Lauren's editorial in the new Close HLS newsletter

12/03/06

The Fall 2006 Close HLS Newsletter features the following guest editorial from Lauren. If you don’t receive the newsletter already, subscribe by visiting CloseHLS.net.

"I have just received the latest Bite Back Magazine (if you don’t subscribe already, please do by visiting http://DirectAction.info). There are seventeen activists listed on the ‘Prisoners’ page, and a separate insert listing three additional prisoners who went into custody after the issue went to print.

By the time you read this, all of the SHAC 7 defendants will be in prison, serving our sentences and awaiting the outcome of our appeal.

On September 29, 2006, amendments to the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act passed the Senate, broadening the scope of the Act and increasing the penalties of those convicted of violating it; an upcoming vote on similar amendments is scheduled in the House.

(NOTE: Since this article was written the AETA has been signed into law, for more info please check out: GreenIsTheNewRed.com

Under these circumstances, it’s difficult not to be discouraged, even scared. How can we continue to fight against HLS under such seemingly dire conditions?

At times like these, it helps to put things into perspective. The government has 150 pending investigations into illegal actions committed in the name of environmental and animal rights activists, and most of those actions are several years old. Comparatively, only 16 U.S. activists are currently imprisoned or facing charges for allegedly engaging in such action – and none of them for action against HLS. In the entire course of the HLS campaign in the U.S., only three people have done more than a few days in jail – and they were alleged to have smashed windows at a demonstration in broad daylight. U.S. law enforcement agents are among the best equipped and best trained in the world. Considering the number of actions carried out in the course of the campaign, this is a stunning failure by the government to convict anyone who didn’t essentially walk up to the cops and hand themselves over. I do not believe we have entered an age where you attend a demonstration and end up on trial for terrorism.

I know what you’re thinking: ‘but the SHAC 7 were convicted for [allegedly] maintaining a website!’ But that’s exactly the point. None of the defendants sitting at the SHAC 7 defense table were alleged to have committed an illegal action! Nor were we alleged to have placed any of the phone calls, sent any of the emails, or even attended most of the demonstrations. The trial of the SHAC 7 was possible only because the defendants were sitting ducks – day in and day out sitting in the location to which all of the information seemed to flow. Again, how much of an investigative accomplishment is it to arrest the most visible people on the scene? The message intended is ‘look – you can be convicted even without participating in illegal action.’ But seen objectively, the reality is if you are out there engaging in the activity – if you’re not sending up flares while liberating animals – chances are slim that you will end up at the defense table (I am exaggerating the case to make a point of course; I do not applaud recklessness or carelessness).

While the movement surely should not ignore the onslaught of government repression, let us not permit it to outshine the movement’s successes. More noteworthy than the extent of the backlash activists have faced are the accomplishments of an unorganized, unpaid, unfunded movement of grassroots individuals toppling multi-national corporations. These accomplishments in the face of unimaginable power are remarkable, and this latest government onslaught does not diminish this ability one bit.

We must never forget that the very structure of this movement makes it exceedingly difficult to target for elimination. The biggest weapon the government has is symbolic – if it can scare enough people and chill enough speech with a big, flashy prosecution, perhaps activists will lose sight of the little success it has had in actually catching the “wrong-doers.” Animal abusers, and their government cronies, won’t have to sue, arrest, and jail everyone if they scare us into inactivity. If we give into this illusion, we do their job for them. Truly, we are limited only by the constraints we place upon ourselves.

I am one of those nut jobs who thinks that every experience is an opportunity, if you make it one, and that everything is what you make of it. And those times at which this seems most impossible are the ones in which doing so is most crucial. You can get up, right now, and go do something for the animals. If you don’t, that is your choice – the government did not make you stay. The movement must show the government and, more importantly, animal abusers, that no matter how hard they push, activists will not back down. We mustn’t legitimize repression by allowing it to be effective. This only encourages more of the same. Doing so helps the abusers, not the animals.

Here I can’t help but borrow from another activist, as I could not have said it better myself. In the new Bite Back Magazine, Jeff Luers acknowledges that very few struggles have succeeded against government repression. While this may seem disheartening on its face, it is rather a prescription on how to proceed. Standing apart from those movements that have crumbled under government attack are two that forged ahead no matter what they faced, and ultimately succeeded – the Civil Rights movement and the struggle for the eight-hour workday. Jeff notes that what distinguishes these two from others is that, whatever the state threw at them, they refused to back down.

Just try to fathom the frustration and defeat animal abusers will feel when, after all this time, money, and energy is spent prosecuting the SHAC 7, six people are in jail and the movement carries on all the same in their absence.

This doesn’t mean the our movement shouldn’t hone its approach; not backing down does not mean failing to learn from history. Remember that, like the military, the government and animal abusers are constantly fighting yesterday’s war – only after they have learned and adapted a response to the tactics of activists are they able to strike a blow. Alter your strategy and your opponent will be forced to re-learn and re-adapt.

Nor is this to imply that every action against HLS is one that should warrant the attention of law enforcement. Those who are committed to above-ground activism bear the heaviest responsibility to visibly continue their efforts; those who prefer the path of underground action certainly will not be deterred by the prosecution of a few of the most public faces while they remain anonymous, evading arrest themselves. It is the movement’s public face – communicating the message of animal rights and explaining the actions of the underground – which this onslaught of repression most aims to eradicate.

Let there be no doubt, if the government could find and arrest everyone committing actions in the name of animal rights, they would. If the message of ‘break the law and you will be prosecuted’ had any hope of being plausible, if every demonstrator, speaker, and letter writer could be silenced – if the government had any hope of actually stopping the acts of protest that deliver crushing blows to animal abusers – they would have no need for symbolic prosecutions. Let these symbolic prosecutions be one further indication that the movement is winning. Demonstrate that they will have no effect, and you will neutralize one more tool in the opposition’s toolbox.

The SHAC 7 defendants were poster-children – on display to be made an example of. We were lightening rods for government persecution. I say, let us be those lightening rods – while the government focuses on us, the rest of you get out there and get the job done!"