SupportKevin.com

Arkangel, Issue 30 Interview with Kevin

A. Hi Kevin. Thanks on agreeing to be interviewed for this issue of Arkangel magazine, particularly given that you're under a huge amount of pressure with the ongoing court case over federal Animal Enterprise Terrorism charges. Despite this, your passion for the cause remains undiluted, and you are still inspiring others with your forceful approach. Can you tell us what has been for you the most defining moment in your involvement in the movement, and could you give us a brief potted history of how you came to be where you are today?

KJ. It all started with a beagle. Growing up my best friend was this little beagle buddy named Barney. He and I did everything together. He would sleep in my bed and I would sleep in his. He would chew my toys, and sadly I would chew his. He would eat my food - and that's where I drew the line. Barney was my first window into animal consciousness and taught me at such a young age that while we were different animals with different abilities - we were equals when it came to experiencing both pain and joy, loss and love. He was amazing.

Jump 10 years ahead and while in high school I was investigating the alternatives to dissection in my anatomy and physiology course and found a PeTA video about smoking experiments. The footage is famous and touched a nerve with many. It showed stressed little beagles, no different than my Barney, with their faces strapped to tubes covering their mouthes - pumping their lungs full of carcinogenic smoke and toxins. It was awful and sparked a new level of awareness.

I was a lucky and privileged child. I grew up in a politically involved family. My father was a City Councilman for 8 years, and the Mayor for five. I remember helping him with his campaigns. At our dinner table we would have conversations ranging from Michael Dukakis and the death penalty to the political corruption of Oliver North and the Iran-Contra hearings. I was taught the altruism of volunteer work. In high school I joined Amnesty International, and my school's social justice club that took me to Tijuana, Mexico to study the effects of the NAFTA-induced border crisis and to Guatemala to learn of CIA sponsored political corruption and dissident disappearances. It only took a small spark to challenge me to extend my notions of ethical consideration and compassion to other non-human animals.

I remember first explaining to people that I was giving up fast food like McDonalds because they would clear-cut rainforest lands for their grazing cattle. The boycott of fast food burgers then extended to all animal flesh as I began to see the bash colored muscle of the cats my classmates were dissecting in my turkey sandwich. Beyond ecological concerns, my social justice interest for animals and stand became more firm with my own education. I devoured all the classics from Singer and Regan to Robbins and Ingrid Newkirk's brilliant 'Free the Animals.' My college and post-college years have been a blur of activities, arrests, and animal issues.

There is one defining moment for me, that has forever shaped my opinion and role within this political movement. It was in May of 1999. I was the poster-boy for domestic terrorism in my home state of Minnesota at this time because I, as a political science major with an accredited and professor monitored internship at the Minnesota incorporated ALF Press Office, spoke out in support of a major lab liberation at my school. Being demonized by a biased press was stressful, as well were the string of death threats, but what shocked me and shook my faith in American democracy and the constitutionally protected civil liberties I thought I could enjoy was that 9 agents from the FBI broke into my apartment and ransacked it. Raids of this nature, unlike the UK, are very unusual (or at least they used to be) in the US. The FBI was targeting me because I was the only voice to speak out and they had no other suspects. They robbed me of my clothing, schoolwork, and animal rights literature. Nothing they took was incriminating and I believe they knew this. Their intent in being their and the follow up grand jury subpoena I was issued (by the FBI and the Minneapolis sheriff) in my Geology class was not about solving a crime, but punishing free speech. This was evidenced in how one agent in my home made my then girl-friend sit in a corner, refusing to let her get dressed, while he leisurely read her personal diaries from the last decade of her life and would periodically look up at her with a perverted and sinister grin. Within a month of the press conference I held speaking out for the ALF the state passed a law that made it illegal to aide and assist an illegal organization by speaking for them - and there was an attempt to make the law retroactive to put people like me in jail. It failed (that time).

