Today, animal rights activists who say their freedom of speech has been violated by AETA filed a lawsuit asking the court to strike down the statute as unconstitutional. 

Sarahjane Blum, Lauren Gazzola, J Johnson, Lana Lehr and Ryan Shapiro, all of whom have long histories of participation in peaceful protests and animal rights advocacy, say that fear of prosecution as “terrorists” has led them to limit or even cease their lawful advocacy.

Sarahjane Blum and one lucky duck.

“I spent years uncovering conditions on foie gras farms and educating the public about the way ducks and geese are abused,” says lead plaintiff Sarahjane Blum, who co-founded the site www.GourmetCruelty.com with Ryan Shapiro. The two openly rescued animals and created a documentary exposing the horrors of foie gras farms. “Today, due to the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act’s unconstitutional assault on free speech, I am afraid to even publicly screen the documentary we produced.”

“As I have done in the past, I would like to document conditions on factory farms and educate the public about this animal cruelty, so that individuals can make informed decisions about whether they want to continue paying people to abuse animals on their behalf,” says Ryan, now a doctoral candidate at MIT. “The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act prevents me from educating the public about what goes on behind the closed doors of factory farms. Affecting the profits of an animal enterprise, even by exposing animal abuse on factory farms, or by encouraging people to become vegan, is now prosecutable as a terrorist offense under the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act.”

The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act was pushed through Congress by well-funded industry groups that profit from animal exploitation, including the Animal Enterprise Protection Coalition, the American Legislative Exchange Council and the deceptively-named Center for Consumer Freedom, with bipartisan support from legislators like Senator Dianne Feinstein and Representative James Sensenbrenner. The new law replaced its predecessor, the Animal Enterprise Protection Act (AEPA), which had become law in 1992. Proponents of the AETA argued that the AEPA did had not provide a sufficient deterrent, and that “animal rights extremists” were using new tactics such as making threats and targeting anyone affiliated with animal enterprises and called for an expansion of the federal law to address such acts. Yet in reality, the language of the AETA covers many First Amendment activities, such as picketing, boycotts and undercover investigations, if they “interfere” with an animal enterprise by causing a loss of profits. So in effect, the AETA silences the peaceful and lawful protest activities of animal and environmental advocates.

Specifically, the AETA creates the terrorist offense of traveling in interstate or foreign commerce, or using the mail or any other facility of interstate commerce, “for the purpose of damaging or interfering with the operations of an animal enterprise,” when in connection with such purpose, an individual (A) intentionally damages or causes the loss of any real or personal property used by an animal enterprise, or by a person or entity with a connection to an animal enterprise; (B) intentionally places a person in reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury through a course of conduct involving threats, vandalism, property damage, criminal trespass, harassment or intimidation; or (C) conspires to do so. (Investigative journalist Will Potter has an excellent analysis of the law on his site.)

The first use of the AETA to prosecute activists came in 2009, when four people in San Jose, Calif., were accused of chanting, making leaflets and writing with chalk on the sidewalk in front of a biomedical researcher’s house, as well as using the Internet to research the company whose actions they planned to protest. Under the AETA, they were charged with acts of animal enterprise terrorism. Last year, the court dismissed the indictment.

“Some of my clients want to engage in simple public protests — perhaps in front of a fur store — to change public opinion about fur,” says staff attorney Rachel Meeropol of the Center for Constitutional Rights, which is representing the five activists in today’s lawsuit. “But they feel restricted from engaging in that clearly lawful activity because under the plain language of the law, if that protest is successful in convincing consumers not to shop at that fur store, they could be charged as terrorists.”

Co-plaintiff Lana Lehr, who founded the advocacy group RabbitWise, says the AETA has clearly put a chill on lawful, peaceful protests about the maltreatment of animals. “It has done this by making it legal to charge a lawful protestor with a felony, a fine and possible jail time if an animal enterprise decides that the activities of the protester caused a loss in their profits.” The law, she argues, “is too broad:  An ‘animal enterprise’ can include any company that sells an animal product, a 7-Eleven that sells beef jerky, for example. Also, AETA does not spell out exactly what behaviors by the activist are unlawful so they can’t adjust their actions accordingly.”

“Though now a scholar behind a desk,” adds Ryan, “I just as easily could have found myself a supposed terrorist behind bars. Corporate power should not dictate the limits of free speech. It’s time to strike down the undemocratic and un-American Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act.”

Change.org is one organization in an emerging field that is using the Internet to help people turn clicks into social change. To get an idea just how valuable online petitions have become, I asked two Change.org editors, Sarah Parsons and Stephanie Feldstein, to offer their insights. Sarah writes about food-related subjects on the site, and Stephanie is focused on animal issues. I began by asking Sarah how petitions on the site are created and who can create them. “Anybody, anywhere can create a petition,” she said. “We’ve had everyone from individuals to national non-profits. We try to promote petitions that have broad appeal to a fairly sizable audience. We do feature local campaigns as well, but they should be something that people in other parts of the country can relate to. We also want to make sure it’s something that is timely — that we feel can make an impact in the immediate future, rather than something that might take several years to accomplish.”

