From: ac@riemann.math.mun.ca (Alka Chandna)
Subject: Re: PeTA ACTION LINE
Organization: CS Dept., Memorial University of Newfoundland
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 14:18:19 GMT

vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten) writes:

>Odd, I've always had a much different view of civil disobedience.  To
>me that term means marching around and carrying signs, debating,
>signing petitions, writing letters to editors of newspapers, etc.  To
>me it's never meant any act that could hurt anyone, or cause any kind
>of damage of any sort.  I've always thought it to mean causing change
>through information dissemination.  Clearly we disagree here.

My understanding and appreciation of civil disobedience, John, ties into the
sorts of activities that were undertaken by such people as Henry David Thoreau,
Mahatma Gandhi and Rosa Parks.  These actions were peaceful, but the
law would be broken.  Thoreau's refusal to pay taxes (based on a refusal to 
fund a state where slavery was legal), Gandhi's snubbing of the British-imposed
law in India that any salt consumed in the country should come from Britain (as
demonstrated by the Great Salt March), and Rosa Parks' refusal to move to
the back of the bus were all non-violent actions which very pointedly drew
attention to various issues of justice.  I am not in favour of violence.  To
begin with, I don't think it's right to bring physical harm upon others.  In
addition, I feel that by picking up arms we do disservice to the message of the
movement in terms of the image that is thus projected.  I *do*, I must admit,
understand the anguish and concern of people who partake in *liberations* of
animals, and certainly, I understand the need to go into such places as animal
laboratories to collect information that is simply not available otherwise.
But I, like the majority of people in the AR movement do draw the line at in-
flicting harm on other humans.  


>     That's one of the fundamental problems I have with the AR
>movement, and the main reason I participate in this forum to defend
>against it.  It wouldn't bother me in the slightest if all you folk
>ever did was walk around spewing forth your opinions on the subject.
>In fact, I *encourage* it.  I don't even care if such opinions are
>propaganda, since they can be easily countered.  Destroying other
>peoples' property and hurting them is why I must stand against you.
>In your fevered minds it is somehow OK to smash a leghold trap or tear
>down a tree stand in the name of your cause.  I disagree.

When has a tree stand ever been torn down by animal rights activists?!?!
Perhaps you have us confused with McMillan-Blodel, although I'm not entirely
sure what the resemblance is.  I appreciate your liberal-minded approach 
regarding persons with opinions other than your own.  I must point out, how-
ever, that this is not always the manner in which AR people are received.  For
instance, Prof. Tom Regan (Philosophy, North Carolina State U.) has been put on
various black-balling lists at various colleges throughout the U.S.  Given the
present censorial climate of the States, I'm not entirely surprised (even good
ol' Farley Mowat isn't permitted entry into your country), but it does dis-
appoint me that so many people would be so afraid of having a different point
of view expressed.  Incidentally, Regan has written and edited some excellent
books on the philosophy of AR, as well as the direction of the movement.  He
is a dyed-in-the-wool pacifist, so you can appreciate that he could not be 
tarred with the sorts of reservations that you have about AR people.  Regarding
the black-balling, I'm afraid I couldn't give you references on that.  I attend-ed two talks given by Regan in Guelph, Ontario this past summer, and he made 
reference to these lists.  If you want more info on this subject, you could 
contact Regan at North Carolina State Univ.

>the abuse of 800 numbers by AR folks may be well known, the fact that
>arrests can be made because of it is not.  I'd sooner think that's
>what got the fire to sparkle in your eyes...

On the issue of 1-800 numbers, I really feel you've again missed the point that
I was trying to make.  I'm not advocating harassing phone calls.  I am advo-
cating the use of these numbers to either get more consumer information on 
the product (i.e., to what extent are the products tested on animals, or what
techniques are used to kill the animals (fur farms), etc.), and concurrently
to draw to the attention of the company the concern on the part of a growing
number of people that animals matter.  This is entirely non-violent, but 
extremely effective.  If an animal-exploiting company has to shell out a 
couple of bucks (on their phone bills) to receive these sorts of phone calls,
it's quite in keeping with the sort of consumer-oriented society that we live
in.  Alot of these companies are already breaking their backs to present a 
caring image to the public.  The phone bills are a pittance in comparison
to what they must pay to advertising & public relations companies to try and
make themselves look presentable.

On the issue of the anger of my response, I must reiterate John, that the 
threat of arrest had nothing to do with the nature of the response.  Again: 
#1.  I honestly felt that there was some confusion stemming from the dicho-
     tomy of issues (the AR stuff & the tactics employed), and I felt that
     by pointing out that many human rights groups did the same thing, this
     might be cleared up.  The hostility came from the assumption incorrectly 
     made by me that Whitehead would approve of said tactic if it were employed
     by say, the No More Censorship Defence Fund, but not if were employed by
     PETA.  Can you see my concern?
#2.  I was also put off by the manner in which Whitehead came off in his post-
     ing, "Nay, nay.  I told on you."  Let me repeat myself:  I thought this
     was ludicrous.  First, these sorts of lists are published *everywhere* in
     all sorts of magazines of all sorts of social activist groups.  The oppo-
     nents would have to have an IQ of -63 not to know that the 1-800 numbers
     have been targeted.  What's more, there's more than one way to spend 
     quality time with your cat.  As I've explained earlier, the same goal of
     using the 1-800 numbers to forward a cause can be acheived without 
     harassment.  I don't want to be nasty, but I really felt that Whitehead's
     posting was a pathetic display of impotence, and this I found quite re-
     volting.  Hence, the anger.

	best wishes,
	alka
>John
********************************************************************************

	"I want to realize brotherhood or identity not merely
         with the beings called human, but I want to realize identity
	 with all life, even with such things as crawl upon earth."
		-- Mahatma Gandhi 
********************************************************************************