Animal Crackers

Finis

So I'm back after some heavy mulling, but only for this one final post: I want to say farewell, since I've decided to stop posting on AC. (I will leave the archives up for anyone interested in perusing them, at least for awhile.)

Over the last couple of weeks, I've decided that in the past two years I've said all I've wanted to say, many times over, and the time is right for me to step away.

By now, those of you who are regular readers of AC will, I hope, know how I would react to most AR news that will be coming down the pike: what I most likely would conclude, and more importantly, how I would have reasoned my way to that conclusion.

If a few of you value my approach and are motivated to write the odd letter to your newspaper or local TV station when the name PeTA, the PCRM, ALF, SHAC or HSUS hits the news, that's all to the good, as is pointing to the ties between above ground groups like PeTA and the PCRM on the one hand, and terrorist ALF and SHAC members (and former members) on the other.

For my part, I consider the single most important point to be the difference between Animal Rights and Animal Welfare, a difference which defines the central premise of Animal Rights: that the life of an animal and that of a human are of equal value, that to discriminate against an animal simply because it is not a human is to commit the sin of "speciesism," which is as immoral as racism; and that such equivalency carries with it, for the AR true believer, certain prohibitions as well as obligations.

If I had to boil things down to the single most important post I've written, it would be this summary, which is my best attempt at illustrating the AR premise of human/animal moral equivalency, and, chillingly, where its logic takes you. Please read it carefully, once again.

(Having made their case for animal/human moral equivalency, the AR people advocate that animals be spayed and neutered. In doing so, the logic of their position dictates that they either favor forced sterilization of humans, or they don't really believe in the moral equivalency of humans and non-humans. If the latter, they are admitting that they are unwilling to live by the central premise of their own ideology, the premise that distinguishes AR from AW. They cannot have it both ways.)

In any event, I wish you all well, and I greatly appreciate the strong support you've given me.

Brian

Time Out!

Last week, I decided to take a couple of days off, and those days seem to have doubled. I'm enjoying my break — it's given me uncluttered time to think, to gain perspective, and to wrestle with issues about where I want to go with my writing.

Stay tuned.

Brian

Prisoner's Update

Kevin Tubbs, one of the six arrested on December 7, 2005 for a variety of Eco-terrorist acts, has a support group. Mr. Tubbs, as you may recall, has been charged with arson at Romania Chevrolet in Eugene and with the 1998 arson of a U.S. Department of Agriculture research center in Olympia, Washington.

(According to his mother, Mr. Tubbs "once worked for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals". Additionally, a reliable source tells me that PETA activists Kevin Tubbs and Matt Rossell were arrested for disrupting a cattle ranchers meeting in Des Moines, which took place on December 15, 1993. According to PeTA, Mr. Rossell once worked for the Oregon Regional Primate Research Center, quitting in 2000 after two years, claiming the Center was "a chamber of horrors." It's noteworthy that Mr. Rossell took the job after being busted with Mr. Tubbs, long after he'd become an Animal Rights activist — so when he joined the staff at the ORPRC, it was almost certainly to find or invent dirt on them. Mr. Rossell now evidently works for In Defense of Animals.)

In any event, here's what's on the support group's page, which is entitled "Statement of support from the family and friends of Kevin Tubbs":

On December 7th, our family's world was shattered to pieces with the news that our cherished and loved companion, son, brother and friend, Kevin Tubbs, was arrested and is facing outrageous charges that carry a potential life sentence. Because it is a politically charged case, our compassionate Kevin is being labeled a "terrorist," and we are in dismay over the possibility of a very harsh and unjust sentence if he is convicted.

Kevin is a uniquely gentle, loving person who is uncommonly generous to friends and strangers alike. He is not a violent person. He is a stable provider, beloved by all who know him. The picture painted in the media is not our Kevin and we will continue to stand by him through this nightmare.

Instead of a happy holiday celebration this Christmas, our family was stricken by grief. On the day Kevin was publicly humiliated by being taken away in handcuffs from his job of 6 years, his long-time girlfriend returned home to find their house ransacked, all of their presents ripped open and their terrified dogs locked in a tiny bathroom for most of the day. Right now, all of our lives are on hold, anxiously awaiting his return to us.

There follows contact information, and information on how one can contribute to Mr. Tubbs' defense.

Though it has yet to be determined if Mr. Tubbs is guilty or not, I am unmoved by such rhetoric, at least in the face of the information that is coming out about him and his colleagues.

He deserves the presumption of innocence, but if he's found guilty, he deserves a good long time behind bars. The tragedy then would be that he suckered himself into acting out violently in the name of an incoherent ideology.

Although I have not verified it yet, one source tells me that the support site's URL appeared in a bulletin issued by the Earth Liberation Prisoners Support network. The same source sent me a post indicating as much, which looks authentic, and which he says he mined from an AR bulletin board. And the ELP site helpfully lists him as one of "[t]he remaining new American ALF/ELF defendants."

Which brings me to my point: each of these six prisoners — well, 5 now, with the suicide of Mr. William Rodgers — is in a very ticklish position. Each must decide whether his/her interests are better served by being tied to the ELP or not, and whether they can negotiate themselves a reduced sentence, which might require flipping on someone else, someone involved in another "direct action."

By way of review, here's how things stand:

Mr. William Rodgers, of course, is in the next world by way of his own hand and a suffocating plastic bag he liberated from his jail's commissary. (Mr. Rodgers was charged in the arson of a USDA lab in Olympia, Washington; the Romania Chevrolet Truck dealership fire in Eugene OR; and the Superior Lumber Company arson. He and Ms Gerlach were also a suspects in the $12 million Vail arson, though neither has been charged.)

Mr. Daniel Gerald McGowan (aka Jamie Moran) has indicated he doesn't want ELP calling for his support. He (wisely, to my mind) wants to present the face of an independent soul, one working for social justice (and undoubtedly World Peace . . .) but is not affiliated with any radical group.

A source tells me that Ms Sarah Kendall Harvey also wants not to have ELP solicit support for her. But the ELP site nevertheless lists her along with Mr. Tubbs and Ms Gerlach as one of "[t]he remaining new American ALF/ELF defendants".

The ELP abandoned Mr. Stanilas Gregory Meyerhoff because he flipped and seems willing to bargain. That's a wise decision for him, but certainly bodes ill for several of the others who he is alleged to have committed crimes with (Mr. Meyerhoff is charged in the Superior Lumbar Co. arson with Mr. Rodgers [RIP] and Mr. McGowan [aka Moran]; in the arson of the Jefferson Poplar Farms with Ms. Gerlach; and in the toppling of a Bonneville Power Administration tower with Ms Gerlach and one Josephine Overaker, who's still at large).