I was always different than my anarchist friends. I foolishly believed in this notion of America and effecting social change. I believed in the "process", even. Suddenly the tragedy of political sacrifice became very real for me. The bullets that felled Martin Luther King and Medgar Evers tell this story, and being an activist was no longer this sexy, romantic grand adventure. Advocating against the status quo is serious work with serious consequences and I knew it could not be a weekend hobby and I had lost faith in the proscribed forms of social progress. Had it not been for that raid and grand jury I would have never moved to the UK, like I did in 1999 during the ascendancy of SHAC. I was originally planning to pursue my activism through a group called Legislative Efforts for Animal Protection (LEAP). Since my year stay in England my activism and life has never been the same.

A. Could you tell us what s biggest impact has been on the pharmaceutical industry? How would you compare its impact against that of other proactive US organizations like, say, PETA? Do you believe that s campaigning strategy would have benefited from appealing more to the public imagination, or was this never part of its considered remit? How would you describe the public mood? Do you feel that all SHAC s activities have been successful, and how do you believe it will be regarded in retrospect within the wider context of the movement?

KJ. I'll never understand why the pharmaceutical industry has decided to rally around Huntingdon. They should have given the animal rights movement its metaphorical 'bone.' Huntingdon was sloppy and was caught out to many times abusing animals - we as a movement deserved, at the very least, the appeasement of its closure. In taking a stand though, trying to protect what had become an international symbol of all that is wrong with vivisection, the pharmaceutical industry picked a fight that now will not end with just HLS. In a tragic way I am happy about this, as a prolonged fight against HLS equates to a bigger attack on the whole of the pharmaceutical and other pillars of the vivisection industry. Huntingdon's closure is no long just about saving however many animals are poisoned there per day, month or year - but now encompasses a broader ideological battle against a systemic form of oppression.

Over the years, whenever I gave speeches, I would tell my crowd that a line has been drawn in the sand between animal rights and animal research and that the battle ground is HLS. In many ways it is a winner take all scenario, because when Huntindgon closes after all the corporate, law enforcement, and extra-governmental support that has kept it afloat it will show that there is truly no company or institution we, as a global animal rights movement, cannot take on. This is a frightening prospect for anyone that exploits animals and one that jeopardizes national economies, cultural traditions, religious practices, and societal norms. What we are seeking with our fight for animal liberation is no less than revolutionary and sees HLS as just this first skirmish.

Much is being said right now in the US about "tipping points." Both from the standpoint of the best selling sociological book and the "tipping point" with the war in Iraq. That there is a point of no return. I think SHAC has become the tipping point within the animal rights movement. Born out of the successes of Hillgrove and Consort, the grassroots of this movement began to truly understand its power, and it manifested itself in this now epic and very global campaign. To me, SHAC served as a rejection of the politics of the polite practiced by to many of the national groups. It's a campaign whose appeal came from how genuine it is, that there are no paid staff, there is free literature, and it offers enthusiastic support for those brave "criminals" that risk life and liberty to free animals from labs. SHAC is a breath of fresh air in what can sometimes be the stifling rigidity of national group campaigns that usually seek only welfarist reform. SHAC pioneered a new plan of attack and from it offered a point of no return.

The aggressive and confrontational efforts like this campaign embodies are not entirely at odds with the rest of the movement though. US organizations like PETA, Sea Shepherd, and Last Chance for Animals rose to national prominence after ramming whaling vessles, literally kicking down laboratory doors with TV camera crews in pursuit, and acting as the ALF conduit for information, leaked records, and liberated animals. I think of SHAC as the 21st century extension of what built this modern animal rights movement, and still serves as its life blood.

A. We appear to have become a political and media scapegoat, yet the image of us as a sinister terrorist threat is at odds with our essentially non-violent history of activism and of our fundamental aims. How widely do you think this manufactured image of us is accepted by the (US) public, and what impact is it likely to have on our effectiveness if any?

KJ. It's my opinion, and likely one shared by many across the world, that the American public is pretty damn stupid. Under-read and over-fed they will believe what they are told to believe. One needn't look any further than the Iraq war and the current political administration "governing" the country for proof of this sad fact. Western media has been reduced to sensationalism over substance, the sound bite rather than the specifics, and 'spin' instead of the whole story.

