Upcoming Events

<a name="up"></a> <a href="#thethird" target="_self">Serious Politics, Serious Consequences: Reinventing Direct Action’s Educational Strategies?</a> - Anthony J. Nocella, II and Richard Kahn <a href="#wall" target="_self">Animal rights activists: Up against the Wall</a> - William Budington <a href="#hardcore" target="_self">What Are We Fighting For? 90s Vegan Hardcore - Back With a Vengeance</a> -Maureen C. Wyse <a href="#freespeech" target="_self">Testing Limits of Free Speech</a> -Nick Cooney <a href="#tres" target="_self"> Twelve Myths About Direct Action</a> -Crimethinc <a href="#dos" target="_self">We must not forget the innocent victims of war... The Animals!</a> -W.J. Grindell <a href="#uno" target="_self">In Praise of SHAC Tactics</a> -Dr. Stephen Best <hr align="center" width="400" size="1">

Serious Politics, Serious Consequences: Reinventing Direct Action’s Educational Strategies?

Anthony J. Nocella, II and Richard Kahn

The “no compromise” of militant direct action politics engenders a wide-range of seriously repercussive problems. From outrageous prosecutions, such as of the SHAC 7, to governmental attempts to curtail free speech, as occurred when Dr. Jerry Vlasak and Pamelyn Ferdin were banned from entering the United Kingdom for a liberation conference, liberation activists are being met by repressive forces in the age of the War on Terror. Grand jury questionings, senate hearings, and various levels of indictments intend the intimidation of direct activists, as well as their eventual incarceration as political prisoners whenever possible. Some, such as long-time animal rights activist Gina Lynn, have repeatedly refused cooperation with the legal system when it works as a ruse for police and corporate agendas. Others, unfortunately, have not proven as stalwart. Thus, one of the most frustrating of the various repercussive problems faced by today’s direct action militant may be the existence of a political “Hall of Shame” – those individuals who have snitched to authorities about underground actions and activists in exchange for a judicial plea. Finally, though there have not been many direct activists killed for their principles in the histories of the animal and earth liberation movements, the larger culture of silence produced through the constant threat of State-sponsored murder casts perhaps the greatest challenge to the direct action cause.

While the way in which modern institutions have functioned under capitalism is often highly irrational and aggressive, one might argue that, as direct action politics is generally revolutionarily militant and a proponent of illegal activity waged in accordance with a super-legal ethics, its repression is to be expected. In this respect, the no compromise mentality declares, “Whatever you seek to do to me or my friends, I will not back down. I will not undermine the movement. I will not disregard my comrades in harm’s way. I will work for the earth and the animals and I will not go silently into the night!” But, still, its enemy will stop at nothing to send it into the night all the same. It is important to think about what direct action activists are doing, then, when attempting to consider how to mitigate oppositional responses. However, as such responses to direct action are essentially a given, it is equally necessary to contemplate what direct action activists are not doing as well. That is, what capabilities do activists have to limit their repression that they may not be presently using?

It is common to hear political lectures of a motivational variety, urging in their fist-raising conclusion, “If not you, who? If not now, when?” These gut appeals to the semi-politicized to get more deeply involved in critical social issues can often be both jazzy and immediately effective. But this form of conscientization can also lead to people – often youth – joining the movement under the auspice that they should freely engage in militant activity, even when they lack a larger social, political, and historical understanding of the issue for which they act. More dangerous still, both for them and the movement in general, is that radical newbies can seek to commit serious illegalities without understanding the possible consequences.

Joel Capolongo, long time animal liberation activist, strikes to the root of the issue:

“While the need for action for the animals and the Earth is great, the need for more prisoners is not. Whenever I am explaining direct action to an audience that is unfamiliar with it, I always point out that the consequences of such illegal action are always much more severely punished than non-politically motivated crimes even though the non-politically motivated crimes may involve even serious injury or death to human life and safety. That's just the way our society works; property, especially property owned by corporations and institutions that make a profit off of the destruction of the Earth and it's inhabitants, always supersedes the value of any individual's life and "crimes" against such property will be punished accordingly. The consequences are very real and I try to make sure people understand that before they take action based on any romanticized ideals of direct action they may be dreaming up.” In other words, while the context in which public outreach and political lecture occurs will always be a determinative factor for the form which it takes, and while it is possible to motivate people in a way that is also rigorous and self-determinative, it may be high time to begin de-emphasizing the “revolutionary rah-rah” from our rhetoric in favor of challenging people to engage in the many complexities of militant issues. Melissa, of North American Earth Liberation Prisoners Support Network (NA-ELPSN), speaks to the heart of the matter when she says: “Motivational speeches have only a limited role in expanding the reach and effectuality of the direct action movement. They put clarity to something someone already feels. They fan the flames, but do not start the fire. If the direct action movement is to increase in strength and seriousness, which it must, the suffering of the Earth and animals must be the sole motivation. It is those realities that gave birth to the direct action movement, long before there were motivational speeches…If motivational speeches seek to motivate without explaining the realities and consequences of participating in direct action, they are creating the conditions for snitching by leading people to believe that direct action is a lot less serious than it is, in effect, sending people to slaughter. This is because, unfortunately, some will seek out the illusion of glory and stature, rather than the goal of liberation. Motivational speeches, which glorify direct action, and in the process remove the average activist from those types of actions, only aggravate this. By creating an illusion of glory, by elevating underground activists to the level of super-heroes, speakers are doing the underground a disservice. Direct action is not fun, exciting or the business of super-heroes, but rather a necessary element of any struggle for liberation. Since when did crawling through mud and shit, witnessing tortured animals and clear-cut forests, and risking your safety, freedom and life become glamorous anyway? Liberating animals, destroying logging equipment and setting fire to the industries which rape the Earth and murder animals is a necessity, not something reserved for glamorized, super-activists.”

Therefore, Melissa promotes a more rigorous and realistic form of political outreach. Specifically, she suggests: “Those who seek to motivate have an obligation to include information on the realities of engaging in direct action, as well as the very real possibility of prison sentences and the hardships of a life of secrecy. Motivational speakers must also take the time to address necessary steps underground activists can take to improve their security, as well as strategies for avoiding typical pitfalls such as: getting rid of all incriminating materials after an action, what cell structure involves and the importance of choosing people to work with carefully, and procedures for safely releasing any type of communiqué all of which can be done in a way that is legal and unspecific.”

Political theater may be a radical tool of the trade for direct activists, it does such activism a disservice if its practitioners bring a psychology of spectacle to militant events. A revolutionary politics requires a revolutionary psychology and must demonstrate that its counter-culture is not just a challenge to the norms of the status-quo, but a transformative realization of a culture that is qualitatively different and better in turn. Still, this utopian challenge can be met by the most straightforward of practices. In this respect, Leslie James Pickering, former spokesperson for the Earth Liberation Front, has developed his own approach to public speaking that stresses his own de-mythologization as a celebrity on the margins, as he evokes the vision of a common humanity involved in emancipatory aims as his political narrative. Pickering explains:

“When I give public presentation I try to incorporate personal experiences, or otherwise personalize my presentation. I'm working to pull an audience into a revolutionary perspective so part of the way I go at it is to work to put them in my shoes, or to show that we wear similar shoes. There has got to be an emotional draw as well as a practicality to it. Slogans and rhetoric are played out. In today's world people need something real, something to believe in. I try to show that I'm a real person, with a heart. A regular person, just like anyone else and that anyone could be as heavy in the struggle.” Clearly, emotion is a healthy foundation for direct action politics and a primary ethical connection to the oppressed. The point, however, is not to couch one’s emotions in a self-contradictory and reactionary cultural politics of irrational passions. In his lecture “Compassion and Action,” Steven Best, Professor of Philosophy at University of Texas, El Paso, points out the necessity for bridging emotion and reason in militant struggle. “Passion,” he notes, “… can easily be manipulated through poisonous ideologies such as racism and xenophobia. Compassion too is subject to manipulation, as one could be persuaded to have compassion for one group in opposition to another.” He presciently concludes that a liberation ethic:

“… rooted solely in feeling lacks the ability to justify values and thus opens one to the charge of arbitrariness. No one in this movement wants to find themselves in the unfortunate position of one of Socrates’ interlocutors who cannot explain why they uphold values such as justice to be right and true…We need a multidimensional ethics that uncovers the history of ethical sensibilities, that identifies the proper place of emotions in human action and motivation, that provides cogent reflections on what is right and wrong, and that supplies strong justifications for animal rights.”