Ms. Chelsea Dawn Gerlach is evidently accepting support from the ELP herself, or at least hasn't made any attempt to distance herself from them (she's listed on the ELP site as one of the American ALF/ELF defendants [op cit]).

The charges against Ms. Gerlach seem to place her in the deepest of quagmires (if convicted, she could face 290 years in prison). She is charged with the Childress Meat Packing arson; toppling the Bonneville tower; the Jefferson Poplar arson; and she is a suspect in the Vail arson. Her lawyer is seeking information that may assist her from a radical bulletin board.

So what we have here are many cracks forming in the solidarity of the alleged perps, both with one another and with any organization, like the ELP, that can damage them by association.

It seems to me that, assuming the ELP is actively supporting Mr. Tubbs' and claiming him as one of their own, his family and his real friends might want to rethink whether or not they like that and want it to continue. (Prosecutor: "Mr. Tubbs, if you aren't affiliated with the ALF/ELF people, why are you listed as an ALF/ELF prisoner on the ELP site? Did you ask them to remove your name from it? Why not?")

I think Mr. McGowan and Ms Harvey have the right idea: distance themselves from any semblance of connection with the ELP. I think Mr. Tubbs and Ms Gerlach are . . . well . . . playing with fire.

Brian

Red on Red

For those of you who don't know, in military operations your own force and allies are considered the "blue force", while your opponent and his allies are referred to as the "red force." The normal match up is "blue" versus "red." The last thing you want to see is a mistake in which you see a blue on blue altercation, because it means that your friends are shooting each other.

And of course, just as you can have blue on blue, you can have red on red, and now we have here an example of a red on red altercation in which the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society and Greenpeace appear to be playing chicken with one another way down south.

As opposed as I am to both groups, I hope that nobody's hurt, which is a distinct possibility when you have two such confrontational groups harassing one another in an exceptionally hostile environment:

A battle for what is being called "the high moral wave" was last night being fought off the wild coast of Antarctica as the world's two leading international marine protection groups fought each other over which would stop the Japanese whaling fleet.

With an international crew of volunteers, a helicopter and a deep warchest, Greenpeace International has sent two boats, the Arctic Sunrise and the faster Esperanza, to the Southern Ocean to stop the Japanese whaling fleet as it tries to catch 900 minke, blue and other whales for "scientific research".

Last night the group, which located and gave chase to the Japanese fleet before Christmas, claimed to have the whalers on the run in mountainous seas peppered with icebergs. "The fleet seems to be running in circles, stopping and going in different directions. It's the sixth day in a row that we have seen no whales transferred to the factory ship. It's unlikely that whaling is being undertaken," said a spokesman.

The animal rights protector Captain Paul Watson, who co-founded Greenpeace in the 1970s and later set up the more radical Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, was also in pursuit of the fleet yesterday in his ship, the Farley Mowat. Capt Watson, who accuses Greenpeace of being "the Avon ladies of the environment" and of being more interested in publicity than in enforcing international law, intercepted the Nisshin Maru factory ship on Christmas Day. Each environmental group now accuses the other of endangering lives by trying to ram its vessels.

Skipper Paul has little cause to grasp for the moral high ground, especially when it comes to publicity. The whole point of the SSCS is publicity: they know full well that they can't make a meaningful dent in any of the practices they oppose (especially whaling and sealing), unless they can recruit significant public support.

And, of course, there is the important issue of fundraising and corporate financials. It takes a lot of scratch to sail a ship around the seven seas and to fly off scouting helicopters. You don't pay the bills by collecting coupons . . .

The fact is, you can't raise funds without publicity: as a reporter of the CBC noted in 1978, there are big bucks in the protest industry, and as a quick perusal of the transcript of that broadcast will show, Skipper Paul isn't above impugning the motives of Greenpeace, who, he claims ignore endangered seal species and focus on non-endangered species as a publicity move to raise funds.

Of course, the same logic that Skipper Paul used against Greenpeace, an organization from which he was sacked, applies equally well to the SSCS: they must have bucks, and publicity is the only way to get them.

But there's more: If you really want to see what the SSCS is all about, check out this stunning expose of the SSCS's financial dealings, written by Myles Higgins, but only after you've read this (op cit) from ActivistCash.com.

Skipper Paul has no room to talk.

Sea Shepherd had requested the presence of the Australian navy to monitor events in the Southern Ocean, but Australia's environment minister, Ian Campbell, said that Sea Shepherd's threats to attack the fleet "risk setting back the cause of whale conservation many years".

Capt Watson said yesterday: "Stop threatening us, Mr Campbell, and charge us if you believe we are acting unlawfully. Stop posing for the Japanese [who] are in blatant violation of international conservation laws."

Despite a short truce at Christmas in which the captains swapped greetings, Capt Watson and Greenpeace were at daggers drawn again yesterday with Sea Shepherd accusing the larger group of refusing to say where the Japanese fleet was.

Ouch!

"Greenpeace has misled Sea Shepherd and betrayed us. The Japanese fleet does not give a damn about protests. [Greenpeace] just take pictures and hang banners. We are down here to enforce international conservation law and to stop the illegal whaling operations."

Greenpeace retorted: "Greenpeace distance themselves from Sea Shepherd because of their inability to commit to non-violent tactics. But we'll do what we can to put bodies between harpoons and whales and protect the whales non-violently," said its spokesman Danny Kennedy. Capt Watson yesterday warned Greenpeace that Japan had dispatched a warship to the Southern Ocean to protect its whaling fleet and arrest the conservationists for piracy. This could not be confirmed.

Wouldn't that be interesting . . .

Last night, the three conservation ships were reportedly trying to spot the Japanese harpoon vessels. "They are sweeping along the [Antarctic] coast corridor with radar and helicopter reconnaissance flights with the objective of ferreting out the positions of the illegal harpoon vessels," said a spokesman for Greenpeace.

The bad blood between Greenpeace and Sea Shepherd goes back to 1979, when Captain Paul Watson, membership number 008, left the Greenpeace Foundation he helped set up in Canada in 1972. In 1978, he formed the Sea Shepherd society. While Greenpeace adopted an ethic of non-violence, Capt Watson, 55, believes in confrontation and has been accused of piracy and terrorism. [My emphasis . . . ed]

Confrontation might be a viable tactic by one group if the other shows restraint. But when both sides have a chip on their shoulder, things can go awfully bad awfully fast.

It's doubtful if SPSS will back down . . . will Greenpeace?

Stay tuned . . .

Thanks to David S. for the link.

Brian

Mother Jones Article on SHAC's Kjonaas

I don't quite know how to get into this post, because I don't know if the author of this Mother Jones article, Chris Maag, was naive and ignorant, or deliberately trying to present the subject of his piece — SHAC's Kevin Kjonaas — in a distinctly positive light.