As newspaper circulation drops and the ratings of cable news programs soar, a crisis for objectivity and honest reporting heightens. Mainstream media is complicit in the Machiavellian manipulation of the masses right now - keeping the people pacified with their "bread and circuses." In this case the "bread" Prince Georgie provides is cheap lethargy-inducing foods high in saturated fats, sugars, and salts (and well marketed every other second over radio and television airwaves) and the "circuses" of little girls stuck in wells, coal miners trapped in caverns, and perverted pop stars serve as the emotional pornography keeping folks distracted and sedentary.

It is also not a well-kept secret that the marketing budgets of most animal/earth exploitive industries outnumbers the combined income of every major national animal rights and even welfare organizations. This makes it very hard to compete in market place of ideas. The very survival of vivisection and factory farms depends upon conning people into thinking they need every new pill that hits the market and that chicken menstruation (eggs) are indeed appetizing. Its nothing new that when confronted with a superior argument against the exploitation of animals that these corporations ignore the message and attack the messenger.

In the 1980s during Regan's conservatism and the cold war we were dismissed as communist tree-huggers. In 1990's with a renewed US crackdown on the mafia we were labeled, sued, and even charged with racketeering. Now, in the shadow of 9-11 the terrorist gets pinned on us so sinisterly and inappropriately. This media predicament is not helped either but national groups like the Humane Society of the US giving press statements applauding the FBI for cracking down on the ALF. It is not only historically and ethically naive to think we will find allies in the armies of the oppressor - but only serves to publicly fracture our otherwise already media injured movement.

As for long-term impact I am hopeful though. The coin of popularity with the US public can flip so easily, because as I said, they are so stupid and believe what they are told to believe. Learning to navigate and employ the same Madison Avenue PR tricks as our opposition can help level this playing field. PETA has, in my estimation, proven this brilliantly time and time again - courting controversy and being publicly ridiculed one minute and slamming fur via attacks on celebrities and documenting undercover lab footage another.

A. There are some prominent thinkers in the movement who argue that direct actions other than those that fall into (non-violent resistance) bracket are counterproductive in the longer term, and strategic is the only kind of direct action that should be deemed acceptable within an animal rights context. They argue that coercion can never have as strong an impact as persuasion, or bring lasting change, and that this will take time and patience. Can approach proffered by opponents of direct action ever achieve the same? Would the movement ever have had the same profile without its active wing? Does direct action have its own limitations and problems within a social context? Can it be counter-productive? Is it always relevant or necessary in achieving a goal? What are your opinions on this?

KJ. This truly is the debate that just won't die, and one that ironically proves the point of those arguing for more aggressive tactics. If we cannot even convince or persuade each other, as allies and friends, over tactical differences - what makes us think we can gently nudge the global public towards a completely different way of eating, dressing, learning, and essentially seeing and living in the world?

This debate bothers me, and not because it pits direct action against pacifism, as these are just surface level topics instead of a deeper debate between inclusionary and exclusionary politics. I think direct action is great and has worked wonders for our modern animal rights movement, but it is not the only method of agitation I am advocate for. The analogy I use to illustrate this point is that of a bicycle wheel. At our core, we as a movement have an ideological hub that is shared by most animal rights advocates. Stemming from this hub are many different spokes representing many different forms of activism; from legislation and education to direct action, vegan food pioneering, and even PETA people running naked through the streets. All play their role and all connect to the outer wheel giving this cause movement and progress. Those who argue against the use of direct action deny such pluralism and speak in absolutes. To me, s very much like George Bush and his "you're either with us or you're against us" intellectually elementary rhetoric. This sort of absolutism I fear can and will lead to tactical hegemony and the death of innovation.

