G7 Welcoming Committee Records. Uncooperative since 1997.

You appear to be using a shitty web browser. Brent suggests getting a better one.

36 fragments of dialogue thus far ...

(Subscribe to discussion about this post via RSS)

• Comment by Kyle on October 2nd, 2006 at 6:44 pm:

  Yeah, loss of profits… that’s neoliberalism for you. That’s also a part of NAFTA (chapter 11) and, consequently, why hazardous products are allowed to be sold in Canada by American companies and in the United States by Canadian companies.

  I don’t remember the names, but the examples I’m thinking of involve gasoline additives and the government of Canada having to apologize and saying its research on the subject was wrong.

  The usual reason for such a thing is that the Canadian government was being protectionist for its own companies, blah, blah… But loss of profit or the potential loss of profit is the (real) reason.

  This kind of bullshit shows two things. One of them is where the government interest lies. The other one, why I don’t vote.

  Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. (If, of course, you’re human, white, and male.)

• Comment by dtrain on October 2nd, 2006 at 7:57 pm:

  I believe that chemical is called MTBE, if we’re thinking about the same thing. But I think the sequence of events were a little different. In that California banned the chemical, then under nafta Methanex, the Canadian distributer, made a claim against the US that argued how they were going to lose profits because of it. I’m not sure what became of that whole thing.

  Anyways, this act is bad news. Anyone who has heard of the SHAC7 knows this. Essentially, even websites that slander animal product companies can be investigated for causing them economic harm.

  But explain to me why you don’t vote as a result of this?

• Comment by Danarcho on October 3rd, 2006 at 12:45 am:

  Now I’m not quite clear on this…does this relate to protestors who are taking action against corporations in respect to animal testing, butchering, eating, etc? Or Can it be broadened to activists who are, say for example, calling for boycotts of McDonalds which obviously mistreats animals, yet aren’t calling for action exclusively because of the corporation’s maltreatment of animals? Or is this, in the eyes of the neo-cons, the best part of the law? I guess the courts will decide this one.

  Democracy in action, baby!

• Comment by Jon UK on October 3rd, 2006 at 6:29 am:

  Yay. Infringing civil liberties.

  What can people do to combat shit like this?

• Comment by tom on October 3rd, 2006 at 10:40 am:

  i dont think they can nab boycotters just yet. boycotting requires a lack of action, so it’s not the same thing in their eyes, yet.

  yeah that NAFTA and FTAA shit is bubllshit, but this new law is slightly different. the trade agreements pretty much make governments accountable for any laws or regulations they might enact which in turn restricts a companies profits. this new law is targeted directly to the public, and it is less surprising than it is the absolutely purest common sense. common sense in a world that is completely backwards and fucked.

  however, there are some extremist animal rights activists out there, who will do “whatever it takes, dawgs™” to get their goals achieved. i mean incurring harm on one to make a statement against incurring harm on others sounds alot like what the war on terrorism is all aboot.

  im all for animal liberation, and actions in support of this, as long as it doesn’t cause more oppression. we can’t fight against oppression tyrannically, lest we become oppresors ourselves.

  so stop threatening children and keep blowing up empty factories, dawgs!

  ever-flapping…

• Comment by seth on October 3rd, 2006 at 11:21 am:

  Hey, what was that law congress just put into place? Something along the lines of “if you pose ANY kind of threat to “natiopnal security”, or something the we can now strip you of your right to habeas corpus and detain you indefinitely and what are you gonna do about it?” Hmmmm, wonder if that would apply to some animal-rights activists as well………… I’m afraid people, very very afraid. (by the way, this dialogue may be treason–just something to look out for)

• Comment by blackmetal666 on October 3rd, 2006 at 3:00 pm:

  Scary shit, as always, when civil liberties (what’s left) are stripped even further. I saw a film on MTBE at Rutgers University a few years back. My down-ass sociology professor showed some very interesting films about neoliberalism and globalization (the course was about globalization, and he was very adamant about his support of globalization, i.e. the spreading of ideas and technology, while at the same time calling for alternative kinds of globalization, rather than the capitalist models that are the norm. Anyways I always liked that guy, and the class made me think about globalization and “alternatives” to it. Good stuff. But then again I must be some pinko to think that we should have alternative ideas taught on campus. Haha, sigh…

• Comment by D-Rock on October 3rd, 2006 at 5:25 pm:

  Related to this:

  First Member of SHAC 7 Heads to Jail for Three Year Sentence

• Comment by drew on October 3rd, 2006 at 10:05 pm:

  goddamn this shit’s ridiculous. but then again, what isnt these days??!??!??!

• Comment by xFirecrackerx on October 3rd, 2006 at 10:37 pm:

  The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)obviously strongly opposes this bill:
  http://www.aclu.org/...5620leg20060306.html

• Comment by D-Rock on October 4th, 2006 at 11:33 am:

  

• Comment by tomi on October 5th, 2006 at 2:06 pm:

  It’s interesting to note how active and vocal animal rights activists are compared to some other activists.