It strikes me that, in his article, Mr. Maag (or is it Ms Maag?) omits information about Mr. Kjonaas and SHAC that is far more revealing and compelling to the readership than the information he chooses to include.

One simply must wonder about the omissions . . .

Was the author lazy? Or was he sympathetic to Mr. Kjonaas' cause and SHAC's tactics? Or is Mr. Maag simply misguided, and trying to be objective, to give the benefit of the doubt to a "controversial" person without being "judgemental"?

Regardless of his intentions, what Mr. Maag has produced is an article that raises in its very first sentence the provocative question about whether or not Mr. Kjonaas should be considered a terrorist, and then doesn't discuss the evidence that suggests he might well be one.

Rather than following up on such an important question, Mr. Maag wastes much space on breathtakingly irrelevant personal details of Mr. Kjonaas — his love for his dog, how he dresses, what his contemptuous opinion is of the gumshoes who surveilled him, etc.!

Irrespective of what I think, read on and make your own call:

When you picture a dangerous terrorist, Kevin Kjonaas may not immediately spring to mind. The 28-year-old Catholic-school graduate stands 5 feet 10 inches, weighs 120 pounds, and speaks in a mezzo-soprano voice. He uses the word “cute” a lot. Kjonaas pays his rent by working at a doggy daycare; before that he went door to door for John Kerry’s presidential campaign but quit when he realized that his strained relationship with the law could be a liability for his employer. Kjonaas is both a vegan and a preppy. He owns almost 40 vegetarian cookbooks but is quick to point out that “I don’t cook sprouted wheat germ. It sounds so hippie-ish.” His closet is filled with J. Crew hand-me-downs, and for his birthday this year, he got a dress shirt with light pink and light blue stripes. “I really like it,” he says. “It goes really well with this sweater vest I have.”

So . . . from the first paragraph, we learn that Mr. Kjonaas is just a regular guy, one who cares about dogs and politics, and has appealing little quirks to his personality and his tastes.

The reader now has a positive first impression of someone who many believe to be a terrorist, but someone who, we can plainly see, Mr. Maag opted to present as a sympathetic human being, first and foremost.

If you think I'm reading too much into Mr. Maag's opening paragraph, try this on for size: substitute the name of Neal Horsley, a militant anti-abortionist who posted targeting information on the internet about abortion providers similar to that which can be found on the SHAC website (in fact, tactics of extreme anti-abortionists have been borrowed and modified by violent AR activists).

Would Mr. Maag have painted a similarly folksy picture of Mr. Horsley's appearance, his favorite shirt and his culinary interests?

I think not . . .

Until quite recently, Kjonaas was president of Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC USA), an animal rights group dedicated to shutting down Huntingdon Life Sciences. The U.K.-based company owns labs in New Jersey, where it tests household chemicals, pharmaceuticals, and other products on animals. In 1998, the U.S. Department of Agriculture fined Huntingdon $50,000 for animal abuses. A British television documentary showed clips of Huntingdon employees punching beagle puppies. Kjonaas grew up with a beagle named Barney. “He was my best friend,” he says. “We did everything together.”

And here again, the author presents Mr. Kjonaas as a sympathetic, sensitive figure, a champion . . . a figure alert to animal abuse and willing to oppose it, against great odds.

His best friend was a dog . . . how greater could Mr. Kjonaas' virtue be?

Huntingdon Life Sciences is the villain, the company that, in fact, SHAC (Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty) was formed to bring down. We know it's a villain because a few of its employees were caught abusing animals.

End of story — or more precisely — the beginning of a new one, a story having much in common with "original sin" — the crime having been committed, HLS, like the descendents of Adam and Eve, is permanently tainted.

Animal Rights extremists typically seize upon the occasional real instance of animal abuse, and use it over and over to demonize their target and recruit support for the AR cause: it is SOP for AR propagandists to use the exception as if it were the norm. That's dirty pool

But it's a good strategy for getting the AR message out, a strategy that Mr. Maag helped along by his lack of inquisitiveness.

Had Mr. Maag pursued the matter, he might have learned that to Mr. Kjonaas and his AR fellow travelers, any use of animals for human benefit is unwarranted "exploitation" and qualifies as a violation of the rights AR people believe animals possess; that to an Animal Rights extremist, the life of an animal and that of a human are of equal value — that if it is immoral or unethical to do something to a human it is no less so to do it to an animal, that to discriminate on the basis of species differences ("speciesism") is as great a sin as to discriminate on the basis of racial differences ("racism").

This human/animal moral equivalency is the core premise of the AR movement, and the premise that animates Mr. Kjonaas.

Mr. Maag seems ignorant of this premise, or to not care about it enough to follow its logic.

Were he to have wondered more about what motivates Mr. Kjonaas in particular and other AR luminaries in general, and less about Mr. Kjonaas' taste in cloths or who his best friend might be, Mr. Maag would have tripped over a gold mine of information.

For example, he'd not only understand Mr. Kjonaas and his SHAC, but also why Dr. Jerry Vlasak (ALF Press Officer, former spokesman for the PCRM, a group which is closely tied to PeTA) feels it's morally acceptable to assassinate a few scientists to save many animals, and has openly advocated the practice (all lives are equal, and if you kill "n" scientists to save "n + 1" animals, you will have acted virtuously). And Mr. Maag would have understood why Professor Steven Best would save his dog from a burning house before he'd save a human stranger: each life is of equal value, and his dog is more important to him than the human stranger's life is to him.

Alas, Mr. Maag fumbled . . . we know more about Mr. Kjonaas cookbooks than we know of what underlies his most passionate beliefs, beliefs he shares with others of his ilk.

As president of SHAC USA, Kjonaas posted the home addresses and telephone numbers of Huntingdon employees on the group’s website. Sometimes Kjonaas helped organize protests in front of workers’ homes. When he couldn’t make it to a demonstration, he posted other people’s accounts of the event, even when they included acts of vandalism. He saw himself as a conduit for information. “Since it wasn’t my words going on the site, I felt I had no place to censor,” Kjonaas says. “Of course, now that it’s my ass being indicted, those words are being censored.”

Where to start with this? For openers, the author completely ignores the tactic of tertiary targeting, which focusses on employees and their families of companies that are suppliers and clients of HLS. By terrorizing these people, SHAC hopes to separate HLS from the companies HLS needs to survive, one company at a time.

SHAC (and link and link) and its tertiary targeting has been remarkably successful not only in the UK but apparently in the US as well — witness Catherine Kinney's regrettable decision to not list HLS on the NYSE.