In addition to the recent success story about the Food Network, Change.org features a number of victories for animals, such as Urban Outfitters apologizing for selling real fur and a town in the UK halting a factory farm. But are all such victories directly linked to petitions, or are other factors involved? “It depends,” said Sarah. “Sometimes the online petition is the driving factor that creates the change; other times it’s just one piece of the puzzle. There could be an organization or individuals who are doing some on-the-ground organizing, who are holding protests or rallies or who are working with other groups to apply pressure. Sometimes the online petition is the main pressure point and other times it’s just one tool that is being used as part of a broader effort.”

I asked Stephanie how animal issues rank with Change.org’s members. “While we don’t have a ranking system among our causes,” she said, “animal issues are consistently among the most popular, both in terms of people coming to Change.org to sign campaigns and to start campaigns.” Okay, I responded, tell us a little about those campaigns. Which petitions for animals strike you as particularly meaningful? Stephanie said that one of the biggest victories they’ve had was working with the Ian Somerhalder Foundation (ISF) to push for reform to British Columbia’s animal cruelty laws. (Ian Somerhalder is an actor best known for his roles on Lost and The Vampire Diaries.) “When the story broke earlier this year that 100 sled dogs had been executed after a slow tourist season, animal activists around the world were furious,” explained Stephanie. “Ian wanted to make sure this kind of cruelty didn’t happen again, so ISF started a petition on Change.org, which laid out an ambitious list of improvements to British Columbia’s laws. More than 60,000 Change.org members joined the campaign. When the Sled Dog Task Force — which had been appointed in the wake of the public outcry about the 100 slaughtered sled dogs — submitted its final report to the government, it cited ISF’s Change.org petition, and nearly every recommendation from the petition was adopted by the provincial government.” She is also proud that their petition in support of the California bill on the sale and possession of shark fins attracted more than 27,000 signatures. The governor signed the bill into law last week.

One of the most encouraging aspects of online petitions is that they don’t take a lot of signatures to become an agent of change. “We had one campaign targeting Citibank Singapore, which was offering an incentive for new members to get a discount at a restaurant that served shark fin soup,” said Sarah. “The petition had about 75 signatures in 24 hours, and that was enough to get them to pull that promotion. So it’s not necessarily the number of signatures; sometimes just bringing it to a company’s attention is enough to get them to move on something.” But, I wondered, when a company like Citibank makes a change, how do you know it’s because of the petition? “You have to look at what else is going on in the space. If there are other organizations working on the same issue then you can’t say it was only because of this petition. But in the Citibank case in particular, there was really only this online petition that was calling them out to stop running this promotion. And as soon as the petition started, they ended up pulling the offer. We’ve also had companies respond to our petitions, and sometimes we work with them. It’s not always an antagonistic relationship. Sometimes a company is very willing to work with you as long as you bring it to their attention.”

Sarah acknowledged that a lot of activists consider social media activism to be a waste of time. “Certainly there’s this criticism that just signing an online petition is slacktivism, and that criticism will probably always exist,” she said. “But I think what our platform shows is that online petitions can be very powerful, and as we move into an increasingly technological age, communications via the Internet is really the wave of the future. It’s not slacktivism; it’s just modern.”

Sarah ended our conversation with this advice: “Don’t ever feel there’s nothing you can do. If you see a problem in your community or the country at large, there is a way for one person to make an impact. There’s no issue that’s too big or too small. It doesn’t cost any money. All you need is an Internet connection.”

lauren has been active in the animal rights movement for more than two decades, and in that time, she’s not only learned how to be a very effective advocate, but, as she explained to attendees Saturday night, she’s come to realize how many social injustices revolve around food. Although she is at heart an animal rights advocate, lauren began her activism campaigning against apartheid and the oppression of farm workers when she was still in high school and looked to role models like Steven Biko, Nelson Mandela, Cesar Chavez and Dolores Huerta to inspire her. Then she learned about factory farming.

“I was a vegetarian by age 16, but I knew absolutely nothing about how animals were raised for food,” she told the audience. “I just knew I didn’t want to take a life. I’m from Texas, so every time we’d drive around and see the cows, I’d think, ‘How sad would it be for that baby calf to come home one day and the mom’s not there.’” She eventually learned about animal agriculture, and with her mother working two jobs to raise three daughters by herself, lauren and her family frequently dined on fast food and TV dinners. “It was what was convenient,” she said, explaining that it planted the seed that would come to be Food Empowerment Project, an all-volunteer organization that looks beyond single issues to educate people not just about the abuse of farmed animals, but about a community’s lack of access to organic produce, factory farms destroying the environment and even injustices perpetuated by large corporations, such as Coca-Cola privatizing and commodifying water.

lauren always struggled with wanting to tackle both animal rights and human rights. “A lot of animal rights activists were upset with me because when I would do radio interviews, I would talk about the grape boycott, or I would talk about another issue — not just animals. They felt I was doing the animals an injustice.” In 2006, she addressed the World Social Forum in Caracas, Venezuela. “I spoke about all the different ways corporate animal farms exploit animals, workers and the environment.” But when attendees at the forum asked who was working on these issues internationally, there was no one lauren could refer them to. “I realized that every single thing that I cared passionately about revolved around food. Water privatization, animals killed for food, immigration, labor issues — everything. That’s where the concept for Food Empowerment Project came to me.” By talking about food and seeing it as a valuable outreach opportunity, lauren believes Food Empowerment Project can have a powerful impact.