In this sense, we would argue that support for the ALF, or the ELF, is much less important than the ability to support them smartly. One is not a militant until one has seriously begun the process of becoming thoroughly educated in the history of these groups and in the larger social structural problems that have helped to give rise to them. This, then, accords education a revolutionary role greater than sabotage because it is through the educational process that sabotage (and other direct action militancy) takes on its truly ethical character. As we have attempted to illuminate, however, such education should not be conflated with either rote dogmatism or other forms of brute authoritarianism, on the one hand, or spectacular appeals to emotion, on the other. Favoring a vision of education as set forth by the radical pedagogue Paulo Freire, we favor a politics of education grounded in rage and hope that allows people to ground transformative understandings in their own practices, but which centers self-reflection and a language of critique as a gird to future action.

The form of such education needs to be radically reinvented, much in the way that the animal and earth liberation struggles have managed to bring so much new information to light through their direct actions and ability to ask unique questions about society based on those uncompromising politics. Traditionally, education has favored the authoritarian and industrial models developed in schools, while radical politics has extended this to include the soapbox, the public protest, and the teach-in. Freire himself utilized the “cultural circle” in which a community came to dialogue and name its own powers under the partnership of a political mediator trained to ask probing questions. Indeed, in a related move, we see question and answer time becoming more crucial in lectures on direct action. Notably, at the recent 2nd Annual Animal Liberation Philosophy and Policy Conference at Syracuse University, Benjamin Persky, Moe Mitchell, and Andy Stepanian resisted standing on the stage and speaking at the audience altogether. Instead, they asked the audience of some 50 people to sit on, or around, the stage in order to discuss political prisoner support, direct action, the problem of snitching, and the necessity of security culture. While the discussion was passionate and motivational, it hinged on a well-reasoned and collective understanding of the importance of direct action for animal liberation, political prisoner support, and their inevitable consequences.

The emphasis of this article was not to berate snitchers (though we do). One can read Snitch Lesons in No Compromise (Issue 22) for that. Nor was this article an appeal for support of present political prisoners (though we do) – for that, read No Compromise’s Some Words on Prisoner Support by Jeff “Free” Luers (Issue 23). We attempted here to specifically address one issue: that motivational speeches are an educational key to strengthening the movement, but that they can have serious consequences if not treated themselves in a revolutionary manner, linked up with a larger radical pedagogy, and tied to well thought out political action plan. Assata Shakur writes in her autobiography:

“But, I had changed, and in so many ways. I was no longer the wide-eyed, romantic young revolutionary who believed the revolution was just around the corner. I still appreciated energetic idealism, but I had long ago become convinced that revolution was a science. Generalities were no longer enough for me. Like my comrades, I believed that a higher level of political sophistication was necessary and that unity in the Black community had to become a priority. We could never afford to forget the lessons we had learned from COINTELPRO.”

Therefore, we cannot forget the many individuals that have snitched, burned out, or otherwise broken to the will of the State. We must teach people that direct action is a tool in a long-term project for social change and that it has serious consequences because of the actuality of power in the oppressor’s hands. Those getting involved in the movement need to come to grips with the reality of the consequences oppressors can bring to bear – for every direct action there is a reaction, and as Andy Stepanian always notes: don’t do the crime, if you can’t do the time. Yet, we cannot expect individuals involved with the movement to derive the sort of critical consciousness necessary for truly combating the horrors of transnational capitalism in its current form without an equally enduring evidence of grassroots political leadership and a revolutionary cultural base. There is much evidence that, despite the beating taken by the Left under Bush, that direct action militants are primed for substantial gains. As long as the movement continues working to build a more thoroughgoing radical pedagogy that is capable of delivering political mentorship and intellectual rigor as part of a deeper investigation of the socio-historical nature of the political, they will be realized.