For Mr. Maag's information: Ms Kinney is President of the NYSE. After the NYSE investigated the financial bona fides of HLS and agreed to list the company on the NYSE, Kinney, to the surprise of everyone, and at the very last moment, reversed course and "postponed" listing of HLS indefinitely, an action that from all appearances stemmed from her fear of Animal Rights "direct action." Ms. Kinney declined an invitation to testify before the Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works, a hearing with which the reader can shock himself by reading this and following the links in the first paragraph of it.

The author, Mr. Maag, fails to mention the fact that SHAC has posted a list of the "Top 20 Terror Tactics" on its website, along with a list of individuals who they demonize together with their home addresses, personal information about their family and friends, and, additionally, listed there and ways in which any anonymous soul who conducts a direct action might hope to avoid capture.

The author also fails to mention that Mr. Kjonaas once acted as a spokesman for the terrorist Animal Liberation Front.

Nor does the author mention that an integral part of tertiary targeting is the separation between those who post the information on the website, and the anonymous people who identify themselves as avenging angels and act on the information provided by SHAC, selecting a time, place and method of their choosing.

(The self-identification and anonymity of these people is integral to the successful operation of the tactic: Mr. Kjonaas may well not know who will act in behalf of SHAC, or any of the specifics of an attack beforehand, but that's the beauty of SHAC's system: they can honestly claim that they didn't encourage or otherwise sponsor a specific act, and believe this provides them with immunity from the legal consequences of the act. To my way of thinking, it's a little like dropping large rocks from a plane over a city: you may not know who will be struck, but if you do it often enough, you can be reasonably sure that someone will be.)

How can one possibly understand what Mr. Kjonaas is all about without explaining what his organization, SHAC, is up to, and what sort of tactics (tertiary targeting) they are willing to employ?

Mr. Maag leaves his readership far better informed about Mr. Kjonaas' appearance and love of his doggie than about what his organization does, the premise under which Mr. Kjonaas operates, and who he rubs elbows with.

I ask: are Mr. Maag's omissions intentional, or the result of incompetence?

On May 20, 2004, Kjonaas and six other SHAC members were indicted by a New Jersey grand jury on federal charges that they had orchestrated an interstate campaign of terrorism and intimidation in violation of the Animal Enterprise Protection Act. The law, originally passed in 1992, was strengthened after 9/11 in response to heavy lobbying from animal-testing firms and pharmaceutical companies. The changes made it easier to convict people for attacks on animal-testing facilities and in some cases tripled mandatory jail sentences.

And thank goodness the law was strengthened . . .

Kjonaas was tipped off about 30 minutes before federal agents arrived to arrest him. He prepared by brushing his teeth and pulling on a dress shirt and his best pair of khakis. He tied his beagle, Willy, to a fence in the back yard.

And here we have an almost heroic Mr. Kjonaas preparing himself for the onslaught: he brushes his teeth; he dresses himself in his best; he ties his dog up. What a totally wonderful person this must be — if only I could comport myself with such dignity, courage and compassion when facing The Man and all the power of the state!

But there is nothing about tertiary targeting or SHAC's ties to violence, coercion and intimidation.

Don't forget: Mr. Kjonaas was the president of SHAC until he relinquished that position to Pamelyn Ferdin, wife of Dr. Jerry Vlasak.

At precisely 6 a.m., a column of black-clad agents ran in a full sprint toward Kjonaas’ rented house in the Bay Area suburb of Pinole. One wore a balaclava. Another carried a battering ram. They entered with their pistols aimed at Kjonaas’ head as a helicopter hovered low overhead. It was a remarkable show of force, especially since, after six months of recording Kjonaas’ phone and email conversations, picking through his trash, reading his mail, and following him everywhere he went, the FBI knew that the most dangerous thing in the house was a coffeepot. “What did they think I was gonna do?” Kjonaas says. “Attack them with a floppy disk?”

The evil Storm Troopers arrive! They're dressed in black, they entered in force and they were armed!

Well, yeah . . . when you're raiding a place, you want the show of force to be so overwhelming that the people in the building are so shocked and confused that they don't react. The rationale is simple: it's a question of protection — not only of the cops, but also of the suspects, who could be hurt or killed accidently if they acted unpredictably or appeared to resist.

In such raids, the cops can't assume that the suspects are unarmed, willing to cooperate, disinclined to destroy evidence or inclined to take hostages. It's dangerous enough when you have overwhelming force and surprise on your side, but you can't count on events perfectly following the script you've written up (after all, Mr. Kjonaas was tipped off, which I doubt was part of the plan . . .).

Frankly, Mr. Maag's assertion that the FBI knew that the most dangerous thing in the house was a coffee pot, and that their show of force was unwarranted, is ludicrous. It would have been reckless in the extreme for the feds to have behaved the way Mr. Maag seems to feel was appropriate.

Officials admit there might be somewhat of a disconnect between Kevin Kjonaas and the public’s idea of a terrorist. “I don’t want the parallel drawn to actual Middle Eastern terrorists,” says Michael Drewniak, spokesman for the U.S. attorney in New Jersey. In its 27-page indictment, the government doesn’t allege that Kjonaas plotted to kill anyone; most of the charges focus on using the Internet to instill fear in people associated with Huntingdon. If the prosecution succeeds, Kjonaas and two other defendants each face up to $1,250,000 in fines and 23 years in prison.

Heh — ". . . a disconnect between Kevin Kjonaas and the public’s idea of a terrorist . . .".

A disconnect that Mr. Maag carefully nurtures by focussing far more on Mr. Kjonaas' appearance and his loving relationship with his doggie than on what SHAC has been up to . . .

And notice the subtle way Mr. Maag guides the reader when he notes that the government doesn't allege that Mr. Kjonaas plotted to kill anyone.

In doing so, Mr. Maag has subtly diminished what SHAC does by comparing it to what they haven't been charged with doing!

Well, gee . . . the attacks of 9/11 aren't so bad because they could have been far worse . . .

All things are relative . . .

There’s no denying that SHAC’s protest tactics were designed to frighten. SHAC activists have poured paint thinner on a Huntingdon executive’s car, broken windows, and spray-painted “puppy killer” on an employee’s property. Using tactics akin to those of extreme antiabortion groups, the SHAC USA website published the names, ages, and school addresses of Huntingdon employees’ children. “When you’re on the receiving end of [SHAC’s] campaign, it’s violent and severe intimidation,” Drewniak says. “It’s a campaign of terror, yes.” John Lewis, the FBI’s deputy assistant director for counterterrorism, told Congress last May that SHAC and other animal rights groups represent America’s No. 1 domestic terror threat.

When you are on the receiving end of SHAC's campaign, it is indeed terrifying.