After an enlightening discussion of animal cruelties — including the killing of sharks for their fins — lauren addressed a number issues that are probably new to many animal activists.

“Food Empowerment Project recognizes that eating cruelty-free is not just about being vegan,” she said. Because vegans encourage people to eat more fruits and vegetables, we have a greater responsibility to lend our support to the farm workers who help put that produce on our tables. These workers — many of whom are migrants struggling to eke out a living for their families — are without many of the rights other workers enjoy, they spend countless hours bending over in blistering heat and may even die from sun stroke. Even reaching a farm to work on can be dangerous for these workers, said lauren. “Workers coming up from Mexico have to cross the border, and it’s becoming more regular for the women to start taking birth control pills in advance because of all the rape that is happening.” 

Another issue lauren addressed on Saturday evening was related to the chocolate industry.  “We encourage people to only buy vegan chocolate that does not come from the slave trade,” she said. “Fair trade isn’t enough.”

“In our investigation of the chocolate industry, we’ve found that the majority of chocolate is coming from Ghana and the Ivory Coast.” Kids are kidnapped, some are sold, she said, for chocolate. “What I mean by sold is that the mom might have her sister’s husband watch her kids for an afternoon. When she comes back, the kids are gone because the kids have been sold into slavery. There are also other people who choose to work in the cacao farms in Ghana and the Ivory Coast because they are promised — kind of like migrant farm workers are — a good wage, a good living, that they’ll make some money. What happens is, when they get to these farms they’re locked in at night. … If they try to leave, they are beaten or killed.”

After researching the chocolate industry, Food Empowerment Project offers a list of chocolates on its web site. The list is broken down into companies the nonprofit can recommend, companies it cannot recommend but that are working on the slavery issue, companies it cannot recommend and are not working on the issue and companies that either won’t divulge where their chocolate comes from or simply refused to respond to queries from the nonprofit. “The worst part of that list?” said lauren. “The majority of the companies are vegan. We encourage you to write them and not only ask, ‘Where do you get your chocolate from?’ but say, ‘I’m not going to buy your products until you tell me.’”

lauren noted that Martin Luther King, Jr., became the most powerful (and thus was followed and tracked by the U.S. government) not when he was just talking about civil rights, but when he began bringing other social justice issues together. “When he started talking about the janitors struggling in Chicago, when he started talking against the war in Vietnam, that’s when they got scared of him, because he was widening his circle of people he was working with. He was expanding that circle of compassion to other beings. I feel that when we do that, we will be so much stronger.”

Nikki Benoit leafleting without incident at Glendale Community College in California.

Leafleting has long been a standard form of activism in the animal rights movement. Indeed, it’s considered so effective that at least one nonprofit — Vegan Outreach — has been built around the premise that reaching out to the public, especially college students, with free information on the plight of animals used for food and encouraging people to go vegan is an easy and generally non-confrontational model of speaking up for animals. We’re not terribly surprised to hear when an activist is arrested at a demonstration, but leafleters have always enjoyed a lower profile, offering pamphlets and other literature to passersby; in fact, the Vegan Outreach site touts, “None of us have ever been arrested.”

Looks like they’ll have to update that page. This week, activist Nikki Benoit of Vegan Outreach was arrested as she was handing out leaflets at Orange Coast College (OCC) in Costa Mesa, California. “Numerous attorneys have reiterated that we have a constitutional right to hand out free literature — drama-free — and anywhere, really, especially in California, which has very inclusive free speech rights,” says Benoit, adding that the campus security officer “manhandled me, even while I was handcuffed.”

Although this arrest is rare, it is not unheard of, and the law supports the rights of activists leafleting on public college campuses. In fact, in the case of Jones v. the Board of Regents of the University of Arizona (1970), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that non-students not only have the right to exercise free speech on campuses, but that colleges and universities are obliged to provide these individuals with police protection to ensure their rights are not violated. Not that campuses always obey the court. In 2008, for example, an employee with Jews for Jesus was arrested for handing out leaflets at San Francisco City College. The employee successfully sued the college in 2009, with the court ruling they had violated his freedom of speech.

A lawsuit is also what Benoit’s lawyer has in mind. “I will first get the criminal charge dismissed, and then we will sue the police for violation of her civil rights,” says attorney Bryan Pease. “Nikki was well within her constitutional rights, and the crime she was charged with requires interfering with the peaceful conduct of activities on the campus. Passing out leaflets does not meet that test and is quintessential free speech.”

