A Few Thoughts on Walter Bond, jailed animal rights activist...

I have been reading, with great interest, about the case of Walter Bond (right), an animal liberation activist now languishing in the Jefferson County Jail in Golden, Colorado. In July, Walter's brother cooperated with authorities to help arrest the militant anarchist vegan for his alleged participation in Animal Liberation Front actions under the nom de guerre "Lone Wolf." The "Lone Wolf," authorities allege, was involved in a series of arson fires in Denver and Salt Lake City, including the torching of the Sheepskin Factory (seller of furs and pelts), Tandy Leather Store and Tiburon, a restaurant with foie gras on its menu.

Those of you who read this blog know that even though I, too, can be filled with rage about the treatment of animals, I've always been extremely dedicated to my lifelong nonviolent principles. I've said it before, and I'll say it again, that in the struggles against injustice and oppression, nonviolence is the greatest tool for the people. Arson is not an acceptable means to change society. It should be condemned and avoided.

At the same time, it is important to keep the focus on the real terrorists out there - those who exploit and abuse animals. The factory farm system, the fur and leather industries, the foie gras racket, the list goes on and on - these are the institutions that murder animals by the billions. The fires that Walter Bond may or may not have set (he hasn't been found guilty of carrying out the "Lone Wolf" fires) only destroyed property. The countless fires in factory farms across North America due to unsafe conditions, many here in Canada, have destroyed untold numbers of animals in the most horrifying ways imaginable.

The authorities will always try to steer attention away from these gargantuan crimes in order to keep the focus on "terrorists." That's an age-old tactic. And, sadly, it sometimes works. Earlier this year, a Canadian member of parliament launched a one-man crusade to lump animal rights activists under the category of "terrorist" with Al Qaeda and the Taliban. It was an absurd effort, but he managed to get a lot of publicity as he pointed to animal rights radicals as dangerous perpetrators of violence. And even though I don't think he got very far with his attempts to link animal advocates to Osama Bin Laden, he at least steered the spotlight onto his little crusade. Actions like his help marginalize the militants, keeping the focus on resistance rather than injustice, and marginalizing the radicals under the category of "nuts."

American authorities are doing the same thing. They're cracking down on the militant segment of the animal rights movement. One can easily understand why the angry young radicals are driven to extremes. What is driving them? The horrific treatment of animals. When you are surrounded by violent images on a day-to-day basis - animals getting slaughtered on assembly lines, animals living in filth and neglect, animals as victims of human violence, animals being exploited and murdered by the billions - the inherent violence of the system naturally rubs off on those who are resisting it.

But make no mistake: The resisters, no matter how extreme they are, will never - ever - be as violent as the system they are resisting. However misguided you might happen to think Walter Bond may be, his alleged acts of resistance - driven by despair and urgency and anger - will never match the violence against animals carried out by the institutions he is resisting.

Still, I believe that an important part of any act of resistance - whether it is blogging, boycotting, marching, or even more militant examples of direct action - is to rise above the pervasive violence of our socio-economic-political system and embrace an entirely new way of living. Violence is not a natural human state of affairs, contrary to all the historical examples that say otherwise. It is a profoundly unnatural way to live. Through our very examples, we can show our fellow human beings there is another way to live, a different way for humans and non-human animals to interact.

I was deeply moved by Walter Bond's essay on why he became a vegan, which I am linking to here on my blog. If you get a chance, please read it. It includes the address where you can write to Walter and offer support. I do not agree with the tactic of arson, and I'm not sure that Walter actually burned down those businesses. But I do know one thing: He is motivated by the noblest of impulses. His essay on why he became a vegan is one of the most compelling I've read. See what he has to say. Decide for yourself. I think you will agree that whatever mistakes Bond has made, on balance, his acts of resistance are not as violent or pernicious as the day-to-day activities carried out by institutions that systematically harm, exploit and ultimately destroy animals by the billions, as if they are commodities and not sentient beings with feelings.