Which brings up this question: How much different a tone would this piece have had if the subject of the interview weren't Mr. Kjonaas, but was instead some antiabortion zealot from the political far right who used the same techniques SHAC uses against abortion providers?

I think we know . . .

“That is patently absurd,” says Mark Potok, director of the Southern Poverty Law Center’s Intelligence Project, which tracks violent political groups on the left and right. “The reality is that these people have killed no one.” Which is not to say that groups like SHAC should be mistaken for Sunday bridge clubs. Potok says there is a trend of increasing violence and intimidation at the fringes of the environmental and animal rights movements, including a rise in bombings and inflammatory threats. “What is just screaming hypocrisy among these groups is the idea that you should blow things up, but the minute you hurt an animal or a human it is automatically not one of their actions,” Potok says. “It’s inevitable that someone will die at the hands of an animal rights firebomber.”

It is not patently absurd to consider SHAC and other violent AR sorts as the number-one domestic terrorist threat, and I fear that Mr. Potok has mistaken acts and tactics for a state of mind.

Terror is the state of mind, a state of mind that organizations like SHAC hope to create in the people they select as targets. Once people are sufficiently terrorized, they will comply with SHAC's demands — or so the terrorists hope. And it often works — just ask the NYSE's President, Ms Kinney.

Murder is an act, an act which can be used as a tactic to create a state of mind: after all, the murdered person isn't terrorized — s/he's dead. Only the living living are able to be terrorized.

As an aside, who can be sure that some useful idiot acting in behalf of SHAC's cause won't kill someone, given Dr. Jerry Vlasak now openly advocating murder (op cit). It's just a matter of time before that act will be added to the armamentarium of your local AR terrorist.

The defense of the “SHAC 7” will rest largely on the landmark 1969 case Brandenburg v. Ohio, in which the Supreme Court ruled that political speech is legal unless it can be shown that a defendant has told specific individuals to commit specific, imminent acts of violence. “These kids were posting things on the Internet, for crying out loud,” says Louis Sirkin, a Cincinnati-based First Amendment attorney who is representing one of the activists charged along with Kjonaas. “They were communicating with the entire world.”

At one time, I thought that defense might fly. But now that I've become familiar with the concept of True Threat as it may apply in the SHAC 7 trial, I'm much less sure that Brandenberg v. Ohio will carry the day.

We'll see.

Certainly, federal authorities spared no effort in trying to gather more evidence on Kjonaas. Back in May 2003, his roommates began noticing two men wearing suits who sat in a parked car three doors down from their house. (“I can’t believe they actually thought they were undercover,” Kjonaas says.) The gar- bageman told them FBI agents paid him cash to set Kjonaas’ trash aside; the mailman said the FBI ordered him to photocopy Kjonaas’ mail. Later, Kjonaas’ attorneys would discover that the FBI had also obtained warrants to tap his phone and monitor his email use.

After 9/11, the feds were severely criticized for not connecting the dots. Now they're trying to do it, and they still get criticized!

The overriding question here is this: given Mr. Kjonaas attitudes, connections (SHAC and ALF, Vlasak via Ferdin) and sympathies, should the Feds be trying to connect the dots in his case?

I'd be pretty unhappy if they weren't!

But this is an issue that Mr. Maag seems disinclined to wrestle with.

Kjonaas and his roommates tried to have fun with their pursuers. They began to pour used kitty litter into their trash bags and douse it with pepper spray. They’d drive toward a freeway on-ramp, then pull a sudden U-turn, snickering as the agents swerved behind them. Lauren Gazzola, one of Kjonaas’ roommates and a codefendant in the case, went outside on a cold fall evening and tried to offer the men in the car some hot tea. They ignored her.

These days, when he’s not at work playing with dogs, Kjonaas is busy preparing for his trial, which is scheduled to begin February 6 in Trenton, New Jersey. He has 890 hours of videotape to watch, 600 taped phone calls to listen to, and thousands of pages of documents to review—all of it gathered during the FBI’s two-year investigation of SHAC. Both sides expect the trial to last at least three months, to be followed by years of appeals. “It’s going to be a giant pain in the ass,” Kjonaas says. “If this case wasn’t so serious, it’d be comical.”

Well, what can I say? Mr. Maag's article ends with a paragraph describing how the playful Mr. Kjonaas toying with the inept feds, and a final one in which we return to dog lover, confident in his ability to prevail at trial, concerned only about the pain in the ass it will be for him.

So now, if you've made it this far, it's your call: why did Mr. Maag write the article the way he did, excluding the key information that would have explained why many consider Mr. Kjonaas to be a terrorist, why he was under surveillance and why he is now indicted, after having used the "t" word as a hook in the first sentence of his article?

UPDATE 1/1/2006, 7:45PM PST. Sharp-eyed reader Lisa P. notes that PeTA opposes tethering animals, so Mr. Kjonaas may be in hot water with them, should they learn of his abuse of his dog.

On the other hand, Mr. Kjonaas is opposed to killing animals for frivilous reasons — so he may have a bone or 12,473 to pick with PeTA.

My mind is staggered by the possibilities here . . .

Brian

Peter Daniel Young: More Charges.

Regular readers of AC will recall the saga of Peter Daniel Young: Mr. Young was captured in the San Francisco Bay Area in a Starbucks while trying to boost some CD's in front of a cop. The cop handcuffed him when he became suspicious of Mr. Young's Virginia ID, and the fact that Mr. Young had a handcuff key taped to his belt where his handcuffed hands would be.

A check of Mr. Young's fingerprints showed that he was wanted in connection with attacks on fur farms and the release of mink into the countryside, a crime that accomplice Justin Samuel implicated him in, and a crime for which it was initially thought that if convicted, Mr. Young would face life in prison (for extortion in connection with "animal enterprise terrorism").

Mr. Young got lucky.

No, he got very lucky: the supreme court, in ruling on another case, required that for someone to be guilty of "extortion," that person had to actually take something.

So Mr. Young, who faced 4 counts of "interfering with commerce by extortion", with each charge carrying a potential 20 year penalty, could not have "extorted."

The prosecution was emasculated and had to drop the extortion charges — Mr. Young was ultimately convicted of lesser charges and was sentenced to a mere 2 years total, the maximum possible.

At his sentencing, Mr. Young was defiant in the extreme, and regretted only that he hadn't done more damage than he had, proclaiming his virtue because he acted out of conscience (unlike most people, Mr. Young's conscience is infallible).

But now, Mr. Young's luck may be running out: It seems that South Dakota is charging him with the 1997 release of mink from the Turbank Mink Ranch:

A man convicted in federal court in Wisconsin for releasing mink from farms in three states now faces state charges in South Dakota. Peter Daniel Young, 28, of Mercer Island, Wash., is charged in the release of hundreds of mink from the Turbak Mink Ranch near Kranzburg in 1997, said Codington County State's Attorney Vince Foley.

