is said to be a near flawless track record. And yet, it is somewhat difficult to assess this claim. Activists acting under the banner of the ALF generally only claim responsibility for an action after it is completed. Activists can assess its success prior to sending out a communique claiming responsibility. Might activists who botched an action opt not to take responsibility (in this case, blame)? A flawless track record might inevitably result when one has the opportunity to claim the successes and not the failures. In fact, the flawless track record might be nothing but a matter of semantics given that the ALF Credo says:
Any group of people who are vegetarians or vegans and who carry out actions according to ALF guidelines have the right to regard themselves as part of the ALF.
and ALF guidelines include:
TO take all necessary precautions against harming any animal, human and non-human.
It may be the case that poorly executed actions are not ALF actions purely as a matter of definition. If one failed to take “necessary precautions” then that person does not have a legitimate claim to the ALF name.
Second, support for the ALF and ALF-style actions cannot plausibly hinge on the success of any particular action or how well it is executed. It makes no sense to support a tactic provided only that it is always executed flawlessly and that mistakes are never made. To attach such a caveat is to essentially oppose the use of a given tactic.
If we would like to see a large number of actions carried out against those who harm, exploit, torture, and kill animals, then we must be open to the inevitability that mistakes will be made. Humans and nonhumans may be physically harmed. Even in instances when every consideration is taken, every safeguard is put in place things may not go well through no fault of those carrying out the action. We must also be open to the fact that some people will naturally possess a greater level of skill than others. One virtue of ALF actions is that they are accessible to a wide range of people, can be done individually or in small groups, and may be relatively inexpensive. In short, these tactics are not the exclusive province of experts.
Individual actions should be assessed but only for the purpose of making future actions more effective. When individuals are caught, the mistakes they made (i.e. how they got caught) should be assessed but only for the purpose of providing lessons to others who can then avoid repeating such mistakes.
If we have zero tolerance for risk, then we take such tactics off the table. I believe that would be a drastic mistake.
IAN SMITH currently lives in Eugene, Oregon. He has an academic background in philosophy having graduated with a Master’s degree from the University of Connecticut. He has worked for a labor union, an anti-nuclear power organization, homeless advocacy organizations, as well as three years with People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) in their Laboratory Investigations department. His writings have been published in venues including Philosophy Now and the Journal for Critical Animal Studies. He also contributed to the recently published volume Animals and War: Confronting the Military Animal-Industrial Complex.