I came out in favor of the ALF because after careful study of their history, arguments, and results, I concluded that their actions are effective, necessary, and just- Governments, animal exploitation industries, and most mass media characterize the ALF as violent terrorists, but I see them as freedom fighters and counter-terrorists- The ALF is a new justice movement defending innocent beings under attack and fighting the real terrorists who torture and kill animals without justification
Breaking and entering locked buildings, smashing fur store windows, torching delivery trucks — it all sounds nothing short of vandalism or even terrorism- But I believe ALF actions are defensible because (1) what happens to animals is wrong, and (2) legal channels to stop it are blocked by speciesism and corrupt governments that support the property rights of industries over the moral rights of animals
I believe that no door, no law, no profit margin, no government, and no cop should ever stand in the way between an animal and its freedom- I wish that legal methods of animal liberation were adequate to free animals from their oppressors, but unfortunately they are not- Governments are grotesquely corrupt and speciesist and serve their corporate masters- Animals are too important a resource and commodity for corporations to voluntarily free them, and so animal liberation requires militant tactics such as raids to rescue animals and property destruction to weaken, cripple, or eliminate oppressors
It is unfortunate that the problem of animal exploitation is so extreme that some people have been moved to take extreme measures to address it- We should direct our moral criticism to the causes of the ALF, rather than the ALF response to them
if you do not support the ALF, you need a lesson in history and a logical consistency check-Despite the lies of the corporate-state-media complex, and the ignorance of many animal advocates, the ALF has nothing to do with Al Qaeda, the SS, or the Republican Guard that tyrannized the Iraqi people before Bush-Cheney got their turn- The ALF is the animal rights version of the Underground Railroad, the anti-Nazi resistance movement, and contemporary peace and justice struggles- Like the Underground Railroad, the ALF breaks the law in order to rescue exploited animal slaves and shuttle them to freedom in loving homes- Like the anti-Nazi resistance, the ALF will smash the oppressors' property and any implements of violence or death in order to slow down or stop their killing machines
Unlike some brave warriors fighting Nazis, however, the ALF has never used physical violence against any animal exploiter- And like all contemporary movements fighting for peace, justice, and human rights, the ALF intends to help secure all these values for the most defenseless victims of all, the animals who are utterly dependent upon us for their liberation
The ALF belongs to the long and noble traditions of direct action and civil disobedience that include the Quakers, Henry David Thoreau, Harriet Tubman, the Suffragettes, Mohandas Gandhi, and Dr Martin Luther King Jr - From the Boston Tea Party to the Battle of Seattle, there are important historical anticipations of or parallels to the ALF whenever oppressed people find they have to break the law and destroy property in order to realize ideals of freedom, rights, justice, and democracy
Whereas some argue that property destruction is violence, the ALF correctly identifies itself as a non-violent movement — one that attacks only the property of animal exploiters, and never the exploiters themselves in order to stop their obscene violence, create conditions of peace, and rescue animals from their bloody hands- Only in our perverse capitalist world, one that values property over life, does it make sense to demonize the ALF and elevate these freedom fighters – these counter-terrorists — to Public Enemy 1 on the domestic terrorism list- The real terrorists occupy the corporat

We hear it said several times that while we have the duty not to be cruel to non-human animals, they nonetheless cannot have rights. The holders of this opinion claim this is so because non-human animals do not recognise the concept of rights. This argument is flawed for the following reasons:

First of all, if we have a duty not to be cruel to other animals, it so follows that these animals have the right not to suffer cruel treatment from us. So to say that non-human animals have no rights but at the same time we have a duty not to make them suffer is a contradiction in terms. Either all non-human animals have rights, or else we have no duties towards them. Holders of the opinion that non-human animals cannot have rights, to be consistent, must have the courage to say that we have no moral obligation not to be cruel to them, and that we may treat them anyway we please. People who believe that we should not be cruel to non-human animals must necessarily believe that they have rights. Otherwise, their claim that non-human animals do not have rights does not follow from reason, but through self-interested prejudice, in this case, speciesism. But some might say that we do not have a direct duty towards non-human animals but an indirect one - that to be cruel to other animals would give a bad example which could lead to cruelty to people. While this statement is half correct (cruelty to non-human animals does lead to cruelty to humans) it does not take into consideration the fact that the cruelty may be performed in secret. I doubt that the same person would sanction cruelty on a non-human animal in an abandoned and secret place. In this case, the cruelty would be wrong for the individual animal's own sake, since there is no way that this cruelty would give a bad example to anyone.