The larger question for activists, though, is should they be worried about leafleting? Benoit was making a stand at OCC; she was tired of being told by faculty and campus police at some colleges that she had to sign in before leafleting, limit her leafleting to a designated “free-speech zone” or be restricted to a table, where students could approach her. But that doesn’t mean activists need to risk arrest. According to the Legal Questions about Leafleting page on the Vegan Outreach site, if you have a problem with campus security, stay calm and polite. You can either stop leafleting immediately and leave, or you can remind authorities that you have a constitutional right to distribute literature. Pease cautions that “the police may make up a charge like they did in Nikki’s case,” but authorities “should recognize there is no chargeable offense for handing out leaflets in a public forum.”

Benoit says she’s been standing up to campus bullies for some time now and that police are usually unable to cite her and other activists who refuse to give up their constitutional rights. “At Southwestern College in Chula Vista a couple weeks ago, the security guard was writing my citation and learned there was nothing to cite me with,” she says.

Whenever I consider the power of leafleting, I am reminded of Nathan Runkle, who not only went vegan but later founded Mercy For Animals (MFA) — an organization known for exposing the suffering of animals in factory farms — because he was inspired by a piece of animal rights literature someone had given him when he was 11 years old. For additional information on leafleting, check out this video from MFA.

MFA’s undercover video showing animal abuse at an Ohio dairy farm in 2010 made national news.

At the vanguard of this “assault” are animal advocacy groups like Mercy For Animals (MFA) and PETA, which have secured video evidence of horrific cruelty inside many of the nation’s pig farms, egg facilities, dairy farms, hatcheries, and slaughterhouses. Video taken by an MFA investigator using a hidden camera inside an Ohio dairy farm last year, for example, showed employees violently punching young calves in the face and slamming them to the ground, using pitchforks to stab cows, beating “downed” cows (who are too sick or injured to stand) — and bragging about it. MFA’s video made headlines across the country and resulted in the arrest of a dairy employee, who was convicted of animal cruelty. (That he was sentenced to a mere 8 months of jail time — and that his crimes were only considered misdemeanors — is a depressing commentary on the lack of laws to protect farmed animals.) Incidentally, MFA has done 10 undercover videos since 2007, and for every one of them, the facility investigated was chosen at random.

Agriculture committees in the Iowa House of Representatives and Senate, meanwhile, have just approved a bill that would prohibit recordings like those by Mercy For Animals and punish people who take agriculture jobs just so they can have access to animals and record their treatment. Proposed penalties include fines of up to $7,500 and up to five years in prison. The bill passed the House vote on March 17 and still needs to go on to a Senate vote and then to the Governor.

Not a single federal law protects farmed animals from cruelty during their short lives in factory farms, and Iowa specifically excludes these animals from anti-cruelty protection. “Without undercover investigations, there are no meaningful watchdogs protecting animals from egregious cruelty in these facilities,” says MFA’s executive director Nathan Runkle. “This bill is a blatant violation of free speech and freedom of the press. It keeps consumers in the dark, threatens public health, and hurts animals by shielding animal abusers from public scrutiny.”

Animal law expert Bruce Wagman says these laws will have a chilling effect on the ability of animal advocates to expose abuses. “At this point, it’s singling out one specific type of speech and opinion in an effort to silence the rising protest in America over the way animals are treated for food,” he says. “It will affect animals because if we’re unable to document these practices, then they will continue to suffer alone and in terror without any of the watchdogs who have provided a benefit to not just we Americans but the animals inside factory farms and slaughterhouses.” Wagman notes that exposing the cruel practices of industrial agriculture can lead to new legislation and litigation that protects the animals in the future.

As Mark Bittman observed in his blog this week, activists shouldn’t need to sneak cameras into slaughterhouses and factory farms: the cameras should already be there. That’s exactly what is happening in the UK, where the nonprofit Animal Aid installed hidden cameras in seven randomly selected slaughterhouses and videotaped workers in six of them kicking, slapping, and stomping on animals. One worker is seen cutting off the heads of sheep while they are still alive. The results of Animal Aid’s investigation caused an outcry in England, and supermarket chains are now demanding that CCTV cameras are placed inside the slaughterhouses that supply their meat.

Agribiz has complained that those who make undercover videos often wait weeks or months before releasing the tape, rather than immediately bringing abuses to the attention of farm owners or the USDA. In response, Jeff Kerr, general counsel for PETA, says that if undercover investigators shoot just a single day of footage, the company involved will claim it was an isolated incident. So activists have learned they must document that a practice is a pattern known by management and accepted by the company.

In other instances, authorities see the evidence long before it’s released to the public, but they want more time to investigate. Such was the case in 2007, when the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) collected evidence of abuse at the Hallmark/Westland Meat Packing Company in Chino, Calif. An investigator for HSUS videotaped slaughterhouse workers attempting to force downed cows into the human food chain. In the video, workers are seen kicking cows, ramming them with the blades of a forklift, jabbing them in the eyes, applying painful electrical shocks, and even torturing them by aiming full-force hoses into their noses and mouths in an effort to force sick or injured animals to walk to slaughter.

Upon viewing the tape four years ago, then Secretary of Agriculture Ed Schafer said, “It is unfortunate that the Humane Society of the United States did not present this information to us when these alleged violations occurred in the fall of 2007. Had we known at the time the alleged violations occurred, we would have initiated our investigation sooner, and taken appropriate actions at that time.”