Animal rights activists: Up against the Wall
by William Budington

In the early afternoon of December 26, 2003, a coalition of Israeli activists working against the occupation fence enclosing the West Bank approached the hundred mile barrier near the Palestinian village of Mas’ha, four miles from the Green Line. They had decided to continue their march from the northern Palestinian city of Jenin to the Israeli-annexed Jerusalem, highlighting the violence of the occupation and calling for an end to this apartheid. Nonviolence was the tactic: they were to shake the fence and attempt to dismantle it using bolt cutters, issuing the message that they would not be halted by barriers that not o nly separate people, but sever the lines of dialogue between them.

During the course of the action, however, the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) responded without provocation, restraint, or moderation. Standing twenty feet in front of the activists, they opened fire o n the crowd with live ammunition. o ne activist, Gil Na’amati, was hit in the leg and severely injured. As he was being rushed to the hospital, the real significance of this incident began to set in--not o nly for those involved, but also for anyone aware of the political realities in Israel and occupied Palestine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchists_Against_the_Wall). While brutality of this kind is routine when its subjects are Palestinian, it was the first time that the Israeli army had ever opened fire o n Israeli Jews. During the media frenzy that immediately followed the event, the activists were quickly christened: “Anarchists Against the Wall,” “Anarchists Against the Separation Fence,” or “Anarchists Against Fences.” Although the first name stuck, few Israelis remember or are aware that this action had actually been carried out under the name “One Struggle.”

One Struggle developed from the radical animal rights and anarchist movements, as an attempt to illuminate the common roots of oppression, discrimination, and exploitation affecting humans and non-humans alike. To these activists, oppression is a social phenomenon, caused by the human social relation of domination and hierarchy over both other species and their own. In a country such as Israel, this viewpoint comes not as an abstract theoretical analysis emanating from some ivory tower, but as an eminent conclusion from the everyday experiences of politically conscious people. Anyone who has visited a slaughterhouse can sense the fear in pigs’ eyes as they are brought to their untimely end, feel outrage and anger towards those who facilitate and promote this slaughter, and be compelled to action against these abuses. These very same reactions are present when viewing the slaughter of human subjects.

One Struggle as a whole shares these basic perspectives, though they are not bound to rigid ideologies or dogmas most befitting Marxist fringe cults. For the most part, they came together not because of these perspectives but rather as a result of their shared understandings as friends. “We had all individually refused to join the (compulsory) military service, had been involved in the Israeli Punk/Hardcore subculture for some time, and the majority of us were Straightedge (although that is not really relevant). Basically, we were part of the same social & activist circles, and most of us were just friends,” comments o ne anonymous member.

But one Struggle was not the first group of its kind in Israel. In the mid-nineties, the first animal rights group in Israel was formed by radical activists and anarchists. Its name, “Anonymous,” reflected the common anonymity of human and animal victims. As time went o n, however, Anonymous became more mainstream and degraded into a more obstinately hierarchical and unaccountable structure. Pursuing every possible avenue of mass appeal while watering down its political message, the group came to ignore issues of human rights, especially those concerning Palestinians. Although such a touchy issue was not to be discussed officially, for the simple reason that it was controversial, many of the original members felt it necessary to take a stand for precisely the same reason: controversy made it that much more vital to speak. They felt that they didn’t belong in, or didn’t want to belong to, such an organization.

So this circle of friends began to formulate an alternative that would hold true to the founding spirit of Anonymous. “In 2002, ‘One Struggle’ was officially formed by a handful of animal rights activists, after several long meetings regarding both theory and practice ... it was never meant to be the kind of group that seeks members; [we organized] more along the lines of an affinity group, a small, close-knit collective of people who know each other and share a more or less similar vision,” explained o ne member. Fed up with the asceticism that has come to dominate modern revolutionary movements, o ne Struggle’s tactic of choice is straightforward action: demonstrations, pickets, postering, information stalls, and good old-fashioned conversation. When it comes to well-planned direct action against animal abusers, whether public or clandestine, their position has never been ambiguous: they give it their full support.

Though small in numbers, o ne Struggle’s impact has been tremendous within Israel and the occupied territories. For the 2002 World Day for Laboratory Animals, organized by the Israeli Society for the Abolition of Vivisection, a number of the featured speakers were members of the Israeli Knesset, and guilty of complicity in and outright support of the occupation. In response, o ne Struggle handed out leaflets pointing out the hypocrisy of supporting brutal treatment of Palestinians by the Israeli army while opposing brutal treatment of animals by scientists. o ne Struggle members are also in attendance every Gay Pride Day, reaching out to the gay community and imploring them to recognize not o nly their own oppression, but also that of those who cannot speak out for themselves.