Secondly, the fact that non-human animals do not recognise rights as such, is no justification for the claim that they do not have rights. Children don't recognise rights. But the fact that one does not know one's rights does not necessarily mean that one's rights do not exist. To cite some examples, slaves always had the right to freedom, prior to legislation to liberate them. Women always had the right to education prior to legislation to allow them the opportunity. Laws are made to confirm and enforce recognised rights, and not vice-versa. The fact that no legislation is presently in place to protect non-human animals does not mean that they do not have rights. It simply means that legislators have not yet recognised that all sentient individuals do have rights. To allow rights to humans and not to other animals who are also sentient, would be to engage in speciesist discrimination, unless we are prepared to deny rights to humans similar to non-humans in the relevant respects, like very young children and the mentally disabled, who similarly do not grasp the full meaning of rights and similarly cannot fight for their own rights. In fact, like we do with the menatally disabled and children, we do not only accord rights to them despite their inability to grasp the concept of rights or defend their own welfare, but also give them greater protection and provide them with guardians in legal matters. The same should apply to non-human animals. To do otherwise would be speciesist.

A animal rights extremist is an interesting creature. He/she respects the rights of all animals and before doing anything that might harm them, directly or indirectly, he/she actually...wait for it...thinks! More amazing than this, the actions which follow the thinking actually reflect his/her rational conclusions on whether the action is absolutely necessary and whether it justifies harming non-human animals.

Thus, the animal rights extremist does not stop caring about animal suffering or animal rights when the animals in question taste good, are not cute, would provide a beautiful garment to wear, would provide loads of pharmaceuticals or cosmetics, would provide entertainment, or would boost one's self-esteem by hitting on a less powerful being. The animal rights extremist also refuses sponsorships or adverts from animal abusers for any of his publications or activities because he/she actually values justice and morality more than money!

For the above reasons, the animal rights extremist goes vegetarian or vegan because this reduces or eliminates non-human animal suffering, apart from being a healthier diet to follow; he/she stops wearing animal skin or "fur", which along with "factory-farming", result in unnecessary animal suffering; opposes vivisection which involves the imprisonment, torture and killing of non-human animals; opposes zoos and non-human animal circuses knowing that both are animal exploitation and involve kidnapping, imprisonment and suffering, and knowing well that there are alternative means of entertainment and education; and has a higher self-esteem, because unlike some people, he/she does not need to pick on weaker beings to prove him/herself strong.

Strange creature, this animal rights extremist! A thinking being who actually uses one's mind and puts justice before profit or comfort! The end is near...someone should stop these rational, unselfish creatures!

Some things you should especially be extra wary of:

1. The animal rights extremist might actually not be a bomb wielding terrorist. He/she might actually be one of your friends, colleagues or family.

2. The animal rights extremist has a terrible habit of actually presenting valid arguments which make you feel guilty. If you are not very careful, he/she might influence you into becoming a caring rational individual too. One way to avoid this terrible outcome is to simply say that he/she is an over-sentimental extremist. This usually works. If it doesn't, seek psychiatric help.

3. The animal rights extremist also has a terrible habit of caring about humans as well as non-human animals. His/her example in daily life might expose you more to being attracted to his/her way of life and attitude, and thus risking becoming an animal rights extremist yourself. One way to avoid this is by convincing yourself that the animal rights extremist cares more about non-human animals than humans, even though you may know that this is not the case, and that the extremist cares about both. But if you repeat to yourself this lie long enough, chances are that you will begin to believe it.

4. Another nasty thing about the animal rights extremist is that he/she is living proof that there is an alternative to animal exploitation and that ethical treatment of animals is possible. One way to ease your conscience is by telling yourself "some animals also harm other animals, so why shouldn't we?", even though you might know that we are supposed to be rational creatures and in normal circumstances do not need to harm non-humans. When thinking about non-human animals, it may also be useful to think of carnivore animals who need meat to survive, and not vegetarian animals who, like us, do not need meat. It will also be helpful to forget that we are animals ourselves, and to separate living beings into two categories: Humans with rights on one end, and all the other millions of sentient creatures with no rights simply because we have decided so.