Animal Rights Militia
| Founded | 1982 |
|---|---|
| Founder | Unknown |
| Focus | Animal rights |
| Location |
|
| Origins | England |
| Method | Direct action |
| Website | AR Militia |
The Animal Rights Militia (ARM) is a banner used by animal rights activists who engage in direct action utilizing a diversity of tactics that ignores the Animal Liberation Front's policy of taking all necessary precautions to avoid harm to human life.
The Animal Rights Militia first emerged in the United Kingdom their focus was on illegal direct action. Utilizing tactics such as the destruction of property, intimidation, and including the use of violence, the ARM have sent letter bombs, placed incendiary devices under cars and in buildings, contaminated food products, sent death threats, and desecrated a grave.
The name was not heard of for eight years after a series of actions in England from 1982 to 1986. Philosopher Peter Singer wrote in 1986 that the ARM may not really exist. The ARM claimed an arson a year later in California, with a series of arsons, hoax bombs and threats reappearing in the 1990s, notably in the Isle of Wight, Cambridge, North Yorkshire and Oxford. The damage caused by fires averaged £2 million in each location. ARM activists continue to report actions in European countries, North America and Australia. Similar to the ALF, activists send anonymous claims of responsibility to Bite Back Magazine, a website supportive of the animal liberation movement and its prisoners.
The ARM formed the same leaderless-resistance model as the Animal Liberation Front. A cell may consist of just one person. The existence of activists calling themselves the Animal Rights Militia or Justice Department reflects a struggle within the Animal Liberation Front and the animal rights movement in general, between those who believe violence is justified, and those who insist the movement should reject it in favor of non-violent resistance.
Philosopher Steven Best has coined the term "extensional self-defense" to describe actions carried out in defense of animals by human beings acting as proxy agents. He argues that, in carrying out acts of extensional self-defense, activists have the moral right to engage in acts of sabotage or even violence. Extensional self-defense is justified, he writes, because animals are "so vulnerable and oppressed they cannot fight back to attack or kill their oppressors." He argues that the principle of extensional self-defense mirrors the penal code statues known as the "necessity defense," which can be invoked when a defendant believes that the illegal act was necessary to avoid imminent and great harm. In testimony to the Senate in 2005, Jerry Vlasak stated that he regarded violence against Huntingdon Life Sciences as an example of extensional self-defense.
...
Wikipedia