| direct action |
Direct action is not by english definition necessarily the same as the definition given in the following text. The following refers to direct action as it refers to animal rights activism. This essay is for information purposes only, it is not to necessarily encourage illegal activism.
The concept of direct action is simple; to cause financial harm to those who profit from the suffering of animals. Direct action is usually considered illegal by the police, direct action activists never physically harm humans, animals. The way activists usually cause harm to the businesses is through whatever means available; from gluing locks to the use of arson to destroy structures like hen farms. The most complex action associated with direct action is the physical liberation of animals from fur farms. This practice is primarily refereed to as animal liberation a term most people will be more familiar with then direct action itself. Because of the complexity of the subject this site has a separate site to refer to it click on the above link to view it.
ALF AND GROUPS
How direct action works is through a complex
network of support groups and individuals who work together, and sometimes
alone to undertake in the practice. These individual activists fund their
own activities and put their own freedom on the line. As far as animal
rights activism is concerned, direct action takes the most moral dedication.
The ALF (Animal Liberation Front) is a tag which is associated closely
with most direct actions and the individuals who undertake in the practice.
The ALF has a long history which can be traced back to the UK in the 1950's.
It began as a group of people who decided that the blood sport known as
fox hunting was wrong. Their efforts began in disrupting the fox hunts;
laying false scent trails, sounding false calls (as the partakers of a
hunt used horns to communicate), capturing the fox and letting it go, etc.
As the groups efforts grew from its home town into other towns, through
various channels of communication, members began to get arrested for animal
rights crimes. This forced the group to realize that there was a even greater
need to fight the oppressors of animals, at many more levels. In the 1960's
the group changed its name to the ALF and formed a unity with the other
groups which had spawned from it, these groups were now involved in what
is refereed to today as direct action. By uniting the groups, the movement
the overall efforts became very strong. By the 1970's the ALF had reached
international levels and was beginning to spawning into the united states
and other countries.
As the efforts of the ALF and other groups
which followed became strong the FBI became interested in the motivations
and power of groups, primarily the ALF, they declared the ALF to be an
terrorist group. Eventually the ALF went underground, and eventually dissolved
as an organization, and became a movement. Today the movement is practised
strongly in many countries around the world, including some european counties,
these practices are typically refereed to as direct action and are claimed
as ALF activities. To claim an activity as a valid ALF activity most activists
spray an ALF on a wall nearby or on the business at hand. Sometimes these
activities are reported to ALF friendly animal rights groups, and are then
reported by ALF support groups. The purpose of these reports are to keep
the moral of other direct action activists high, by knowing that others
are doing the same as them.
The major targets for direct action are fur
shops and stores which distribute fur - almost anything to do with fur.
Fast food restaurants also serve as a popular target; Mc Donald's being
the most popular. Through direct action on a constant basis a small family
fur shop can be sent bankrupt in time. This has been tried and proven countless
times by direct action activists. It does of course take more then one
activist or even one group, but the actions of many groups acting together
countless times with endless dedication.
JUSTIFICATION
To animal rights activists the justification of direct action is simple and very real. However to most people direct action is considered far too extreme to justify, especially from the people who are hit hardest by the practice. To animal rights activists who have attempted legal animal rights protesting and discovered it doesn't work for them, direct action is easily accessible. However to your average meat eater Animal rights is simply meaningless in the first place - after all meat is socialy acepted so why worry about the animals, if it is an animal which is a pet ... then maybe. Meat eaters ask why blame us? we eat meat, but dont think that you are better then us becasue your a vegan or a vegetarian. Well if animal rights activists didnt single out and voice their moral stands, what would be the point of animal rights in the first place. Meat eaters ask why we single them out, and blame them; its simple, if there is no demand thier is no supply.
To most poeple, meat eaters or vegetarians, direct action is incorect, becasue it is illegal. Well meat is legal, does that make it moraly correct? hunting is legal, does that make it right? fur is legal, disgusting as it is, yet it is legal too. Of course direct action is illegal, but dont let that for one minute make you think it is wrong. If you prefer look at direct action from a factual standing point, think about everything you have read - consider the implifications of total animal rights. If the meat industry alone for the US or UK were haulted, that the country would face probable economic ruin. The problem at hand is that you have animal rights activists and your average meat eaters are not going to agree on the same thing in a while. The more time it takes for animal rights to come into legislation, the greater the number of animals suffer. Hence the presence of direct action, in todays society.
However all these issues aside a society that treats its humans the same way it treats its animals is not impossible, its not around the corner, but it is possible.
