linksunten Archiv

ARM steht für Animal Rights Militia. Die ARM wurde 1982 in England gegründet und ist vor allem in Europa und Nordamerika aktiv. ARM-Aktivist_innen nutzen die Direkte Aktion um gegen Tierausbeutung zu kämpfen. Die ARM ist keine Organisation, sondern ähnlich wie ALF (Animal Liberation Front) eine Kampagne. Der Unterschied zwischen ARM und ALF ist, dass die ARM weder auf Gewalt verzichtet, noch explizit Vorsichtsmaßnahmen ergreift, dass niemand bei Aktionen verletzt wird. Im Gegensatz zur ARM ist ein Grundsatz der ALF, dass weder menschliche noch nichtmenschliche Tiere bei Aktionen verletzt oder getötet werden dürfen.

The Animal Rights Militia (ARM) is a banner used by animal rights activists who engage in acts of violence which ignore any precautions to avoid harm to human and non-human life. 

History

The Animal Rights Militia first emerged in the United Kingdom their focus was on illegal acts of violence and fanaticism. Utilizing tactics such as the destruction of property, intimidation, and including the use of violence, the ARM have sent letter bombs, placed incendiary devices under cars and in buildings, contaminated food products, sent death threats, and desecrated a grave.

The name was not heard of for eight years after a series of actions in England from 1982 to 1986. Philosopher Peter Singer wrote in 1986 that the ARM may not really exist.   The ARM claimed an arson a year later in California, with a series of arsons, hoax bombs and threats reappearing in the 1990s, notably in the Isle of Wight, Cambridge, North Yorkshire and Oxford. The damage caused by fires averaged £2 million in each location.   ARM activists continue to report actions in European countries, North America and Australia. ...

Animal Rights Militia Fact Sheet

The Animal Rights Militia (ARM) first started in England over ten years ago, with a similar philosophy shared by The Justice Department. While supporting the Animal Liberation Front and other strategies, ARM believes that the Animal Liberation Front does not go far enough with regards to direct action. More effective victories can be achieved with poisoning hoaxes, and other such strategies.

Early victories began in the eighties with two successful destructions in San Jose, California. The first on Sep.1, 1987 in California cost $100,000 damage to the San Jose Valley Veal Inc. A paper products warehouse was burned down causing major financial loss.

The second action was even more costly, with $230,000 damage to Ferrara Meat Company on Nov.26, 1987. A barn containing hay and grain was destroyed.

One of the most famous actions carried out by ARM happened in England, 1984. The Mars Company had performed horrific tooth decay experiments on animals with no signs of stopping. By claiming to the media that Mars Bars, candy bars, had been poisoned, the company withdrew it's candy from the shelves which cost the company huge financial losses. ARM later acknowledged the poisoning was a hoax, but the company realized the potential for further actions and withdrew from animal experiments.

The success of this action shows that economic sabotage is a powerful, effective tool for animal liberationists. Anytime a company has it's product tampered with, the potential injury to it's customers is to potent to ignore. By understanding this fact, The Animal Rights Militia capitalized on this fear to directly save animals.

Since 1990, ARM has also been active in Canada. A similar action against a candy bar manufacturer took place Jan. 2, 1992. The animal experimentation involved in Cold Buster's development included rats being frozen, starved, and injected with drugs, including barbiturates. The inventor of Cold Buster, Larry Wang vivisector at the University of Alberta, was also part-owner of the company which manufactured the bar. Sixteen years of animal research went into the development of the product.

Eighty-seven Cold Buster bars were said to be poisoned with oven cleaning fluid and returned to the store shelves for public consumption. Communiques and samples of contaminated bars were sent to TV stations and newspapers. The economic damage inflicted to the company was enormous. There was an estimated more than $1 million cost to the manufacturer of this candy just from recalling the candy. Clearly this action was a strong message to other companies involved in vivisection, that they too could risk losing millions.

Two weeks later, ARM revealed that the poisoning was a hoax. As with the previous mentioned Mars Bar hoax, companies cannot take the risk that customers could be injured, so they are forced to recall merchandise which adds to profit losses. An additional victory for the animals was when the Canadian Department of Defense pulled their funding for the research.