A number of actions have been organized under the o ne Struggle banner as well: for over a year they have been holding weekly vigils outside McDonalds, alerting customers and passersby to the cruelty of factory farming. Last May, o ne Struggle occupied the offices of Proctor & Gamble to protest its major role in animal testing, and in July they chained themselves to the gates of a horse racing tournament, despite the antagonism of spectators. Just recently, many members have been pouring their energy into “Veggie Bar,” a vegan fair trade bar located in central Tel Aviv, that offers homemade vegan meals and drinks. Hebrew animal rights pamphlets are hard to come by, but thanks to the work of these dedicated activists, “Animal Liberation and Social Revolution” and Bruce Friedrich’s “Veganism in a Nutshell” have been made available.

While initiating support camps in the West Bank, they have also coordinated joint Israeli-Palestinian peaceful anti-border actions in Salem, Anin, and Zabube. Recognizing that solidarity is impossible without shared channels of dialogue, understanding, and experience, activists from both sides of the wall have come together to form temporary communities at these anti-border camps. These communities operate by consensus decision-making involving all parties at the camp, in the true tradition of direct democracy. Many Palestinian activists are introduced to animal rights at these camps, and the Israeli activists learn of the hardships of Palestinian people first-hand.

“It is our opinion that Israel is an Apartheid state to begin with, founded o n Zionism: a strong, sometimes openly fascist nationalism, inherently discriminatory and racist. But these days, and particularly since the beginning of the Al Aqsa Intifada in late 2000, the social and political climate in Israel is the most right wing, racist and intolerant it has ever been in all of its existence. Basically, it is an extreme variation o n Bush’s theme of ‘you’re either with us or with the terrorists,’ so that if you o nly as much as express doubts regarding the sacred foundations of the state of Israel - Zionism, Judaism, Militarism - you are already ‘with the terrorists.’” This has particularly disastrous effects for those ‘up against the wall’ in occupied Palestine. The separation wall will cut deep into the heart of the West Bank, within the Green Line established in 1967. It will effectively annex 37% of occupied Palestine to Israel, leaving them with 12% of their historic lands. Furthermore, 132,000 Palestinians will be isolated from their fields, leaving them with no compensation or sustenance (http://www.endtheoccupation.org/img/original/Wall%20Thumbnail%20III.jpg). Over 800,000 Palestinians will be affected by the wall, or about 50% of those remaining in the West Bank (http://www.palestinehistory.com/wall.htm). To add insult to injury, Yedioth Achronoth reported (11/22/02) that Palestinian olive trees uprooted by the wall have been sold o n the Israeli black market for up to $5,000, while former owners seeking compensation have been threatened and beaten.

As the suffering of humans and non-humans continues, o ne Struggle will continue its fight for the liberation of all creatures. That so much has been accomplished by such a small, young group, numbering no more than 25 members, is testament to the dedication of these activists and anarchists. A climate of resistance is beginning to develop in Israel, which is critical for such an urgent situation.