Young was indicted in 1998 on federal charges for releasing mink at farms in South Dakota, Iowa and Wisconsin.

After being a fugitive for several years, he pleaded guilty in a plea bargain to charges of animal enterprise terrorism and was sentenced last month to two years in prison in federal court in Madison, Wisconsin.

The Associated Press reports that Young wasn't remorseful for his crime at the time. He read a statement to the court, calling his mink farm raids an "act of conscience."

He told fur farmers in the audience "it was an absolute pleasure to raid your farms" and urged everyone in the courtroom to go out and attack more farms.

Federal investigators said they believe Young is connected with the Animal Liberation Front, a radical group that has attempted to destroy animal-related industries it considers inhumane.

Stay tuned . . .

Brian

The Eco-Six: How the Feds Did It

Here's an excellent synopsis of the story behind the arrest of the . . . what . . . ELF six, now ELF five, with the tragic death of Mr. William C. Rogers, who committed suicide rather than going to trial and using the trial as a podium proclaiming his undying commitment to his cause . . .

The story actually ranges beyond those unhappy souls, and reintroduces our old friend Tre Arrow, formerly Michael Scarpitti (Mr. Scarpitti changed his name to Mr. Arrow when he took the advice offered him by some trees he was conversing with).

EUGENE, Ore. – From 1998 to early 2001, federal investigators seemed powerless to stop the fires that were set with gasoline-filled five-gallon plastic buckets and followed with calling cards from the Earth Liberation Front and Animal Liberation Front.

Two lumber mill offices in southern Oregon. Plant and wildlife research labs in Seattle and Olympia, Wash. A University of Washington horticulture facility. Corrals for wild horses in Oregon, Wyoming and California. A ski resort in the Colorado Rockies. A tree farm outside Portland. Three dozen sport utility vehicles in Eugene. Trucks at a gravel pit and a logging company in Oregon.

Investigators were tightlipped about what they found, but apparently had little to work with but the wire handles and melted remains of the white plastic buckets – the kind used for everything from pie filling to paint – and a few intact buckets filled with gasoline that failed to ignite.

Then, after Muslim terrorists struck New York and Washington, D.C., on Sept. 11, 2001, the fires set by extremists in the Northwest stopped. Other attacks continued elsewhere around the country, but the Northwest – the scene of intense battles over logging in national forests since 1983 – was no longer targeted.

In 2002, investigators got a break when one of the people involved in firebombing a logging company and a gravel pit in 2001 told his girlfriend, and she told her dad, a state fire marshal. Three people were convicted, and the alleged leader, Michael "Tre Arrow" Scarpitti, is being held in Victoria, British Columbia, on a shoplifting charge, fighting extradition.

Mr. Arrow is suspected of having a connection with the terrorist Earth Liberation Front.

But more interesting is this: Mr. Arrow was once busted with Jason Baker of PeTA, and required to pay $130 fine. Here's what a 1998 AP story had to say (apparently available only through LexisNexis, unfortunately):

Two animal rights activists were arrested outside the home of Procter & Gamble's chief executive officer for protesting the company's use of animals in test products.

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals distributed door-hangers Wednesday around CEO John Pepper's home in this upscale Cincinnati suburb. The door-hangers feature Pepper's face superimposed over Mr. Clean's on a bottle of the household cleaner. The label also contained the phrases, "John Pepper, clean up your act," and "Animal tests stink."

Jason Baker, a PETA spokesman, said his group thought it was important to get a message out to Pepper's neighbors.

"We want them to know that the company that he runs is needlessly killing animals and causing them to suffer," Baker said.

Baker said he and another PETA member tried to leave a door-hanger at Pepper's home, but they were escorted off the property by security guards.

Baker and Michael Scarpitti, 24, of Cincinnati, were cited by Wyoming police for distributing literature on private property without a permit. Police Chief Tim World said the men were each fined $ 130.

Baker said he and Scarpitti paid the fines, but they are considering taking legal action against the city.

[ . . .]

Mr. Baker evidently remains a prominent PeTA functionary, and seems to have moved up in the heirarchy: he's presently PeTA's campaign co-ordinator for Asia.

So here's another dot, to go with many others, that together justify the feds surveilling PeTA .

Or, to put it another way, if all these dots don't demand that PeTA be investigated and surveilled, which dots would?

Back to the ELF 5:

It would be three more years before authorities moved, arresting six people on Dec. 7 in Oregon, Arizona, Virginia and New York on charges from six fires and a toppled electric transmission tower in Oregon and Washington. One of them – Prescott, Ariz., bookstore owner William C. Rodgers – committed suicide in jail, and another, Virginia college student Stanislas Meyerhoff, has agreed to testify for the prosecution, according to court papers.

Mr. Rogers' suicide is certainly a tragedy, and I mean that from the heart.

But the unhappy truth, one even his strongest supporters must face, is this: when facing 20 years in the slammer, Mr. Rogers chose to enter the spiritual world by his own hand rather than use the bully pulpit of the witness stand to reassert his allegiance to his radical cause — the cause that he had (evidently erroneously) once thought was his raison d'être.

His supporters can proclaim him a hero and a martyr if they wish, but the sad fact is that he failed them and their cause when the going got tough — the simple truth is that he changed his mind about the worthiness of his cause.

Agents relied on tenacious pursuit over years to break the case.

"We focused on a couple of cases," said Assistant U.S. Attorney Kirk Engdall. "We developed persons of interest and went from there."

In the course of court hearings, Engdall has noted the help of at least three informants who took part in firebombings themselves.

As information has dribbled out from court hearings, affidavits, and relatives of the accused, a picture has emerged of a small band of rag-tag activists from Eugene, home to many of the demonstrators involved in the 1999 World Trade Organization riots in Seattle.

According to an FBI affidavit, on one trip to Washington to torch a lab looking for ways to keep deer from eating tree seedlings, one of the three was arrested shoplifting some of the gear to start the fires. To make things worse, their old van broke down, forcing them to hitchhike home.

Rag-tag they may well be, but they were effective, and they knew full that well what the were doing was illegal.

And check out the target . . . a facility that was trying to find a way to protect young trees from the depredations of deer. Heh . . .

Though a spokesman for ELF had described the group as immune to infiltration, federal agents found an informant in late 2004, who showed them how one of the fires was set, and wore a hidden microphone while talking to old pals about past exploits.

I think the fact that the feds managed to infiltrate the ELF so effectively will chill those who committed similar acts, and will block their ardor for further vandalistic adventure . . . at least for awhile.

If I were a former ELF perp, I'd be living with a heap o' anxiety right now . . .

