Direct actions carried out by animal rights extremists have continued to occur on a frequent basis, with activists regularly holding protests and home demonstrations, as well as employing methods such as intimidation and identity theft in an effort to achieve their goals. While instances of physical violence, such as the use of incendiary devices and arson have been the method of choice in various attacks carried out throughout the country, such actions have taken place on a more sporadic basis.
However, recent events involving animal rights extremists indicate some members of the movement are becoming increasingly militant.
Firebombing at Home of UCLA Doctor
On June 24, 2007, an incendiary device was placed under a car belonging to the chief of pediatric ophthalmology of UCLA’s eye institute at the man’s Los Angeles home. According to local authorities, the device was set to explode, however failed to ignite properly.
In a communiqué posted on the Internet, a group called the Animal Liberation Brigade claimed responsibility for the incident, declaring that the bomb contained one gallon of fuel. Moreover, the group warned the doctor to “to watch [his] back,” stating the, “next time you are in the operating room or walking to your office you just might be facing injections into your eyes like the primates.” The doctor was targeted by the group due to the use of animals for scientific research in one of his laboratories. Thereby, the communiqué urges other animal rights activists to, “realize that just demonstrating won’t stop this kind of evil.”
An investigation is underway and authorities are currently examining whether the incident is related to the June 30, 2006, attempted bombing at the home of another UCLA researcher. The Animal Liberation Front (ALF) claimed responsibility for the attack in a communiqué also posted on the Internet, stating that it had placed a Molotov cocktail at the home of the researcher. However, the device was accidentally planted at the home of a next-door neighbor. Authorities confirmed that the bomb malfunctioned and did not explode.
Specifically, the use of incendiary devices at the private homes of targeted individuals, as well as the threatening and violent language used by activists in claims of responsibility are troubling, due to the potential for humans to be injured in such acts.
Earlier Instances of Violent Language and Physical Violence
The Animal Liberation Brigade has been involved in similar incidents, to include the September 2003 bombing at the office of Shaklee Incorporated in California. The company was targeted as its parent company was connected to Huntingdon Life Sciences (HLS). In the communiqué released by the group, activists indicated that they had used a 10-pound ammonium nitrate bomb containing nails, and warned, “Now you all will have to reap what you have sown… You never know when your house, your car even, might go boom… Or maybe it will be a shot in the dark.”
In 2003, Jerry Vlasak, a press officer for the North American Animal Liberation Press Office, made comments at an animal rights conference in the US explicitly stating his support for violence against human targets in the struggle for animal rights. He declared “I don’t think you’d have to kill, assassinate too many vivisectors before you would see a marked decrease in the amount of vivisection.” (source)
Vlasak later defended these comments when he testified for the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee in October 2005. During his testimony, he also stated that the murder of medical researchers in the name of animal rights was morally justified.
No Deaths in US, So Far
While there are no documented cases of injury to humans in the United States, there have been several incidents in the United Kingdom where animal rights extremists have carried out attacks on individuals. These include:
– In 1999, ALF activists kidnapped a British reporter after he had successfully infiltrated the group a year earlier. Before the members released the reporter, they branded his back with the letters “ALF.”
– In 2001, several members of the Stop Huntington Animal Cruelty (SHAC) campaign attacked the managing director of HLS in Britain. The activists also used tear gas on another individual who attempted to stop the attack.
Future Implications
While it is unlikely that a majority of activists in the animal rights movement will resort to more militant activity targeting humans, lone individuals undertaking such actions remain a cause for concern. Due to the nature of the animal rights movement, which is composed of anonymous cells or lone actors who carry out direct actions in the name of the cause, the potential exists for an extremist to successfully carry out a violent attack against a targeted individual.
Moreover, activists are able to access a large amount of information regarding the movement on the Internet, including instructions on how to construct bombs and broad support for undertaking activity. As there are a number of activists that are willing to risk potential repercussions for the sake of the movement, the risk remains that an extremist may carry out such a strike.