William Budington may be contacted at legindish@hotmail.com

<a name="hardcore"></A> What Are We Fighting For? 90s Vegan Hardcore - Back With a Vengeance By Maureen C. Wyse <img src="mo.jpg" align=left hspace=1 vspace=1 border=0 width=150>Kids are finally getting their priorities straight. The 1990s brought an era of consciousness, of kids advocating for animal rights. The means to this consciousness—a metal, rock, and punk-based music deemed vegan hardcore. It sounds to some like rage and noise, but the music and words are what these kids believe in and live by. They are screaming a message that should be universal—suffering for none. Through music, the spirit of liberation is created and kept alive. Vegan hardcore begs us all to go beyond self purity, to cleanse all societal evils, especially those against animals. Coming into the scene, kids unite through music, dancing, and friends, but more importantly by sharing an ethical lifestyle. They are presented with crucial issues that cause them to pursue and question dominant society, and are given a positive influence against our culture’s “ideal” lifestyles. It all began with ideas floating around at the beginning of the hardcore and punk movement of the 1980s. Rebellion—anything against our parents, school systems and governments—fueled early hardcore, creating a drug-induced, ripped clothing music culture. But somewhere along the way the kids got a conscience and some began to associate rebellion not with drinking or drugs but with straight-edge—no drinking, no drugs, and no promiscuous sex. More importantly, kids were realizing that the oppressive society went beyond poisoning and violating the human body and mind. The notion was born that to oppose the world’s oppression they had to include nonhuman animals as well. And in 1989, the influential New York hardcore band Gorilla Biscuits released a song called “Cats and Dogs” with the lyrics: “Full is all you want to feel. We eat to stay alive, but it’s their lives we steal. I think we’d like to change, but most of us are stuck, that’s why cats and dogs have all the luck.” Through their lyrics, Gorilla Biscuits, along with hardcore icons Youth of Today, planted the seed of vegetarianism that sprouted into the vegan hardcore explosion of the early 90s. Earth Crisis and the 90s In 1992 one band took these ideas to the next level and set the standard for vegan hardcore. From Syracuse, NY, Earth Crisis fused the straight-edge side of hardcore with veganism and liberation ideals. They promoted new alternatives to the oppressive mainstream society within every song and with every word spoken between songs at their shows. Their music could be heard as nothing more than screaming, but underneath are ideals that Earth Crisis and all vegan hardcore kids live by. Off their Destroy the Machines album, the song “New Ethic” says it all: “This is the new ethic. Animals’ lives are their own and must be given respect. Reject the anthropocentric falsehood that maintains the oppressive hierarchy of mankind over the animals. It’s time to set them free… To make a civilization worthy of the word civilized, the cruelty must end, starting within our own lives… Veganism is the essence of compassion and peaceful living. The animals are not ours to abuse or dominate.” With this benchmark other bands formed around the same ideals of veganism, social justice, personal cleansing, and liberation. One King Down, for example, released their album Bloodlust Revenge in 1996 with the song, “Prey To Human Silence” with the lyrics, “Caged and oppressed. Their cries remain suppressed. Falling victim to human violence. Falling prey to human silence.” These lyrics and many more embody the spirit of vegan hardcore of the 90s. After the explosion of bands like Earth Crisis and One King Down, as well as Trial, Day of Suffering, Vegan Reich, Path of Resistance, Catharsis, Chokehold and Birthright, there was a period in the late 90s and early 2000s where the vegan spirit quieted. Kids still went on eating a vegan food and living vegan ideals, but the music slowly receded into the small circles of those who already believed. Yet, in 2004 the spirit of the 90s returned with a vengeance in bands like California-based Seven Generations, Gather, and Tears of Gaia; Undying (NC), Caninus (NY), Cherem (UT), and This Time Tomorrow (WA); and internationally with Purification (Italy), Purified in Blood (Norway), and Maroon (Germany). Along with the bands, there is also the all-vegan record label New Eden Records, and Rebuilding Communications Distribution, which carries almost all vegan hardcore. The New Generation Today’s vegan hardcore bands truly live the message they promote. In particular, Seven Generations from Southern California does everything they can for those nonhuman animals still enslaved. They get their name from the Iroquois belief that “in our every deliberation, we must consider the impact of our decisions on the next seven generations.” Chris Rouse, lead singer, not only writes the lyrics, he writes essays explaining the meanings of the songs. He also spends time between performing to explain the songs and shares stories of animal abuse and liberation. Chris explains, “Seven Generations formed and exists for the purpose of spreading revolutionary ideals through the underground hardcore and punk rock communities and to use our band as a vehicle for social and political change. We denounce with a feverish hatred the teachings of a patriarchal culture that thrives on