The assumption that ELF cells are impenetrable is no longer tenable. Anyone can turn out to be a spy.

When they were arrested earlier this month, the six had taken up new lives.

Yes . . . and that is a part of the tragedy. They'd evidently hoped to put their allegedly violent past behind them, each wanting to move on and live a fairly normal life, working, going to school, protesting legally (one presumes) when and where whim dictated, selling leftist books . . ..

And all that spoiled . . . so many futures in dire jeopardy . . .

Chelsea Gerlach, 28, nicknamed "Country Girl," was a DJ in Portland, living with convicted Canadian animal rights activist Darren Thurston. Meyerhoff, 28, who went to high school with Gerlach, was attending Piedmont Community College in Charlottesville, Va.

A third, Kevin Tubbs, 36, nicknamed "Dog," was living in Springfield, Ore. Daniel McGowan, 31, was working for a women's advocacy law firm in Brooklyn, N.Y.

Mr. Thurston is awaiting deportation to Canada, having been caught with a false green card. As I've written before, he just doesn't seem to be a very nice person . . .

But he — along with Mr. Tubbs and Ms Gerlach, continue to enjoy the support of the ELP (Earth Liberation Prisoner's Support Network).

The buzz around the AR corner of the net regarding Mr. McGowan is very interesting.

His support committee is trying to distance him from both ELF and ALF, and seeks to present him as an individual who's only interested in social justice and who is unaffiliated with any terrorist group.

Accordingly, and at the request of his family and friends, the ELP is no longer actively soliciting support for him, though they (ELP) are (passively) leaving an address on their page by which supporters can send him supportive things.

Clearly, Mr. McGowan, aka Jamie Moran, doesn't want to be tainted by ELP support.

Can't blame him, really . . . and I think his refusal of ELP's support, however desperate the gesture is, however fruitless it will prove to be, makes more sense than Tubbs and Gerlach accepting it.

Rodgers, 40, lived in the back of his Catalyst Infoshop. He committed suicide in jail in Flagstaff, Ariz., shortly before he was to be transported to Seattle to face charges he and Tubbs torched a federal research lab. Prosecutors characterized him as the mastermind of the Vail ski resort arson, though he was not charged.

Well, if he really was the mastermind of the Vail arson and feared standing trial for that act, you can well imagine the pressure he'd be under. Still — he did miss an opportunity to proselytize . . .

Sarah Kendall Harvey, 28, was an administrative assistant and graduate student at Northern Arizona University and had applied to medical school. She had taken part in logging protests in Oregon, once cooking pancakes for the loggers.

The ELP helpfully informs us that Ms Harvey doesn't yet have a support committee, but will post information about one if and when it forms . . . having the ELP standing in the wings offering support must delight her, her family and friends. Talk about a waste . . . graduate school, someone she'd evidently fallen in love with, the possibility of medical school . . .

Needless to say: "ELP is also sad to report that we have removed Stanislas "Jack" Meyerhoff details from our prisoner list. As has been widely reported in the media, one of the defence lawyers fighting this case has publicly named Meyerhoff as a police informant."

This just gets interestinger and interestinger . . .

Brian

The NYT Explores the Feds Surveilance of PeTA

Here's an important article, not only for what it says, but for where it appears: the New York Times, no less. So . . . to defer to the passive . . . exposure is happening, and exposure of this sort can't be doing PeTA any good:

WHEN it comes to aggrieved critters, the animal rights group known as PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) has never shied from standing up or suiting down.

This month alone, PETA campaigned against those who would eat pigs, called on the Denny's restaurant chain to "reduce the pain and suffering" of chickens and protested an Indiana pet store that glued helmets to the shells of hermit crabs to celebrate the football season.

A few years back, women working for PETA sat topless inside cages placed on city streets to protest the treatment of circus animals. And just last week, similarly unclothed women pranced about downtown Santa Fe, N.M., and in Harvard Square near Boston.

But are these the kind of activities that deserve F.B.I. scrutiny?

Well, something about PETA intrigued investigators, according to documents recently made public through Freedom of Information Act lawsuits by the American Civil Liberties Union. They showed that since 2001 the F.B.I. has been monitoring a large number of social and protest groups, including PETA.

"It's harassment and very disturbing," said Jeffrey Kerr, the group's general counsel. "If people thought that Hoover and Nixonian tactics were a thing of the past, that's sadly not the case."

But hold on, said David Martosko, director of research for the Center for Consumer Freedom, a group supported by food and restaurant companies that is one of a number of persistent PETA critics.

This is something of a coup for the CCF . . . to have the NYT cite them is important indeed. It's not just a question of establishing the CCF's credentials as a serious player opposed to Animal Rights, though that is important. But Mr. Martosko touches on enough of PeTA's shady history to prompt questions about PeTA — which, of course, I'm sure Mr. Martosko would be more than willing to elaborate on were anyone unable to figure out how to access the CCF's website . . .

Mr. Martosko pointed to contributions by PETA to people linked to groups that the F.B.I. describes as domestic terrorist organizations. He said they include $1,500 to a press officer for the Earth Liberation Front, which has been linked to fires at construction sites, and $2,000 to a spokesman for the Animal Liberation Front, which authorities say has been behind attacks against animal research labs, as well as $70,000 to an A.L.F. member who was later convicted of arson.

PeTA contributed $70,000 to help Mr. Rodney Coronado: $45,200 went to the Rodney Coronado Support Committee to pay for Mr. Coronado's defense against the arson charges, and PeTA reportedly "loaned" Mr. Coronado's father an additional $25,000, which has yet to be repaid (as far as anyone knows).

When you consider how closely PeTA was associated with Mr. Coronado at the time of the Michigan State University arson, the one (of several) for which he served time, it's reasonable to wonder if that money was "hush money", a point I've argued before. (It seems to me that the last thing PeTA would want would be for Mr. Coronado's testimony to tie them more closely to the arson or other illegal acts than they already were . . . but you make your own call.)

Then there was that national gathering of activists in 2001, when Bruce Friedrich, a PETA official, said "blowing stuff up and smashing windows" was an effective way to liberate laboratory animals.

Such goings on are, of course, the merest tip of the proverbial iceberg: Mr. Friedrich isn't the only PeTA luminary who admires violence and law-breaking in behalf of the AR cause — nor is this present statement merely a one-time slip of the tongue for Mr. Friedrich.

One need only look at a few of the things PeTA officials (including Ms Newkirk herself) are quoted as having said, and you get chilled. I've found the NAIA's list to be quite good.

Mr. Kerr acknowledged that the donations were made, but argued that they were meant to support free speech and help people defend themselves for exercising what he called "constitutionally protected activities," not for any illegal acts.

As for Mr. Friedrich's comments, Mr. Kerr said, "He was reprimanded by PETA, and he apologized."