  This legislation is targeted specifically against crimes committed to animal enterprises alone, not petro-chemical facilities or places like Bombardier, CAE and other weapons manufacturers. I don’t see anybody going to prisons and liberating prisoners – not to place any lesser or greater value to any act of liberation - or driving cargo vans through mc’donalds.

  Wait a minute, I have a cargo van. Hmm…

  Why are animal rights activists so loud? And if the democrats are the alternative choice, remember that this bill would require their support as well…

• Comment by tom on October 5th, 2006 at 2:07 pm:

  my name is tom!

• Comment by xFirecrackerx on October 5th, 2006 at 10:13 pm:

  Animal rights activists are so loud because we are the voice of the voiceless. Simply for expressing our belief that animals deserve equal consideration of interests, we’re laughed at, marginalized, and ostracized. It does not break our will, it only makes us stronger. Take PETA for example, 26 years of relentless agitation for those that seek to oppress and dominate the animals.

• Comment by greg on October 5th, 2006 at 11:33 pm:

  it’s fucking hockey season again!

• Comment by blackmetal666 on October 6th, 2006 at 4:19 pm:

  Goddamn, SOMETHING to be happy about!!! Go Devils fuckers.

• Comment by Dtrain on October 6th, 2006 at 4:26 pm:

  whatever man, the oilers are going to bring it home.

• Comment by Aq on October 7th, 2006 at 10:06 am:

  Off topic, but will the Mico record be released on CD/Vinyl elsewhere, or is it an exclusivly digital release?

• Comment by D-Rock on October 7th, 2006 at 12:16 pm:

  Aq: As far as we know, no one has plans to release the Mico album in physical format. That may change if someone gets interested.

• Comment by bits on October 8th, 2006 at 1:11 am:

  hey tom, want to elaborate on some examples of these tyrannical actions of earth/animal liberators? Generally elf/alf/efers and all the other good guys out there are extremely careful to not cause humans physical harm. The few times I can think of where this did occur was because of accidents, unforseeable events and the ignorance of the person who was harmed (such as the guard at the litton plant ((sp?)) by direct action).

  Now that I’ve said this I’ll have to say that I disagree that absolutly no deaths can occur. All nation states, with America being particularily singled out, have a policy of genocide they are carrying out in the name of profits and “better living”, whatever that is. Is it not our job as the “voice of the voiceless” to speak up and, when necessary, take arms if war has been called and diplomacy has absolutly failed. I think all branches of the eco movement are intrinsic,which means everything from the council of canadians to greenpeace to ELF/ALF. hose in power will not give it up. And reforms can reform only so much.

• Comment by dumdiddee on October 10th, 2006 at 10:21 pm:

  bits-

  a wise person once said something to the effect that “gains made through violence are corrupt and doomed to failure”. (glen lambert, ha, actually said it in an interview linked on prop’s site).

  History shows that violence in the name of liberation and creating a better world has invariably resulted in nothing more than creating new caesars to replace the old ones — robespierre, stalin, mao, etc. This is why i’m pretty skeptical violence as an effective tool … especially in the case of animal liberation.

  I believe that in most cases ELF/ALF are careful not to target humans, but nevertheless the only thing their bombs have done is to convince the mainstream that they (ALF) are lunatics. Culural traditions have deeply ingrained in many people the idea that animal exploitation (though they wouldn’t even think to term it as “exploitation”) is ok. And bombing slaughterhouses is not going to change any “hearts or minds” or curb the demand for meat. The only real way to do this is to continually spread the word in a level-headed way and educate people about animal rights. I hate to say it, but this is going to be a slow process that could take generations, maybe even centuries, to complete. Look at the long struggle of women, non-europeans, etc that is still not even complete. And the fight for animal rights has really only just begun. I think full liberation can only be realized in the long term. It’s just not going to happen overnight. And to try and force it to happen overnight (besides being impossible) would probably have to involve killing off 99% of humans on the planet.

• Comment by dumdiddee on October 10th, 2006 at 10:27 pm:

  That is, killing them OR creating a stalinist police state to restrain them.

  Don’t get me wrong, the new proposed law IS fucked, but the tactics that are gonna be further outlawed haven’t exactly done much good, anyway.