To me, risks are what it is all about. There is no mathematical equation anyone can prove in how to succeed with a social justice cause. One part protest and two parts education does not always equate to victory. The modern animal rights movement was founded on such risks and by courting controversial and illegal actions. Ronnie Lee ignited a grassroots and revolutionary movement in the 1970s with ALF vis-a-vis the Band of Mercy and Hunt Saboteurs.In the U.S. PeTA created a national platform for animal rights off its notoriety from the ALF's mouthpiece and liaison. Where Ronnie Lee and Ingrid Newkirk were successful (or so I would at least argue) who knows how many others out there tried something different but failed. The point is that we owe it to the importance of our principles to pursue innovation and a refusal to be put in an methodological box.

Context and our opposition's preparedness should define how we manage our campaigns. It would be silly to suggest a name and shame campaign against every meat eater in a given city, but that is not the case with vivisection campaigns as SHAC and SPEAK have proven. "Animal rights" is far too big an umbrella term to establish a set of protest standards for the hundreds of issues that fall under it. It also should behoove us all to have fluidity in our approach. If the sting of a residential picket has been removed through constant use than it may be time to retire that approach and evolve our thinking.

Ultimately though, the best argument I can put forward for more radical thinking and action is that we do not have the luxury of patience on our side. Human population growth coupled with an ever increasing consumption pattern sees billions more animals killed each year, environment destroyed, air and water polluted, temperatures rising, and thousands of species of life going extinct every single year. It's now or never time if we are going to slow down the pace of destruction and death on this planet, let alone stop it.

A. Continuing a little with the theme of strategic non-violence introduced in the last question, one might say that one has only to look at post-Ghandi India and Pakistan as an example where, denuded of s visionary tactical and spiritual guidance, his influence and the ideals he fostered in the nation died with him. Does this not suggest that the way to achieving lasting change is likely to be a misnomer in any context unless we can change the very compulsion and dynamics that drive the human species, which are motivated by the urge to have "power over," whether it is a perceived lesser species, lesser creed, gender or colour, or more widely over the natural world, which we abuse relentlessly and try to control?

KJ. I don't know, but it sure is an important question. Authors like Derrick Jensen have weighed in on this in a proactive way, but I don't know how qualified I am to speculate. Human psychology is complicated and this movement could use a few more trained professionals in this area, not only because it could influence how we campaign, but because there are more than a few amongst us who could use the counsel. I have found from my experience and education that human animals are a cancerous, cantankerous, and quarrelsome species and from recorded history this is appears to be genetically encoded condition. I am only 28 years old though, so hey, what do I know?

There is something important to be said though for recognizing the interconnectedness of oppressions. The same tired and shallow arguments that enslaved, harassed, and bound humans are those same being used today to justify animal exploitation. Like we complain about environmentalists that eat meat, our social justice concerns shouldn't just stop with recognition of animal rights.

Paul Watson, in an interview with Bite Back Magazine, said this and it keeps me motivated even at my most apocalyptic and challenged moments: "I personally feel that humanity is doomed. We are the last of the hominid primates and this was a group that was never very successful to begin with. Overly territorial, obsessed with trivialities, violent, petty, and completely lacking in empathy for other species. The world will be a much nicer place without us. But if we can buy time for other species and for eco-systems and if some of us can alleviate the suffering inflected on other species, then this (activism) is a worthwhile pursuit."

A. In examining all other liberation struggles, it is vital to understand their role in defining their movement's goals within a historical, philosophical and political context. Few political climates engender or facilitate radical change; indeed, politics are usually the last vanguard for change to be implemented, since this is the area in which those at the helm stand to lose the most in terms of profit and power, and thus are the last to catch up with popular opinion. Based on this, what do you believe the increasingly heavy-handed approach of governments towards animal rights activists suggests, and do you think things are going to get a whole lot tougher? How will this affect the pro-active nature that groups like SHAC or SPEAK have adopted?

KJ. Conservative pundits in the US right now certainly seem to be enjoying their hey-day, and along with this their pet-interests such animal agriculture, pharmaceuticals, rural interests (read hunting, fishing, trapping) and other earth and animal exploitive industries (oil, timber, etc) are a political priority. The increased repression speaks to two contributing factors, the modest and potential successes of the animal rights movement (with certain issues) and increased political power of monolithic multinational corporations in a capitalist system.