Note the dissembling: a private reprimand from PeTA, consisting of . . .? The remarks never retracted. PeTA never disassociating themselves from the remarks . . .

What astonishing contempt Mr. Kerr and PeTA have for the citizenry!

But Mr. Martosko insisted the surveillance of PETA is justified.

"These are certainly dangerous people," he said. "I'm not saying PETA people are bomb throwers, but they certainly encourage people who do."

PeTA's Mr. Kerr is clearly on the defensive, and trying to define away PeTA's Problem, a problem that isn't going to go away, a problem which PeTA opponents are becoming increasingly familiar with, a problem that PeTA is being bludgeoned with at every opportunity.

Mr. Kerr can argue until he's blue in the face that when PeTA contributes funds to arsonists, anarchists and terrorist organizations, they are doing nothing wrong.

And in a legal sense, he's on solid ground, though you have to wonder at how embarrassingly flaccid a response it is for him to nit-pick his way through legal technicalities in order to construct PeTA's defense.

But you have to wonder what will happen to PeTA's contributions as the public at large, and animal lovers in particular, become more and more aware of PeTA's sordid history and their current activities. ("You're doing what with my contribution? I gave you money to help animals, not arsonists!")

PeTA's connections to terrorists and terrorist supporters is too great to ignore (here's my own latest post on PeTA's terrorist connections op cit).

They, PeTA, have created endless dots, and it would be irresponsible for the feds not to surveil them: indeed, if PeTA's dots don't cry out for surveilance, what dots would?

Brian

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas! I hope everyone has their best one ever.

For my part, I'm gonna sit in front of our fire, chat with family and appreciate them no end, read a little, scratch Maggie (the former barn cat) and Norton (a Manx cat, named after a fabled motorcycle) chow down on a lovely standing rib of beef (I was actually holding out for a turduken, which you can buy already assembled, but I was overruled — which is probably a good thing).

In any event, thanks for reading AC, and again, Merry Xmas.

Brian

A Turned Worm

Is anyone surprised that this transpired, given the dirty tricks AR people have pulled on their targets?

AN animal rights group has been bombarded with abusive mail from hunt supporters in a scam that has cost it thousands of pounds.

The League Against Cruel Sports was targeted after it launched an appeal for donations using a Freepost address.

Hunters sent out a round-robin email urging supporters to abuse the system by sending heavy parcels for which the League would have to pay.

Van loads of bricks, telephone directories, heavy books, abusive letters and animal excrement were sent to the League's offices. So far the cost is more than £10,000.

Among the hunt supporters who apparently forwarded the email is Amelisa Robinson, the wife of the Queen's equerry Simon Robinson.

And the scam was backed by TV host Jeremy Clarkson who said in his newspaper column he was going to send a "paving stone or a horse".

Mike Hobday, of the League, said: "Not content with abusing our wildlife for their own entertainment, they are now trying to deprive us of funds donated by our supporters. Many of our supporters who use Freepost are pensioners."

Actress and model Lisa B, an animal welfare supporter, was outraged when she received the email.

She said: "It is so wrong, so below the belt. It is a fraudulent way of taking money from people who believe in the cause."

By my standards, she is right.

But by the standards adopted by Animal Rights activists — which includes harassment and terror tactics — what the hunt supporters have done is mild, and if the shoe were on the other foot, I'll wager the League Against Cruel Sports would have thought the scam to be jolly good fun — or at least wouldn't have condemned it.

Now, an Animal Rights group is getting a taste of its own medicine and they are calling foul.

The scam was sparked after the League appealed for funding for its Hunt Crimewatch campaign which gathers evidence of illegal hunts after they were banned in February.

Hunt supporters seized on the chance to send an avalanche of mail to its HQ in Southwark, South London.

Tory MP Michael Gove and Richard Dodd, of the pro-hunt Countryside Alliance, were sent the email. There is no suggestion they took part in the scam.

Top Gear's Clarkson urged hunt supporters to take part in the scam, saying it would leave the League less to spend on surveillance gear.

I disapprove of the scam.

But the logic underlying it — that it would siphon funds away from surveillance gear to pay for postage — is the same logic that underlies AR people making threats to huntsman, guinea pig farmers, construction companies building animal care facilities or researchers.

In each of these cases, the harassers force their target to divert limited resources away from their intended use to something else — either paying for security to guard against AR harassment, or paying for postage fees to cover the cost of mailing bricks.

My moral framework allows me to condemn illegal actions regardless of whether they are undertaken by AR groups or groups I might be in sympathy with.

The moral framework of most AR people does not.

The only time an AR person has sufficient moral authority to condemn the hunt scammers is if they, the AR people who condemn, are equally vociferous in condemning (not merely "not approving") the disruptive scams and violence of their AR brethren.

My advice to the League is either to condemn the tactics of their brethren — the ones who operate in behalf of SHAC, for example — or stop complaining.

Another newspaper's gossip column urged "those who like to hunt - or just don't like the animal rights lobby" - to send an empty envelope to the address so that the League "incurs a Royal Mail charge".

But yesterday Mr Hobday insisted: "It is clear so far that this trick has backfired. The reaction we have had from the public is one of disgust and dismay that the bloodsports lobby could stoop so low.

I doubt that.

"We have passed this material to the authorities and believe there is enough evidence to land many pro-hunters in hot water."

So . . . when the worm turns and pro-hunter people use AR-like tactics against AR targets, the targets now appeal to the government for relief . . . would that be the same government whose laws some AR people — like SHAC agents — regularly and egregiously flout, without condemnation from the League?

What am I missing?

Lisa B notified the League, set up in 1924 to stop violence against animals, as soon as she got the email.

She said: "There has been no grace in the behaviour of these people trying to bring the organisation down.

"I believe people are entitled to their own opinion, but I don't see how this behaviour can be remotely justified. It is also an injustice to the whole postal service."

I condemn the scam, and I condemn equally Lisa B's double standard.

Unless she's been forthright in condemning what her AR brethren have done, for example, against the Hall family (link, link, link) and HLS (and link), she and her supporters should stop their whining.

Police confirmed they were investigating if the culprits could be charged with theft, fraud or sending malicious post. Just forwarding the email could result in criminal proceedings. Mrs Robinson was not available for comment.

When the Mirror called her, she said: "This is not a good time, I'm bathing the children. Speak to the press office."

Buckingham Palace, where her husband works, said: "The email was not sent on a Palace computer. Amelisa is not employed by Buckingham Palace."

While I condemn the scam, and I would investigate it and prosecute any person who violated the law if that were my job, there is still an emotional part of me that, to my immense discredit, delights in the turned worm.

Alas, I am only human.

Brian