FoA’s Response to Speaking Invitations for the 2005 “Grassroots Animal Rights Conference”

Dear _________* and _________* :

We appreciate your writing to us and asking us to speak at the “Grassroots Animal Rights Conference” on the topic of “Debate: Armed Revolution, Economic Sabotage or Strategic Nonviolence?”

The following comments are general; we have turned down invitations to speak elsewhere for similar reasons.

We do not believe that “armed revolution” should be considered part of a debate within animal advocacy. First — and this is the key point — because it contradicts the non-violent ethic of animal rights, seen in its best light. Second, because even if there were not that ethical problem, the existence of at least some animal advocates who espouse violence or intimidation allows the public to decry an entire movement on such grounds. Third, because in any case it’s impossible for animal advocates to prevail in armed conflict against an armed government (which is the entity protecting property interests). What derives from the opposite notion is the promotion of a minor arms race, or, at the very least, a draconian legal system that serves to abridge rights and liberties, rather than to expand them. We do not believe that non-human animals (or the human ones) stand as much to gain from this as they do to lose.

As George Monbiot has written:

“The demonstrators who have halted the construction of the new animal testing labs in Oxford command little public sympathy. Their arguments are often woolly and poorly presented. Among them is a small number of dangerous and deeply unpleasant characters, who appear to respect the rights of every mammal except Homo sapiens. This unpopularity is a gift to the state. For fear of being seen to sympathise with dangerous nutters, hardly anyone dares to speak out against the repressive laws with which the government intends to restrain them.”

That is a practical point, but it shows the responsibility activists have to all movements for political change. Animal advocates need to understand that responsibility, before the “small number” of dangerous characters grows any larger.

But again, our main reasoning derives from a moral viewpoint. From our perspective, the ethic of animal rights means that we do not countenance the idea of “armed conflict” as part of any serious debate within animal rights theory and practice — it’s simply ruled out as an option from the very beginning. And because part of our work, like that of all advocates, is education, we would also not want the public (including those who do not attend the conference) to erroneously conclude that we would seriously entertain the idea.

We also note that the "Grassroots Animal Rights Conference" has a substantial welfare presence. It is critically important that advocates do not use the phrase “animal rights” as an umbrella term in contexts where welfare concepts play a significant part, if one believes (as we do) that the public ought to have the opportunity to understand which claims are specific to rights-based advocacy.

We regret that we shall not be accepting the invitation, but thank you for extending it. Please accept our comments as sincere, well-meaning, in the best interest of animal advocacy, and written from a desire to see the maximum possible opportunity for other animals to finally obtain human respect.

Very truly yours,

Priscilla Feral and Lee Hall
Friends of Animals
28 Feb. 2005

*The two representatives of the Grassroots Animal Rights Conference, who signed the original letter asking Friends of Animals to speak there, have since written to us and asked to have their names removed from our reply to their letter.