With vivisection, and in particular the prosecution of myself and the SHAC7 right now, it's not hard to find the origins of the government's intense interest and vicious attack. The pharmaceutical industry in the US is roughly a 300 billion dollar a year industry. It spends more on lobbying politicians than any other industry on Capitol Hill including tobacco and big oil, roughly 200 million on federal campaigns alone since 2000. It employs over 1200 lobbyists just in Washington DC, well outnumbering the actual amount of elected politicians. The head lobbyist for Pharmaceutical association PHARMA is a former congressman who used to chair the House Ways and Means Committee and is the one man responsible for prohibiting the government from negotiating lower drug prices (many poor elderly have to drive to Canada to fill prescriptions as their medicine is about 35% cheaper there.) Every bill and every protection sought by this industry is won. Huntingdon is small potatoes and when SHAC started protesting the banks and brokers of the lab, the FBI did little to nothing. When activists started turning up outside the million dollar homes of pharmaceutical executives though they became - not joking - the leading domestic terror threat to the U.S. according to the FBI!

Goliath has its weaknesses though, as evidenced by SHAC and SPEAK, and in my opinion the pharmaceutical industry does not have an ideological position on animal testing, but rather exploits it for the sake of ease in testing "safe" whatever product it wants to get to market. If vivisection becomes to unsavory a method (politically, financially, or even personally) then I have no doubts it would be abandoned, and it is our job to figure out this industry's breaking point before the FBI finds our own!

If History is any barometer of how bad things will get for U.S. activists at the hands of the FBI and a corrupt political system, we had better brace ourselves. As of yet, animal rights activist have only faced really a fraction of the repression as those civil rights campaigners. Beatings, murder, sabotage, and the like are par for the course by FBI standards. The best movements like SHAC and SPEAK can do is learn from the past so that it can possibly prevent a little of what is surely in our future.

A. As part of the ongoing analysis of the movement within the U.K., it's essential to look at how the media image of the animal rights activist as popular hero has gradually mutated over the last couple of decades to become that of public enemy. Do you see a parallel in the U.S.? What has dictated this swing of opinion? Was 9/11 the final deciding factor in cementing this new swell of opinion, or was that just cosmetic? Regardless of this media volte-face, are we seeing a resurgence in public support? Some U.K. activists will remember that following a number of successful raids on laboratories in the 80s, tabloid newspapers and TV networks simply t give the movement enough coverage. The liberators were portrayed as heroes, the act of liberation one of salvation for the animals. These are questions that are vital in analyzing where we are today, and in assessing the growth and future direction of the movement. As an avowed supporter of direct action - a position that has brought you into conflict with the state on numerous occasions - what personal slant do you have on this issue?

KJ. I don't think this is tricky to understand. As heroic, brave, and inspiring as the liberations of the 1980s were - there were new actions, not a part of a pattern, and the loss of a few research animals here and there (with no cohesive campaigns behind them) did not present much of a threat to the industry as a whole. Over the 1990s and through today, as direct action became less symbolic and more about financial harming these industries that its public image would be met with more resistance. The honeymoon was not going to last forever.

The worry is there. Our opposition takes us more seriously than ever before now that several of their businesses have been closed, their financing shut off, and even their homes targeted. When you have The Prime Minister decrying your impact on the national economy and the US Senate debating the legality of your abolitionist cause, it is only logical that critical press should follow.

Outside of the political and media slant, I am curious about the actual level of support of direct action. Amongst our movement I think it's higher than most would realize. The frustration so many of us feel, the burning indignation at the injustice, and the consistently stymied efforts at lawful organizing cannot help but breed support and even participation in more radical actions. I think SHAC USA was so enthusiastically picked up on here because it had that smart-ass, brazen, defiant praise of the ALF. It was a breath of fresh air in a climate set by national groups to concerned with their political image and most importantly - their pocketbooks. As for the public at large, if marketed right and with the right press strategy I see no reason why they won't again warm up to a David vs Goliath / Robin Hood story the ALF presents.