In response, HSUS President Wayne Pacelle said the group did take action. “The HSUS turned over, to appropriate California law enforcement officials, extensive videotape evidence, once the investigation was concluded,” he said. “Local authorities asked for extra time before public release of the information.” The video prompted the recall of 143 million pounds of beef and led to the closing of Hallmark/Westland.

“I would think that the lobbyists behind this campaign to quell scrutiny of existing industry practices would, if their clients truly had nothing to hide, be pushing for public funding to install streaming web cameras so their clients could show off their state-of-the art operations rather than trying to prevent those who question current practice from exposing them,” says attorney Scott Heiser, director of the Animal Legal Defense Fund’s Criminal Justice Program. “At a time when many have lost faith in government’s regulatory abilities, I can’t help but wonder how much factory farming profits would drop if the average American consumer were confronted with candid and accurate images depicting the conditions endured by the animals used to produce their food.”  Heiser adds, only half jokingly, “I suppose the next move is to ban and burn every copy of Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle.”

Laws like those being proposed in Florida and Iowa could potentially impact all kinds of undercover work. It’s not difficult to imagine a wide variety of industries lobbying for similar legislation that will keep undercover activists and reporters from revealing what goes on behind their closed doors. But as Wagman points out, Big Ag has specifically targeted animal welfare and animal rights investigators because they are doing such a good job of revealing the neglect and violence that are so rampant — and often standard practice — in animal agriculture. “With this industry, all you have to do is get inside the facility to be exposed to some of the most horrific cruelty and treatment of animals imaginable,” he says. “For a variety of reasons, the government is unable to provide the oversight and investigatory power to discover this abuse. The only real way to expose it is to do what these courageous men and women are doing.”

Mark Kennedy / The Guardian

BBC reports that Kennedy also suggested there are other infiltrators in the protest movement. “I’m not the only one — not by a long shot,” he said. That’s certainly no surprise to the animal rights community, which has long been a target for police organizations around the world (see here and here for examples). What is different about the Kennedy/Stone story is that the spy in this case admits he committed an act of betrayal. His double life was revealed while working alongside environmental activists in October 2010. Confronted by those who had trusted him, Kennedy admitted he was a cop working undercover. He reportedly left the police force shortly thereafter.

Police have a long history of infiltrating social justice movements, but Kennedy was among the first to work for Great Britain’s newly formed National Public Order Intelligence Unit (NPOIU), which monitors so-called “domestic extremists.” Established in 1999 as an expansion of the Animal Rights National Index, which collected details on animal rights activists, NPOIU is based somewhere in central London.

Kennedy was apparently deeply involved in the fight against global warming. According to The Guardian, he “took part in almost every major environmental protest in the UK from 2003, and also managed to infiltrate groups of anti-racists, anarchists and animal rights protesters.” At some point, the spy had a change of heart, and he recently suggested that he could offer evidence in support of six activists who were facing trial for trying to shut down a coal-fired power station for a few days in 2009 — an action Kennedy helped coordinate as “Mark Stone.” The trial was set to begin this week, but the prosecution dropped the case after Kennedy offered his assistance to the defense.

The story could lead to serious questions being raised about using police to infiltrate peaceful protest groups.

Also born from the campaign was Santa Clara County Activists for Animals (SCCAA), a grassroots organization dedicated to reducing and eliminating the suffering of animals and to raising community awareness of animal issues. The group works to prevent cruelty to all animals, especially those used for food, clothing, and entertainment. I mention SCCAA not only as an example of how one campaign can grow roots and blossom into other outreach efforts, but how one of those efforts recently achieved victory for animals.

Among the campaigns SCCAA has worked tirelessly on is the effort to end sales of foie gras in their area. Foie gras (French for “fatty liver”) is created by force-feeding ducks until their livers become diseased and enlarged. The ducks’ livers may grow to 10 times their normal size, causing them tremendous suffering. The ducks are also deprived of access to swimming water, which they need to stay clean and healthy. More than a dozen countries have outlawed foie gras production, and in 2004, animal advocates sponsored a California bill that will ban the production and sale of the extravagance in 2012. But SCCAA members weren’t content to wait around: they were determined to eliminate this egregious cruelty from their county.

SCCAA members at Le Papillon restaurant

“Since we’re a county organization, not a city organization, we figured out where a majority of our members were based, and we located all the restaurants in our area that sold foie gras,” says Lauren Ornelas of SCCAA. The group concentrated their efforts on Le Papillon restaurant in San Jose and sent them a very polite letter stating the owner and management may not know about all the cruelty that is involved in foie gras; in an effort to educate them, SCCAA included a video depicting abuses at the two foie gras facilities in the US: Sonoma Foie Gras in California and Hudson Valley Foie Gras in New York. “We gave them several months to respond.”