• Comment by tom on October 11th, 2006 at 10:26 am:

  shit sometimes i write like rhetoric…

  xfirecrackerx that’s a really good point…

  bits, i was reffering to something i had read about the shac 7(?) or another animal rights group. the article i read stated that some of these activists actually threatened the lives of the children of employees who worked in an animal enterprise. if i’m not mistaken, the link is available on the previous blog topic concerning the shac 7.

  i was by no means intending to categorically pigeon-hole all animal-rights activists. i know that most animal righters are not tyrants, but as always, there’s a few bad apples.

  i definately agree that revolutionary activities will at some times require violence. the animal rights enterprise must be seen as intrinsic to the current power structure, but must also be seen as a systematic function of capitalism. in this sense, i think even non-violent action- though important- is only a short term solution. let’s face it: any factory we blow up they can rebuild. they’re insured. i definately think that action is absolutely necesary, but we also have to work on long term goals i think.

  we must strike closer to the heart of this beast.

• Comment by tom on October 11th, 2006 at 10:30 am:

  oh and chris, did your sweatpants resemble a proverbial tharsis bulge when you wrote that last newsletter? evolution sound wicked, i’m on green mars right now and i think i’m in love with ann clayborne. oh, but now she died.

• Comment by dumdiddee on October 11th, 2006 at 12:52 pm:

  I still agree with me that violence will not make any sustanstial inroads towards animal liberation. It’s frustrating, i know, it makes you wanna go berzerker with a halberd … but then only a lifetime of incarceration will follow.

  If you look in areas were significant social progress has been made, in the main it has been a “long, hard slog” of non-violent campaigns such as civil disobedience, protests and public education. I can site examples such as Indian Independendence under Gandhi, Civil Rights in the U.S under MLK, the continuing non-violent progress in women’s emancipation, the end of apartheid in South Africa. Without using violence these struggles were all successful. I can’t even think of ONE instance in history where violence brought liberation on such a sweeping, meaningful scale as did the aforementioned non-violent ones.

  Persistant, passionate and outspoken public awareness and education are the only means I can see that will bring us anywhere near the desired ends.

• Comment by tom on October 12th, 2006 at 9:21 am:

  in any case, this legislation spells out a dark future. in canada it’s happening too. the criminilization of dissent… there’s a good mp3 by jaggi singh on this site regading activism and state response. they really want to crush us, it seems. we should support the shac 7, and all political prisoners.

  i imagine that the state will now create similar laws for all corporations, not just animal enterprises.

  dumdidee: look at native americans. for the most part they’ve offered relatively non-violent resistance, even when faced with an uber violent neo-colonial state. they’re culture is being destroyed, in fact, genocide has been in progress for hundreds of years. i don’t think the eradication of native culture is a desired end, do you?

• Comment by dumdiddee on October 12th, 2006 at 12:18 pm:

  Tom - I don’t mean that violence is to be avoided in all cases, but in many cases it is futile or counterproductive. For instance, if native americans decided to take to arms at this point in the game they would be doomed. Sure, they would be justified and have moral authority to do battle, but they would have no chance of winning and ultimately their people would be no better off, in fact they would probably be worse off.

  And by the way, many courageous tribes *did* violently resist the european invaders.

• Comment by bits on October 12th, 2006 at 1:00 pm:

  “I can’t even think of ONE instance in history where violence brought liberation on such a sweeping, meaningful scale as did the aforementioned non-violent ones. ”
  hmm, I would argue that all those movements had a fairly large and important violent aspect. A huge reason why so many began to listen to M.L.King jr. was because the whites were becoming nervuos over malcolm X’s rhetoric (and later the Black Panthers). Again and again in these movements there is a huge base of slow-but-steady reformist actions, speeches, protests, letter-writing, law creation which are very important, but they are reformist and the powers that be don’t generally care if a few squawk. But when there is suddenly a small but direct-action group which cannot be controlled, then the law-creators become frightened and take a better look at the reformists. Suddenlt a few small crumbs does not sound too bad in the face of a growing support for radicalism. There’s a book called “Green rage” by manes where he tries to find out how the radical animal/earth factions came to be and through interviews there are these groups like sierra club, WWF that state the creation of groups like Greenpeace was necessary to any gains. Lerts say sierra club asks for a reserve of 200 sq km, the neo-libs/cons ho and hum and say “maybe 50 sq km”, the sierra tries to get more through small reforms, but the greenpeace comes in and says “if you don’t give 200 sq km, then we will create a huge international spectacle/boycott, spike a large amount of trees and create blockades. After a few years Greenpeace softened up and a few founders broke off to create EF and the sea sheps, who say we’ll do this and with ELF/ALF also destroy tour equipment and try to cost you millions. Now the powers take a closer look and offer 100 sq km, and voila, a sanctuary is created.

  I hope that made sense and wasn’t too horrifically long

• Comment by bits on October 12th, 2006 at 1:16 pm:

  Id say that those natives who fought have become heroes in the eyes of their people and offer hope to them that something CAN be done. They remember wounded knee and the other great battles…they take more pride in those than they do in a council sitting down to negotiate and getting annally raped over and over for three hundred years by fat white pigs.