anthropocentrism, sexism, racism, classism, nationalism and capitalism. We encourage all to become politically and socially aware and get involved in the struggles for animal liberation, humyn liberation and earth liberation… We have all lived in the chains of a culture that has starved our bodies and spirits for far too long. A new dawn is breaking and the sun of freedom will shine again someday.” Gather, from North California, is another gem within this movement united in the idea of playing music “with a message.” The members of Gather were “convinced that the scene was thirsty for a political message and that the waning interest in animal liberation needed to be changed.” More so than anything else, Gather is rooted in their mantra: Total Liberation. Eva, Gather’s singer, believes that veganism is one step, but another step needs to be taken because “their lives are in your hands.” She believes those who work within the system in order to change the abuse animals endure must wake up and realize that this process is not quick enough for the beagles in the Huntingdon Life Sciences laboratories or for the battery hen in the transportation truck. Dustin, drummer of Gather, challenges us to constantly educate ourselves about all forms of liberation: “always challenge yourself to ‘improve’ your way of existing, be it by complying with more sustainable diets or questioning even long held personal ideologies (like veganism or straight-edge).” Vegan hardcore is still fighting—perhaps stronger and harder than ever. Beyond veganism, it is the liberation of all animals—human and non—and the earth. This is not just about the performance, singing, moshing, or carousing, it is in memorizing the lyrics, singing along, listening to the talks between the songs, gaining consciousness through the music, living the messages, and acting out together. “We are,” as my 17 year-old brother Casey, a vegan straight-edge hardcore kid, says, “in a movement that is actually fighting for something—fighting a threat that still exists.” Contrasting that with a decade earlier, when I was 13, seeing Trial and listening to Earth Crisis for the first time—making the connection between society’s problems and animal exploitation—I saw the destruction I was personally causing and what I could do to change. The decade gap between does not exist, vegan hardcore unites us all—total liberation now! Maureen C. Wyse the president of New York University’s Students for Education on Animal Liberation and an editor at the highly credited NYC Published <A HREF="www.SatyaMag.com">Satya Magazine</A>. For more information on vegan hardcore visit <A HREF="www.newedenrecords.com">New Eden Records</A> and <A HREF="www.xrebuildingx.com">Rebuilding Communications Distribution.</A> Maureen can be reached at <a href="mailto:Mo@Satyamag.com ">Mo@satyamag.com</A> <a href="#up" target="_self">^back to top^</a> <hr align="center" width="400" size="1"> <a name="freespeech"></a>Testing Limits of Free Speech <img src="images/nickc.jpg" width="223" height="244" hspace="5" vspace="5" align="right">By Nick Cooney When most people think of terrorism, they envision car bombs exploding at military checkpoints and suicide bombers on pedestrian buses. But in a landmark case heard in Trenton, six animal-rights activists are being tried for terrorism, reportedly for encouraging illegal activity at a New Jersey-based animal-testing lab. The expected eight-week trial of alleged members of the U.S. chapter of Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC) involves federal charges under the expanded 2002 Animal Enterprise Protection Act. But it actually will test the limits of what is - and is not - protected free speech. The government has accused the defendants of threats and harassment aimed at closing Huntingdon Life Sciences Ltd., a British company whose lab in East Millstone, N.J., tests chemicals and drugs on dogs, monkeys and rats and other animals. The charges include operating a Web site, publishing a newsletter, and organizing demonstrations. Assistant U.S. Attorney Charles McKenna contends the defendants are guilty of a criminal conspiracy to economically harm Huntingdon. The stakes are high: up to 23 years in jail for each of the accused. In our post-9/11, Patriot Act era, a wide range of activities have been branded with the "terrorist" label, including political activism - particularly activism on behalf of animal rights. At a congressional hearing in May, animal and environmental activists were declared the nation's top domestic terrorist organizations, despite the fact that neither group has harmed a single person in their decades-long histories. Right-wing groups, whose supporters have murdered abortion doctors, blown up federal buildings, and brutalized African Americans, received barely a mention. The activists standing trial in Trenton have not done anything so threatening. A federal indictment, handed down in May 2004, alleges that the defendants encouraged illegal activity against Huntingdon by publishing news reports about demonstrations, vandalism, and other actions taken against Huntingdon and its business partners. The indictment also alleges that the defendants' organized, four-year protest campaign has economically hurt Huntingdon by convincing numerous investors and customers to stop working with the lab. While this is true - the lab currently is $84 million in debt - we need look no further than the rich tradition of boycotts that helped secure the rights of migrant workers, sweatshop laborers, and African