![Sample our Politics & International Relations journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5947/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Politics-International-Relations.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
The Animal Liberation Front (ALF) is an activist group, mainly focused on violent and illegal direct action, including destruction of property, the rescuing of animals and the clandestine filming of animal cruelty on animal farms. Here, I engage with three arguments that are often raised against the ALF’s actions, namely these actions are not morally justified because: (a) they are not measures of last resort; (b) they are excessively violent and do not discriminate targets; and (c) they have no reasonable probability of success. I contend that clandestinely filming animal cruelty is morally justified, the destruction of property is not and that rescuing animals is morally justified, if the ALF incorporates some changes as to how this is done.
Acknowledgement
I would like to thank for their very helpful comments on this article Chris Allsobrook, Rianna Oelofsen, Abraham Olivier, Fil Maj, Motsamai Molefe, Richard Twine, Beth Khan, Lee Ronald, Les Mitchell and the three anonymous reviewers.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
Notes
1. I use the term “radical” here to refer to those groups that have as their objective the aim of substantially changing social structures through revolutionary means and changing value systems in fundamental ways. In particular, these groups use illegal and unconventional methods of campaigning (they destroy property and rescue animals, rather than engage in campaigns like legal protests) and their actions are motivated by the possibility of a substantial immediate change in the way that humans treat other animals and the environment (Walter and Murphy Citation1992).
2. The reason why I only engage with animal farming is because other animal practices raise slightly different normative questions. For example, Peter Singer (Citation1995) contends that some animal experiments are morally justifiable, whereas animal farming is less justifiable, due to the fact that animal experiments may bring greater benefit to more individuals. This does not mean that in this article the idea that animal experiments are morally justifiable is endorsed. Rather, the point is that there are normative questions at play and this issue needs to be addressed separately.
3. The classification of the ALF as a terrorist organisation has been contested by some authors. See, for example, Sorenson (Citation2009), Best (Citation2014), Nocella II and Best (Citation2011) and Monaghan (Citation2013).
4. “Green scare” is a term used by animal and environmental activists to refer to the legislation of American government against activism that tries to use direct action against those who damage the environment and exploit animals.
5. These two assumptions avoid addressing two debates, namely the question of whether animals have rights or not, and whether ALF members have other secret self-interests besides protecting the rights of animals. The reason why I wish not to address the first question is because that would require a defence of an animal rights theory, which is not the objective of this article. I do not wish to address the second question for two further reasons. First, there is no sufficient empirical evidence about ALF’s members so one cannot state whether there are other intentions or not. Second, the objective of this article is whether the cause justifies violent and illegal actions and not whether the individuals who practice it are of good character.
6. Other key characteristics may stand out, depending on the context of the analysis being made. David Pellow (Citation2014), for example, also points out that the ALF has an anti-capitalist and anarchist ideology.
7. Note that I disagree with this conception of violence, as will become clear in the next section.
8. It is worth mentioning here that this right to hold property is limited and does not imply owning other animals.
9. I endorse this definition for two reasons. First, it captures the essential aspects of the phenomenon of contemporary terrorism. In particular, this definition includes the idea that terrorism is a violent act of coercion that targets civilians. Violence and targeting civilians are two of the features that many theorists use to define terrorism (Kemmerer Citation2008). The second reason why I use it is because, as in the case of using just war theory arguments, it is important to address those who dismiss the ALF’s actions from within their justice paradigm. That is, due to the fact that discourses of terrorism and justice/violence are inevitably intertwined, and to be able to resist the Green Scare, it is critical to demonstrate the incoherence of those who hold these views. It is important to bear in mind, however, that this definition of terrorism, as any other such definition, is fluid and contestable.
10. A combatant can be defined as an individual who voluntarily takes direct part in the use of violence in the hostilities that occur within a war conflict situation or a conflict situation that is strongly analogous to war. The ALF only targets combatants in the sense that they only target those who participate willingly in the exploitation of non-humans (Kemmerer Citation2008).
11. Some critics have contested the idea that this analogy is sound because there is a mass slaughter of animals, but without the genocidal intent of doing away with the species entirely, like there was in genocides such as the Holocaust. Nevertheless, as Steven Best points out, there is still a genocidal character in mass slaughtering, but with the additional perverse objective of raising animals just for killing them.
12. I focus on the example of the United States because this is where animal rights activism, including the ALF, is stronger.
13. Although there are strong important similarities, it is crucial to point out that while Nazis wanted to eradicate Jews, farmers do not want to eradicate animals but reproduce them.
14. This inelasticity may seem to contradict the high increase in consumption of meat mentioned earlier. However, it is important to emphasise that this contradiction is only apparent. The reason for the increase in meat consumption is not because of the changes in price, but because meat has started to become available in more locations; as a result of the globalisation of meat distribution, more consumption has occurred.
Additional information
Notes on contributors
Luís Cordeiro-Rodrigues
Luís Cordeiro-Rodrigues is a postdoctoral research fellow at CLEA, the University of Fort Hare. His research interests are anti-racism, animal rights, multiculturalism and African moral philosophy. He has published in various journals, such as Theoria, The South African Journal of Philosophy and The Journal for Critical Animal Studies, among others.