  Also, I re-read dumds article and I would say that the civil rights, indigenous struggle and the end of apartheid all had fairly violent movements on the part of the oppressed (although I can’t think of any violent feminists from that time-period, although a lot of their gains were borne from the bloodshed of both world wars, I’d argue). Mandela specifically broke away from the old party to join the new ANC because pacifism was not working (I’m not at home so can’t reach over for his biography, but he definatlt went north to train with other anti-colonialist groups…was it in Angola…?)..urg. This is making me angry, I must admit. Alas, canada won’t be far from enacting similar legislation (I know Alberta had some hefty tresspassing penalties created for logging areas about two years ago)…I’m leery of even adding my email address here and, sadly, won’t order a new EF! subscription as that will be on a list at the border, no doubt. Fuck them for putting ELF on the most-wanted terrorist list….

• Comment by bits on October 12th, 2006 at 1:35 pm:

  will grave-robbing be considered a “loss of income”?…probably.

  http://news.bbc.co.u...ordshire/4632132.stm

  tragically funny tho

• Comment by Kyle on October 13th, 2006 at 5:56 pm:

  I did my part by playing “Apparently I’m a PC Fascist” and “Nailing Descartes to the Wall/(Liquid) Meat is Still Murder” when I was DJing for my campus radio station today — and “Money” by Choking Victim.

  The day-care kids’ parents probably weren’t entertained, but being hardcore has its price.

  Go Oilers!

• Comment by Hairhole on October 15th, 2006 at 3:34 am:

  I just started reading ‘Diet for a New America’. Just a few pages in, and already I’m getting that boiling in my blood. The words ‘If Liberty isn’t given, it should be taken’ seem to be resonating pretty strong with me right about now.

• Comment by bits on October 15th, 2006 at 9:11 pm:

  i fuckin’ love when a video (such as PETAs)/song (meat is murder-conflict)/speech (paul watson)/book (sea of slaughter) has that ability…to energize and concentrate anger instead of throwing you just into despair. It’s too bad that the feeling only lasts for a bit until your back to an inert blob desperetly reading articles, drinking vodka and playing games.

  And that’s why i always tell the new agers that my “power animal” is the Awak. And syphilis.

  now to find someone with this book

• Comment by bits on October 15th, 2006 at 9:19 pm:

  anyone else have such a list?

• Comment by Patrick on October 16th, 2006 at 12:58 am:

  “The only real way to do this is to continually spread the word in a level-headed way and educate people about animal rights. I hate to say it, but this is going to be a slow process that could take generations, maybe even centuries, to complete.” - dumididdee.
  I completely agree. I ran across this ‘interesting’ piece of literature in a textbook of mine and thought it was a nice example of the indoctrination of young people against animal right activists.
  “Most people accept the necessity for animal experimentation to advance knowledge, as long as it is performed humanely and with teh proper respect for the animal’s welfare. However, a vocal and increasingly violent minority seeks the total abolition of animal use for human purposes, including experimentation. These people subscribe to a philosophical position called ‘animal rights.’ According to this way of thinking, animals have the same legal and moral rights as humans do. If you are an animal lover, you may be sympathetic to this position. But consider the following questions. Are you willing to deprive yourself and your family of medical procedures that were developed using animals? Is the death of a mouse equivalent to the death of a human being? Is keeping a pet the moral equivalent of slavery? Is eating meat the moral equivalent of murder? Is it unethical to take the life of a pig to save the life of a child? Is controlling the rodent population in the sewers or the roach population in yourhome morally equivalent to the holocaust? If your answer is no to any of these questions, then you do not subscribe to the philosophy of animal rights…Animal rights activists have vigorously pursued their agenda against animal research, sometimes with alarming success. They have manipulated public opinion with repeated allegations of cruelty in animal experiments that are grossly distorted or blatently false. They have vandalized laboratories, destroying years of hard-won scientific data and hundreds of thousancs of dollars of equipment (that you, the taxpayer, had paid for). Using threats of violence, they have driven some researchers out of science altogether.”
  With this type of material being taught in the classroom and passed off as objective, it is of no surprise to me that there seems to be a backlash against animal welfare and animal rights groups. There needs to be a rational and logical discussion about these issues in order for there to be any progress. This might be difficult if one side of the debate is marginalized and pushed so far off the map of rational discourse that they have been labeled ‘terrorists’.

• Comment by tom on October 16th, 2006 at 1:17 pm:

  i’m not saying native americans have been historically passive; look at AIM for instance. when compared to the actions and policies of neo-colonial states however, native americans have shown themselves to be diplomatic, and in search of peaceful means to achieve an end. this cannot be said for the governments of canada or the u.s.

  communication is the most important thing, but there does always comer atime when push comes to shove and we offer the rulers of the world a flat out refusal.

  “sometimes all i wanna say is fuck nike…”

Dialogue has ended on this post.

Archives | RSS