I, for one, am not sure the animal rights movement would be where it is today without direct action and the information collected through the action. I also think that if you have the means to take action which will save thousands of lives, it is action which must be taken. The question is does forms of direct action, such as open rescues and the damage of property indeed save thousands of lives?
I totally agree - all big movements need to being with a certain amount of 'radicalism' and some 'undercover investigation.' I only wonder if there comes a time where it is necessary to scale back some of the more radical activities in favour of a more subdued, almost passive, activism.
I do think, however, that there is still a place in animal rights for more radicalised activism - so, as you can clearly see I'm a little bit conflicted about the whole issue.
In terms of 'what ultimately saves the most lives' - again, I suspect that it is a mix of 'radical' activists and 'passive' activists. People need the 'shocking' undercover footage but just as much I think (and come across) young people who want to help but don't know how need to have people - teachers, parents, colleagues et. al. - who can not only assist them to adopt vegan diets but also serve as an image of normal people who live in the every day world and successfully live cruelty-free and non-violent lifestyles. (Not that I'm trying to imply that people who participate in rescues are not 'normal' people - just that they may not necessarily be in the position to influence young people through direct example - and I think young people need those direct examples that they have constant contact with.)
Yes, rescues need to happen, my main problem with the ALF is with property damage and purposeful infliction of economic damage. I don't put animals lives above human lives and vice versa - I think that all lives are important and none is more important than another. Real people with real families rely on the wages they get from factory farms - and yes, the actual workers may have a level of 'guilt' but their children and dependents don't.