When no response came, the group began the next phase of its campaign. “Every campaign requires an escalation in tactics,” says Lauren, “so we had to figure out ways that we could escalate the strategy as a small organization. We started out with signs without any images and a flier we made ourselves with cute pictures of ducks that we handed out at the restaurant. We had four people out at the restaurant every Saturday night; we picked Saturday nights because that’s their busiest night of the week.” The group wasn’t getting much response from management, so eventually SCCAA started using graphic images. “We were lucky to get banners from Animal Protection and Rescue League, which we used in front of the restaurant.”

Lauren, whose longtime activism includes founding the Food Empowerment Project and establishing the US office of UK-based Viva!, says she knew the campaign was working when the restaurant started to become aggressive. “They would try to block us from reaching their customers and stood in our way, so I knew we were starting to bother them.”

At one point last summer, the restaurant’s owner told Lauren he would never remove foie gras from the menu. “They were digging in their heels,” says Lauren, “but we were resolved to be out there until the law banning foie gras goes into effect in 2012.”

At last, realizing the activists were not going away and were within their rights to demonstrate, Le Papillon relented and informed SCCAA they would no longer be selling foie gras.

Reflecting on the campaign’s success, Lauren points to several important factors that made victory possible. “In order to be effective, activists need to begin by doing their research,” she says. “They need to make a decision to commit to it. Sometimes campaigns can take a long time, but you don’t start something and not finish it. Consistency is really key.”

And she reminds activists that even a small group can win campaigns. “You don’t need to have a huge organization or hundreds of protesters to make an impact,” she says. “Don’t be nervous. When you do these things, even if there’s just a few of you, know your position well, and do your research in terms of your rights as well as the issue so that you have the confidence that you’re speaking on behalf of justice and what’s right. Don’t ever waver on that. Don’t ever let them feel you doubt your rights or the issue you’re talking about.”

Shane Close

It was after reading The Omnivore’s Dilemma that Shane decided to accept his wife’s challenge: could he give up meat? The longtime meat-lover made daily blog posts on his culinary adventures, documenting both the highs and lows of navigating a brave new world. Here’s what he told me about his three meatless months.

Why document your journey on film?

Personally, I think there are a lot of average Joes out there like myself who are completely ignorant to vegetarian diets, what it means, why people do it and especially how easy or difficult the transition is. Since there are so many forms of vegetarian diets, I felt that it was important to explore a few and document what I found and how I felt along the way.

Had you tried being vegan before?

Before embarking on this journey, I had never even considered a vegetarian diet, let alone a vegan diet. To be honest, I think I was just as ignorant as a lot of people out there and thought it was a hippie, New Age, animal-rights-extremist way of eating, and I wanted no part of it. When you don’t grow up in major cities, typically coastal, or in progressive communities, it’s hard to grasp any informed perspectives or gain any understanding of these types of ideologies. You only know what the media portrays and what those around you have to say ― who, I might add, are equally ignorant on the subject.

What have you found the most difficult part of being vegan?

I think after getting over the initial hump of making the transition, figuring out what you can and cannot eat and how difficult navigating a grocery store can be, the most difficult part would have to be traveling, eating out or anytime you are out of the comfort zone of your own kitchen. If I have control over the stovetop, I can make a mean vegan dinner. Take me away from that level of control and I get confused, frustrated and grumpy, as the film will show.

What’s been the easiest?

The easiest part has to be when you realize just how often you are eating vegan, or near vegan, and with slight modification, meals you regularly enjoy can be completely vegan. Everything from Italian food, Japanese, Indian, Mexican and even some down-home country cooking.

What kind of support did you get from friends, family and the veg community?

That has been the most amazing part of this journey, by far. The people who have opened their hearts, homes, voices and support have been incredible. My family has been incredibly supportive, and my wife has been absolutely amazing. The participants in the film continue to surprise me with their willingness to get involved in this project. But by far, the vegan community has been the most supportive. They post regularly on my blog or Meatless: The Movie Facebook page with information, uplifting messages when I am in a rough stage, and even send me care packages full of everything from DVDs and books, to vegan foods and deserts. I can only say, vegans should be proud of their peeps in Boulder, Colorado. I have also received emails from people all across the world wanting to see the film. As far away as Europe, Australia and the UAE.

Pete Bethune

Sea Shepherd’s 2009/2010 campaign to disrupt Japanese whalers in the Southern Ocean will be remembered for two names: the ship Ady Gil and its skipper, Pete Bethune of New Zealand. Pete had been captain of the carbon-composite, high-tech trimaran when it was called Earthrace and purchased for the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society (SSCS) by millionaire Ady Gil. The futuristic-looking vessel sank after the Japanese harpoon ship Shonan Maru II rammed it on January 6. A month later, Pete managed to leap from a Jet Ski and board the Shonan Maru II while the whaler was making 14 knots and avoid anti-boarding spikes along the way. His objective was to attempt a citizen’s arrest of the captain of the Shonan Maru II for the destruction of the Ady Gil and attempted murder of the six Ady Gil crewmembers. Or maybe not. Pete was promptly taken into custody by the ship’s crew, held for 24 days and returned to Japan for trial. Charges included trespassing and assault on a whaler (apparently Japanese poachers don’t like being hit with rancid butter). Pete received a two-year sentence, which was then suspended, and he returned to New Zealand in July. He’s now working on a book. The other day I had the chance to chat with him.

