Defining Violence
 J.B.Suconik

The inevitable verbal attacks the animal rights movement encounters includes the label "violent," and labels do matter because they may also give instructions. If for example, John Doe, on trial for murder is labeled guilty, his tag could lead to the end of John Doe. 
 
The 'violence' label flung at the animal rights movement may be, ironically, the unfortunate result of well meaning, but imprudent error on behalf of animals. Such errors have included, a bomb threat, arson, threats to the families of exploiters, and the alleged cutting of brake lines, a tactic with lethal implications. We needn't dwell on the seriousness of such accusation, the question is, how should we react to such information?

More than one answer prescribes the unequivocal disapproval of any conduct whether by individuals or groups, that can be characterized as destructive, immoral, violent, and self defeating. Can violence be so indiscriminately defined? The answer can be best answered after a careful analysis, and sifting of facts to separate truth from emotion, and fiction. 
 
Destructive measures to vivisection, and testing laboratories, puppy mills, fur farms or any place of animal abuse along with any measures that endanger human life are indiscriminately defined as violence by segments of the public. 'The public,' broadly defined, could include animal advocates, the possibility of which inspired this essay. As noted above; if reformation is not to become deformation, the animal rights movement must not be seduced by any tempting form of error, and indiscriminate definitions can conduce to error. 
 
 The meaning of a word is not a natural attribute which man discovers; meaning is given to a word by people who agree to let it have that meaning. I believe that any conduct, which includes animal advocate conduct that is an immediate or potential danger to either human, or animal life must be defined as unacceptable violence that cannot be tolerated.* I aver also that it would be an error to indiscriminately include 'destructive action' to various brutal facilities as unacceptable violence that cannot be tolerated by "animal people." 
It seems therefore, that a definition of the word 'violence' in keeping with the need is in order, such as; Violence n:  1: Conduct which entails immediate or potential harm or death to human or non human animal life. 
  2: Destructive action upon inanimate things or places.
   The vital interests of animals would be, as they have been, well served by 'destructive action upon various inanimate things or places.'  A form of violence that by definition does not entail immediate or potential harm or death to human or non human animal life. Conversely 'conduct which entails immediate or potential harm or death to human or non human animal life must be prohibited. However, prohibition is not a perfect deterrent to vice, because it is not possible to control the conduct at all times, of every individual of a family, let alone a collective.
  
Lack of perfection notwithstanding, the movement has made a progressive step by step transition in the interest of animals. And may continue to do so if not stymied by imprudent decisions that tend to favor and not hinder the sources of animal misery, and death. 
   The world that generated Neros, Genghis Khans, and  Hitlers,  has also generated ,  contemporary Cartesians and  places inimical to the interest, and lives of animals. Places that I believe should be fair game for those seeking justice for animals, ever mindful of the risk involved, and what may or not be done in the name of justice for animals.  Such compassionate action would not be in violation of the definition of violence as stipulated above.
  
Those that challenge this view may invoke the success of India that was unarmed, non violent and resolute against an adversary that was well armed but irresolute. An enemy that was well armed brutal and resolute would have quickly liquidated Ghandi and his followers.  Would a well armed resolute Ghandi and his followers not committed to absolute pacifism also be quickly liquidated by an enemy that was well armed brutal and resolute? 
  
The brutal exploiters of animals are determined to maintain the status quo, are protected by laws, and are well armed by the blessings of publics unaware of the grim realities they sustain by their apathy, and money. I believe that the exploiters should be attacked by every means possible that does not entail a threat or danger to life, human or non human, because any other strategy is subject to severe limitations. This copy constitutes an attack, and as noted above, 'the brutal exploiters', is a label, and labels can give instructions.
*Exceptions abound such as Police, and military
duty, self defense  etc.

    http://www.animalsrighttolifewebsite.com