Excellent Article on Steve Best in Today's El Paso Times

There is an excellent article on animal rights/liberation champion Steve Best in the El Paso Times this morning. Please have a look at it. The article discusses Best's militancy and radicalism, his difficult childhood and his academic career. Today, Best is a philosophy professor at the University of Texas at El Paso and a fearless protester. The article is a well-written and fascinating overview of a very compelling individual.

I know that Steve Best has developed an adversarial relationship with Gary Francione, and - for the sake of full disclosure - Francione has had a huge influence on my thinking and position on animal rights. I'm going to take a Charlie Brown/Caspar Milquetoast approach here and say that I hope these two remarkable figures can get their disagreements worked out. As a historian, I am painfully aware that throughout history, sectarianism has been the undoing of pretty much all social movements. Sectarianism and government repression have gone hand in hand to undermine many a promising struggle for social change. The animal rights movement certainly doesn't need that. No movement does.

That aside, have a look at the profile of Steve Best at the El Paso Times. It's a fascinating portrait of a man not afraid to speak his mind. You can't deny that this is a man who possesses guts, a great mind and an unwavering commitment.

Reform versus Liberation - scratch that; make it: Reform AND Liberation

When I finally embraced the concept of animal liberation last year, I did so after years of supporting and promoting various forms of human liberation (e.g., women's liberation, gay and lesbian liberation, etc. etc.).

As I grew older and perhaps somewhat more complacent in my cushy academic position, I still supported the concept of sweeping and humane revolutionary change in principle, yet I found myself becoming more of a liberal in my thinking and approach. In other words, I remained doubtful about the prospects of a successful revolution occurring anytime soon, so I supported reforms and social welfare and the like - policies designed to help ordinary people and ameliorate their condition.

That doesn't mean I abandoned my old vision of human liberation. It simply means I became more pragmatic.

As a believer in animal liberation, I understand that animal libbers face a dilemma. Like the abolitionists of the antebellum era who supported the immediate end of slavery and liberation of enslaved people, the new abolitionists of the animal rights movement support an immediate end to the mass destruction of animal life and the enslavement of animals for human use. This is our position. And we have to say it over and over and over again, loud and clear, until we're blue in the face.

But that doesn't mean we can't support policies that also gradually improve conditions for animals. We're not going to accomplish our vision of animal liberation overnight. Some of the more radical animal liberationists have attacked what they call "welfarism." They are understandably frustrated by the way that gradual improvements give the public a warm and fuzzy feeling and help promote the illusion that animals are finally being treated with the respect they deserve.

The dilemma is that the more you support reform, the more you seem to be legitimizing a system that ought to be dismantled and replaced by a more humane way of doing things.

My position on the matter is not to take an either/or approach to animal liberation and animal welfare. Every little improvement counts. Every law that helps better conditions for animals is a step - however gradual - in the right direction. If a cow is going to be slaughtered, better that it be slaughtered in a slightly less barbaric way due to a law or regulation that improved conditions in slaughterhouses. But slaughter is slaughter, and there is no such thing as "humane" killing, no matter how you look at it.

The job of an abolitionist - whether she/he opposed human chattel slavery in the nineteenth century or animal enslavement in the twenty-first - is to make sure that the voice of abolition is always heard, no matter what. If you take this position, the powers that be will call you every name in the book: radical, extremist, terrorist, you name it. Defend yourself against such name-calling if you must, but don't retreat an inch.

Remember that when 25-year-old journalist and printer William Lloyd Garrison started his abolitionist newspaper The Liberator in 1831, he was a lone voice in the wilderness. He had no way of knowing that his actions would change history. Similarly, when Frederick Douglass (left) escaped slavery in 1838, he, too, had no reason to believe that he would eventually alter the course of human events in profound ways. Neither retreated from abolitionism. But both would have preferred the kind slave owner to the cruel one, even as they worked tirelessly for an end to the institution.