What was your involvement in the anti-whaling movement prior to Ady Gil buying Earthrace for Sea Shepherd?

None really, other than being pissed off at the Japanese. In New Zealand, we all know [illegal whaling] happens in our backyard, but we feel powerless to do anything. SSCS gave me an opportunity to do something. Whaling remains deeply offensive to Kiwis and Aussies.

You’ve been writing a book. What it is about?

It is about how I got involved with SSCS, getting to Antarctica, getting rammed, prison in Japan and coming home. It also has a lot of my ideas on how we are stuffing things up these days and my views on energy, the planet and conservation. 

When will it be published?

It will be published in New Zealand and Australia in November this year, and then the USA, Canada and UK next year. 

There’s been a lot of debate about whether or not Captain Komura of the Shonan Maru II deliberately ran down the Ady Gil. Do you have any doubts it was intentional?

It was definitely intentional. I think he wanted to hit our front and put us out of the campaign, but maybe not hit us so far back. He was a really aggressive little bugger, all through the campaign, and a smack on our bow would have been a great result for him. Get the boat that is wreaking havoc out of the campaign. But he misjudged it, we never went into reverse, and the rest is history. I hope he wasn’t trying to kill us! Incredibly dangerous what he did, regardless. 

Paul Watson has said that banning you from Sea Shepherd was a legal ploy, and that you are welcome to rejoin the group. Do you think you’ll go back?

I hope so. I am in talks with them at the moment about joining the next campaign and possible tactics, but nothing definite.  

You must have known you would be arrested the moment you set foot on the Shonan Maru II. Was there a larger plan at work?

The plan was always to go to Japan and get media there. The Japanese public are very hard to connect with. By getting to Japan, we hoped to get traction with the Japanese media.

Protester outside courthouse / Getty

How well do you think that worked out?

We got massive media there, but much of it was negative.  But overall it was certainly a success.  You can’t please everyone.

In court, there was no discussion of why you boarded the Shonan Maru II, and Captain Komura was not called as a witness. Was there ever any question what the outcome of the trial would be?

It was always inevitable I would be found guilty. The conviction rate [in Japan] is over 98 percent! That they sank my boat had no bearing on the trial. It is irrelevant to the Japanese. 

You received a two-year suspended sentence. How much jail time did you have to serve?

I did 5 months locked up, which included 24 days on the Shonan Maru II. 

How did your fellow prisoners treat you?

They thought I was evil and dangerous and steered well clear of me. 

Did anything good come out of the experience for you personally?

Yes. I have a healthier outlook on life. Every day is a blessing now, and I am a little more focused than before. And my tolerance is really high now: I have not been pissed off about anything since coming out.

In July, Zoe was inducted into the U.S. Animal Rights Hall of Fame. That same month, I saw her give an inspiring presentation at Taking Action for Animals (TAFA) in Washington, DC, where she focused on what she calls the three I’s: inquiry, introspection and integrity. She emphasized the importance of inquiring about our choices (what we eat, wear, etc.), and then being introspective about how those choices impact others, the planet and ourselves. Finally, we should live with integrity: if our choices have a negative impact, remember that there are always other, less negative choices we can make.

Her many books include Most Good, Least Harm and Above All, Be Kind. Zoe kindly took some time from her busy schedule to field some questions about her activism and philosophy.

First of all, Zoe, congratulations on being inducted into the U.S. Animal Rights Hall of Fame this year. You’re up there with Paul Watson, Ingrid Newkirk, Henry Spira, Karen Davis, Bruce Friedrich and Cleveland Amory, to name just a few. Which activists have inspired you and your work?

All of the people who just mentioned have been an inspiration to me! Each of them has done so much for animals, and I’m in awe of their efforts and achievements. Perhaps the activist who has had the biggest impact on me, and who was also inducted into the AR Hall of Fame a couple of years ago, is Paul Shapiro. Every day, Paul faces the worst atrocities perpetrated on animals because he works on factory farming issues, yet he remains non-judgmental, funny and kind to everyone — even those “opponents” who hurl expletives at him. I’ve seen him turn those “opponents” into allies with his warmth, clarity, reasoning and non-defensive attitude. That combination of tenacity, commitment and unrelenting effort with humor, positivity and compassion toward everyone is what will create a humane world. He’s taught me so much.

Yes, at TAFA, you read an email exchange Paul had with an angry meat-eater. It was amazing how he completely disarmed the guy by being compassionate, rather than defensive. You began your presentation there by saying we are all educators. What can animal activists do to become better educators?

We need to remember that no one wants to learn or consider changing because they’re being browbeaten or judged or yelled at. Most people do want to learn and grow, and almost everyone wants to be happier, healthier, more at peace, more aligned with their values and part of a group of joyful people. Yet, many animal activists are so angry — rightfully so, mind you — and this rage is off-putting and counterproductive. We need to find ways to deal with our sorrow, despair and fury about what’s being done to animals, but we need to do so with our friends and colleagues, not as activists trying to create change in the world. Good educators enthusiastically invite people to learn new things and act on what they learn in positive ways; they don’t tell others what to do or shame them.