On April 23, 1992, which is International Day for Laboratory Animals, ARM sent a strong message to a vivisector. The action happened in Vancouver, British Columbia at the home of vivisector Hans Fibiger. Fibiger, who is a University of British Columbia vivsector, had red paint splashed on his house and driveway. The word "scum" was written on the window along with an animal rights slogan on the driveway.

Another poisoning hoax was claimed by ARM on December 23, 1994 in Vancouver, British Columbia. ARM claimed to have injected turkey bodies with rat poison while randomly placing them in various Safeway and Save-On-Foods outlets in the Lower Mainland area. Samples were sent to media, but when tested by police, it was discovered the samples were not contaminated.

Since companies cannot take the risk that some merchandise is contaminated, an estimated $1 million worth of turkeys were removed from the shelves. Also, Health Canada was still involved in doing tests for some time after the hoax to investigate the condition of the turkeys. The supermarket's selling these turkeys and the Turkey Producers Co-op lost millions of dollars.

Other Animal Rights Militia actions in England include incendiary devices causing economic damage to animal abusers. Some examples include Aug. 10, 1994 where C.H. Brown's saddlery & leather shop, Madison and Westworld leather shops, Edinburgh Woolen Mill, and Nurse's fur store all had incendiary devices placed by ARM. Tens of thousands of dollars damage was caused to the saddlery shop. This is just one example of how successful ARM has been.

Another example is Aug. 24, 1994 when over $4,000,000 damage was done with four incendiary devices placed at Sports and Model Shop (selling leather goods), Suede and Leather Shop, and the Cancer Research Fund Shop. Scotties fishing tackle shop also had devices placed along with Boots the Chemist. There was a long standing campaign against Boots for supporting animal testing.

Even subsidiaries of Boots were targeted, such as the placing of incendiary devices in Fads DIY on Sep. 16, 1994. Two Boots branches were also targeted in this action along with Linsley Brother bloodsports shop, and Imperial Cancer Research Foundation shop. Another $4,000,000 in damages. After so many attacks of economic sabotage, Boots finally sold off it's pharmaceutical division to avoid further actions by animal rights activists.

Along with economic sabotage, ARM has been especially effective in Sweden with live liberations of animals. Activists in Uppsala on January 15, 1998, raided labs belonging to Bio Jet Servive. They rescued 92 guinea pigs. Several of the females were pregnant, so an estimated 120 guinea pigs were rescued. What makes this action so especially effective is that the breeder, Gothe Olofsson, is a vivisector himself at Uppsala University. He reportedly has said he will not replace the guinea pigs, but will instead give up the trade.

Since it's inception, ARM has proven the effectiveness of direct action when used against animal abusers. Repeatedly, their actions have been strategic and disabling to those who profit from animal suffering.

Diese Geschichte wie auch eine vor ein paar Wochen in Norditalien hört sich eher nach einer Aktion des Staates oder eines industriellen Schlachthofes  an.

Kleinbetriebe wie eine Metzgerei oder einen  Imbisstand zu zerstören ruft kein kritisches Bewusstsein in der Bevölkerung hervor, sondern Wut auf die angeblichen Aktionisten hervor.

Ihr reaktionären Menschenfeinde! Solidarität mit dem Hot-Dog-Imbiss! Für ein Leben ohne Staat und Kapital und so viel Wurst für alle Menschen!

Wem bringt solch eine Aktion etwas?

Dem Kleinunternehmer?

Der antinationalen Bewegung?

Aufklärung und wirksame Pressearbeit?

Sicher ist davon auszugehen,das Hot Dogs nicht Tiergerecht hergestellt werden.

Allerdings sollte doch der Kampf gegen kapitalistische Zustände wichtiger sein, als ein HotDog Wagen..

Euch ist schon klar,dass der unsägliche Umgang mit Tieren das Produkt eines Kapitalistischen (Werte-)Systems ist,oder zumindest 

dieser Umgang nicht ohne Überwindung der kapitalistischen Zustände beendet werden kann?

Eine "direkte Aktion" gegen einen Hotdog Wagen scheint mir dann doch irgendwie  naiv verkürtzt,zumindest stellt es in meinen Augen ein simplifizerendes Wirtschafts-und Kausalitäts Verständniss dar...