Americans to realize that First Amendment activity that harms a business economically is still protected activity. And it is - unless your cause is animal rights. The growing crackdown on free speech is not just limited to the defendants in Trenton. I should know: In October my home was raided by 16 armed Joint Terrorism Task Force and FBI agents. Seven months later, the computers, poetry, photos, passport, and other personal items that they took still have not been returned. The FBI refuses to reveal why the raid was done, stating that I am "under investigation" but not saying what the investigation is about. I am an organizer with a local animal-rights group called Hugs for Puppies, and I know the raid has to do with my work conducting demonstrations on behalf of animals. Other animal advocates in the Philadelphia area have received visits from the FBI, been detained at airports by the Department of Homeland Security, had their telephones and e-mail accounts tapped, and had undercover agents enter their homes. The Pennsylvania Senate is even considering an "ecoterrorism" bill that would declare as terrorism any action that disrupts the activities of a business using animals. The trial of the SHAC activists will be watched closely by civil-liberties advocates and political activists of all stripes. When protected speech and protest activity are assailed as terrorism, and federal charges carrying two decades in jail are levied against those who fail to fall in line, we as a country have reached a low point in our protection of those rights we claim to hold so dearly. As Franklin D. Roosevelt said, "If the fires of freedom and civil liberties burn low in other lands, they must be made brighter in our own. If in other lands the press and books and literature of all kinds are censored, we must redouble our efforts here to keep them free." Nick Cooney (nick@hugsforpuppies.org) is an organizer with <a href="http://hugsforpuppies.org">Hugs for Puppies</a>, a Philadelphia-based animal-rights group. <a href="#up" target="_self">^back to top^</a> <hr align="center" width="400" size="1"> <a name="tres" id="tres"></a><img src="images/hand.gif" width="200" height="214" align="left">Twelve Myths About Direct Action Courtesy of Crimethinc Ex-Workers Collective - <a href="http://crimethinc.com">http://Crimethinc.com</a> Direct action—that is, any kind of action that bypasses established political channels to accomplish objectives directly—has a long and rich heritage in North America, extending back to the Boston Tea Party and beyond. Despite this, there are many misunderstandings about it, in part due to the ways it has been misrepresented in the corporate media. 1. Direct action is terrorism. Terrorism is calculated to intimidate and thus paralyze people. Direct action, on the other hand, is intended to inspire and thus motivate people by demonstrating the power individuals have to accomplish goals themselves. While terrorism is the domain of a specialized class that seeks to acquire power for itself alone, direct action demonstrates possibilities that others can make use of, empowering people to take control of their own lives. At most, a given direct action may obstruct the activities of a corporation or institution that activists perceive to be committing an injustice, but this is simply a form of civil disobedience, not terrorism. 2. Direct action is violent. To say that it is violent to destroy the machinery of a slaughterhouse or to break windows belonging to a party that promotes war is to prioritize property over human and animal life. This objection subtly validates violence against living creatures by focusing all attention on property rights and away from more fundamental issues. 3. Direct action is not political expression, but criminal activity. Unfortunately, whether or not an action is illegal is a poor measure of whether or not it is just. The Jim Crow laws were, after all, laws. To object to an action on the grounds that it is illegal is to sidestep the more important question of whether or not it is ethical. To argue that we must always obey laws, even when we consider them to be unethical or to enforce unethical conditions, is to suggest that the arbitrary pronouncements of the legal establishment possess a higher moral authority than our own consciences, and to demand complicity in the face of injustice. When laws protect injustice, illegal activity is no vice, and law-abiding docility is no virtue. 4. Direct action is unnecessary where people have freedom of speech. In a society dominated by an increasingly narrowly focused corporate media, it can be almost impossible to initiate a public dialogue on a subject unless something occurs that brings attention to it. Under such conditions, direct action can be a means of nurturing free speech, not squelching it. Likewise, when people who would otherwise oppose an injustice have accepted that it is inevitable, it is not enough simply to talk about it: one must demonstrate that it is possible to do something about it. 5. Direct action is alienating. On the contrary, many people who find traditional party politics alienating are inspired and motivated by direct action. Different people find different approaches fulfilling; a movement that is to be broad-based must include a wide range of options. Sometimes people who share the goals of those who practice direct action while objecting to their means spend all their energy decrying an action that has been carried out. In doing so, they snatch defeat from t