A. As a nation whose non-human exploitation figures outstrip any throughout the world, the US is the largest global consumer of non-human animals in the world. It is also currently one of the biggest global players on most levels, yet they appear to fear individualism and non-conformism - a trait, which has them periodically organizing witch hunts. Do you consider your present situation an aspect of this disease?

KJ. Yeah, the U.S. certainly has its issues. Undemocratic, paranoid, greedy, violent, and gluttonous it is often very embarrassing to admit citizenship. Saying that, however, I cannot help but believe that any population of people (not ruled with an iron fist and denied access to excess) wouldn't indulge itself on its many spoils and privileges. There are certain degrees of variation amongst civilizations but ultimately I think its a problem with humanity and not simply with the hubris of the US.

As for my present situation, staring down the barrel at 23 years in jail for political speech activity? I think the variables that brought these charges, in this culture, at the time is more complicated than what can fit in a sound bite answer. Read me my memoirs in a couple of years and perhaps I'll have a better answer.

A. The rights philosophy embraces many strands of thought, and challenges more shortcomings in society as a whole than any other movement has or is likely to in the future. It calls for a fundamental change in the way we think and live, the way we view all life, and for a reevaluation of religions, of global consumption, and environmental destruction to name a few. It could be rationally argued that the struggle to establish rights for every sentient individual is key in building a secure global future. In theory, the rest should follow. Realistically speaking - in light of these essential truths - what progress do you see being made towards the abolition of the global exploitation of our non-human brethren, and do you believe we can make lasting change?

KJ. This can be complicated for me. Like most - the signs of our times get me down, but to maintain some motivation we must recognize the significant progress this movement has made. Just in my short ten years of activism and of having adopted a vegan lifestyle I have seen the food options available skyrocket. Only a decade ago there was just a handful of soymilk distributors. The vegan ice cream was by and large disgusting. Veggie eating at a mainstream restaurant typically meant a salad. Now the fastest growing grocery chain in the US is Whole Food Market (an extremely veg-friendly store). PETA got veggie burgers introduced into 9000 Burger King restaurants across the country. Non-dairy ice creams I needn't even glorify as it is readily known they are fantastic. It has never been easier to be vegan than it is now.

Recognizing this progress though doesn't mean we ignore the losses. Every year the vegan population grows, it still shrinks in percentage of the population with the number of new meat-eaters born into the world. Every year the earth takes a hard hit because we as a species cannot figure out how to live sustainably. Realistically speaking - pragmatically speaking - addressing population growth and consumption patterns more than anything else maybe one leads to the greatest reduction in animal exploitation.

The lack of concern shown to our cause holistically frustrates me. We as a movement have a tendency to fractionalize our issues and work on them as if they are separate from the rest of the problem. The current US effort towards factory farm animal welfare exemplifies it. Patiently working through the broken political system from the next few decades is supposed to (hopefully) ban battery cages and strengthen the welfare of the confined and soon-to-be slaughtered animals. Millions of dollars, thousands of volunteers, and countless hours have been and will be poured into this welfare effort without notice to the ever increasing destruction to the world around us. Welfare efforts such as these I see as distracting, delusional, and ultimately a band-aid solution to bullet wound problems. At my most cynical moments I cannot help but question if our large national animal welfare organizations are truly interested in abolishing animal exploitation, as it would put them all out of work, jobs that are paying some of them six figure salaries.

Regardless of what hopes I have for our movement, I have the most faith in Mother Nature. I am not saying this because I am spiritual about our planet, but because nature has ways of thinning the herds and punishing the habits of living that do not work. Heart disease, strokes, cancer, and host of other illnesses are derived from our awful diets. Cities that are built below sea level not surprising get flooded during hurricanes. Greenhouse gases raise our ocean currents threatening coastal cities. Mad cow, foot and mouth, and now avian flu promise retribution for our manipulation of delicate balance of the ecology. Lasting change will come because we will end up reaping what we sow. It may not be this year or in the next couple of hundred, but the earth existed long before the human animal and it will exist long after we're gone.