“‘The world becomes what you teach’ is one of the taglines for the Institute for Humane Education,” says Zoe Weil, pictured. “I look forward to the day that humane education becomes an integral part of all education.”

You say that as activists we need to deal with our anger, sorrow, etc., with friends and colleagues. How do you deal with it?

Joan Baez once said, “Action is the antidote to despair,” and Mahatma Gandhi once responded to a reporter asking, “What is your message?” by saying, “My life is my message.” These two quotes are my mantras. I have been lucky to find the perfect action to deal with my despair and anger: I became a humane educator. Humane education is so heartening and positive and effective that it constantly helps dissipate anger, feed hope and foster good communication. I’m one of those people who can be very reactive and angry. Being a humane educator requires that I practice being kind and respectful all the time. I’m not always successful, but I’m always making an effort. Remembering that my life is my message helps me to model what I hope to create. I do vent with my husband, friends and colleagues, and this helps tremendously to blow off steam, but venting is a relief valve, not a strategy for creating change. It’s critical to find healthy ways to make a difference that promote kindness and joy in ourselves and others.

Another point you stressed in your presentation at TAFA is that it’s important that kids not simply believe what you tell them. Can you explain?

I believe that education — specifically humane education, which draws the links between human rights, animal protection and environmental preservation, and provides the tools for people to become more conscientious choicemakers and engaged changemakers for a better world — is the most effective strategy for solving all our problems and creating a humane, peaceable and sustainable society. Humane education goes to the root of all our challenges and problems and invites learners to become what we call solutionaries. But education is not indoctrination. My biggest goal as a teacher is for my students to be creative and critical thinkers. Only with these skills will they be able to solve our problems effectively and wisely. We humans believe so much that is unsubstantiated and false, and if students just believe me, then I have not done my job, because even though I endeavor to always speak the truth and share what, through my research, I believe to be accurate, my students have no way of knowing whether the information I share is true unless they are prepared to follow up and learn for themselves. If I give them anything at all, it should be the capacity to discern fact from opinion and to be lifelong learners who seek the truth so that they are able to live with integrity.

What’s the philosophy behind “most good, least harm”?

For years when I did assembly programs in schools, I’d bring in a canvas bag filled with things that represented choices, like a Styrofoam cup and a ceramic mug, or a shampoo tested on animals and a cruelty-free shampoo. I’d ask the students which of the two choices did the most good and the least harm to themselves, other people, animals and the environment. Over time I realized that this had become the guiding principle for my life. I’m always asking myself how I can do the most good and the least harm through my various choices, from what I eat, wear and buy, to what I do for work, to how I engage in democracy and activism and so on. I call this the MOGO — most good — principle. I ended up writing a book called Most Good, Least Harm because, while this is a simple principle in theory, it’s really challenging in practice and I wanted to give people the tools and tips I had discovered. At the Institute for Humane Education we have a month-long, distance-learning course called A Better World, A Meaningful Life, which is coming up in September. It’s an opportunity for people to explore how to use this principle, deeply examine their values, passions, goals and talents and create a life that is both meaningful and makes a difference in the world.

You’ve been a role model and educator for both children and adults. Which group is more receptive to your message?

Kids are way more receptive! Before co-founding the Institute for Humane Education and focusing on training adults to be humane educators, I focused my humane education efforts at the middle school through college levels. This was because youth were always eager to learn what I had to teach. They never said to me, “Oh, Zoe, please don’t tell me about x, y or z. I don’t want to know.” Adults, however, are constantly saying such things. Youth are in the process of defining themselves and developing their values. They don’t like to be hypocrites, and they don’t have decades of entrenched habits to break. Adults, on the other hand, have often built up all sorts of rationalizations and defenses along with their habits. With that said, I now spend my time teaching adults, but these are self-selected adults who want to learn how to be humane educators and want to explore how to live in ways that are more deeply aligned with their values. With that said, everyone has to find the group that they relate to best. For some, it’s young children; for others, it’s the elderly; for others, it’s parents. The one group that I would say is challenging for most people is their own families of origin.

You bring up a good point: a lot of activists tell me that they can reach out to total strangers, but family members and friends are the biggest challenge. Do you have any advice for those who want to nudge the people closest to them toward more ethical living?

My advice is to let go of trying to influence or change family and close friends. It’s amazing how often, when we are truly able to let go of our attachment to our loved ones’ choices, they are most likely to be receptive to what we have to share. We need to realize that if we’ve learned something and changed, that change may have negative effects on our loved ones. Our new choices may be inconvenient, threatening and cause defensiveness. This isn’t true with strangers or students in a classroom. In those cases, there’s no “charge” around learning from you. One of the ways in which we at the Institute for Humane Education try to help activists and humane educators is to give them tools for non-judgmental and positive communication, but most people will say that it’s still hardest with family and close friends.

For more about Zoe’s work, check out ZoeWeil.com.