philosophy professor banned under new hate laws

[ICB]

Not good

I wonder if they'd try the same thing against Peter Singer?

 

[_pH_]

I thought about starting a thread on this topic a few days ago, but was put off by the reaction I expected it would get - along the lines of 'ban him! fucking nutter!'. So I've been relieved to see some of the replies on this thread.

I've read some of what Steve Best says. I don't think he advocates random acts of violence at all, but only as a very last resort, as part of a 'Just War'. Here's a couple of links:

The Epiphanies Of Steve Best

Thinking Pluralistically

As comparisons have been drawn with Mandela, here's an interesting article from The Guardian

Footnote: Some of the opinions expressed on this thread about the ALF are a little misinformed. The ALF does not really exist as an organisation; anyone can claim any animal-rights related direct action as an ALF action. There is a general principle held by many animal rights activists however that any action that includes violence against humans cannot be claimed as an ALF action (although they sometimes are by others who don't agree with this principle). Hence different people have different views about what the ALF stands for, and supporting 'The ALF' does not automatically mean that an individual condones violence against humans or values animal life above that of humans.

 

[TremulousTetra]

this one. this thread is all about arguments for letting the guy in. you don't seem to have read it.

Yup! read them, tried them, havn't convinced people. I think Best himself argues well, but vslack as co-founder and worker with best gives credence to those who wan't to suggest best is lying about not supporting violence against people. Also, he does not himself rule it out in a "just war".

Personally, I still think he should be allowed in, but I can understand why a lot might think "fuck him. there are bigger injustices to worry about!"

Thanks for your comments and link _ph_

Respect Rmp3

 

[kea]

havn't convinced people.

well some people on this thread are clearly convinced

Personally, I still think he should be allowed in, but I can understand why a lot might think "fuck him. there are bigger injustices to worry about!"

that doesn't sound at all like what you were saying re: vlasak and best when you first came on this thread.

 

[treelover]

Vegbollah, quite like that, shame about the post

tough one member of the vegbollah does'nt get a holiday here

 

[TremulousTetra]

I thought about starting a thread on this topic a few days ago, but was put off by the reaction I expected it would get - along the lines of 'ban him! fucking nutter!'. So I've been relieved to see some of the replies on this thread.

I've read some of what Steve Best says. I don't think he advocates random acts of violence at all, but only as a very last resort, as part of a 'Just War'. Here's a couple of links:

The Epiphanies Of Steve Best

Thinking Pluralistically

As comparisons have been drawn with Mandela, here's an interesting article from The Guardian

Footnote: Some of the opinions expressed on this thread about the ALF are a little misinformed. The ALF does not really exist as an organisation; anyone can claim any animal-rights related direct action as an ALF action. There is a general principle held by many animal rights activists however that any action that includes violence against humans cannot be claimed as an ALF action (although they sometimes are by others who don't agree with this principle). Hence different people have different views about what the ALF stands for, and supporting 'The ALF' does not automatically mean that an individual condones violence against humans or values animal life above that of humans.

Kea seemed to get upset when I was talking about Vlask, which as Kea pointed out isn't strictly the topic of the thread, but I do have a question for you about Vlask now the thread seems to have fizzled out.

If you listen to the link that I gave it earlier Vlask is clearly a advocating attacks like the anti-abortionist carried out to intimidate those working in the abortion clinics. This completely contradicts what you are saying ALF is about, non-violent direct action.

Now I understand that ALF is a network of autonomous individuals for which there is no institutional or organisational methods of disciplining individual supporters. But I have three questions. 1. Won't supporters of one ALF be concerned that someone who is claimed to be a media spokesperson (Animal Liberation Press Office set up by Best & Vlask) for the whole non-violent direct action network, openly promotes violent direct action against civilians to in intimidate people like those in the anti-abortionist campaign did? 2. If what he is promoting is against the spirit of the informal agreement of ALF, shouldn't he in fairness to step down? 3. If there is no means of removing this man as a spokesperson/public face of ALF shouldn't non-violent direct action supporters refute his claim to be a spokesperson for a non-violent direct action network when he clearly advocates something else?

I asked these questions only to assist myself in refuting charges made about Alf in the web page I've linked to above.

Respect Rmp3

 

[_pH_]

Good questions.

That's the problem with 'the ALF'; anyone can say anything and there is in effect, no way of 'silencing' them (if that were a necessary thing to do). If Vlasak is making statements of the sort you describe, then essentially he makes these as an individual - if he claims to be a 'press spokesperson' for the WHOLE animal rights movement, this should be viewed very much on the basis that he is self-appointed to the role. What he stands for may, in his view, represent the tactics of the ALF, (and therefore he is unlikely to stand down as a spokeman) but there are other 'ALF' activists who would disagree. Unfortunately, his views tend to be the ones that get media attention.

As for point 3: I believe in NVDA as a tactic in animal rights. Vlasak doesn't represent my views entirely (although I'm sure there is plenty we would agree on) and I think the sort of statements he makes (comparisons with abortion clinics for example) are counter-productive and worthy of condemnation.