Home » radical activism » HOW FAR IS TOO FAR?





Follow FUR OUT THE CLOSET: on WordPress.com

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,704 other followers

Emy Will

Emy Will

Greetings from Johannesburg, South Africa. Although I have a doctorate in psychotherapy, my main passion is advocating for nonhuman animal rights. I condemn all cruelty to nonhuman animals and therefore follow a vegan lifestyle. I would like to connect with other animal activists from all over the world. The fur trade is one of the most abhorrent practices on this planet. Innocent animals are subjected to prolonged suffering for a trivial fashion item. As the chairperson of Fur Free SA. we campaign towards ending the global fur industry. This might not happen in my lifetime, but even if I leave one footprint behind, that is one step closer to the goal. This blog is a forum to discuss all aspects of the fur industry. It also raises issues around animal activism in general. Johannesburg is a crazy city and I need to escape from time to time. This photo was taken next to the magnificent Zambezi river.

View Full Profile →

Follow me on Twitter


FUR FACT: South Africa farms rabbits and kills them for meat and their fur. Rabbits are social, intelligent creatures. They love to play and groom each other.  On fur farms rabbits will never  frolic. They live a life of confinement and misery.                                                                                                                              .                                                                                             cartoon4805                                                                                                                                                              As a psychotherapist I have heard many revenge fantasies – some more shocking than others. My standard response is, “as long as you don’t act out your fantasies, they are OK”.

Through my research into the fur industry I have seen horrific images of what people do to fur-bearing creatures. This has led to my own revenge fantasies towards the perpetrators of these atrocities – fantasies so murderous that my grandfather Reverend Harris would shudder in his grave (post: Leaders wearing fur: When is it OK?) .

However, while I am capable of spraying red paint or sticking stickers onto windows, I would not actually kill someone.  Yet I do applaud whenever I hear of actions to liberate animals from abhorrent conditions. See:  Animal rights activists damage store, homes (utsandiego.com). Many of these activists are serving jail sentences for their acts of “terrorism”, which I think is admirable.  So why did people reach this point of committing illegal acts to save animals?

Legal protection for animals has been slow and even non-existent in some countries.  Out of intense frustration an underground “terrorist movement” has arisen which targets companies and abusive practices towards animals. During the past two decades, extreme animal rights activists have committed hundreds of acts of arson, bombings and acts of vandalism and harassment. This movement adopts a “leaderless resistance” model of activism and is composed of several anonymous underground cells.  

Read morehttp://archive.adl.org/learn/ext_us/Ecoterrorism.asp?xpicked=4&item=eco;

             Names used by these activists:

 -Animal Liberation Front (ALF)

Animal Rights Militia (ARM)            

– Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC).

ALF is the name adopted by people acting illegally to fight for animal rights. These people have a non violent policy insofar as no one gets injured. They will however damage property in their attempt to “inflict economic damage to those who profit from the misery and exploitation of animals”. Their actions are carefully planned and arrangements are made to move animals to safe places if need be.

ARM is a name used by animal rights activists who use any means necessary to free animals from places of abuse and torture. These activists have engaged in acts of violence and people have been injured through letter bombs.                                                                                                                                                   Animalrightsmilitia.gif                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        ARM justifies their actions through the argument of “Extensional self-defense”, This concept claims that because animals are so vulnerable and oppressed they cannot fight back to attack or kill their oppressors. In other words, animal activists have to defend these animals who are going to be harmed by humans.

Read more:  http:// /wiki/Justice

SHAC focuses on rescuing animals who are used for experimentation and these activists will damage property that is used to practice vivisection.

I always cry when I read stories like these:  


There is even a news magazine Bite Back, which only reports on  the radical animal rights movement worldwide.                                                            

Last but not least is People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA), which is a legal activist organization that works to educate the public about the horrors of animal cruelty through peaceful, nonviolent means. However, Ingrid Newkirk president of PeTA states that “the animal rights movement is a revolutionary one”. This implies that she supports others who carry out extreme acts. I think this is my position and I would welcome ALF to  come and free the rabbits from South African farms. What do you think?

Thinkers may prepare revolutions, but bandits must carry them out: – Ingrid Newkirk .    



  1. xbox2121 says:

    I do enjoy post later these four the information but there is also a element of sadness in them


    • Emy Wilhelm says:

      There is indeed an element of sadness, Bob.The fur industry is one of the most brutal and unnecessary industries on this planet. I just don’t want to bombard people with horrific images. All animal lovers would then need trauma counselling. Thanks for the comment.


  2. Chris says:

    For me the question is do criminal acts, no matter how gratifying they may be in the short term, serve the ultimate goal which is to end the fur trade. The only way to end the fur trade is by persuading governments to pass legislation banning it as per Israel, Croatia and the Netherlands. So the question refined is do criminal actions persuade governments to ban the fur trade and the answer must be no. Criminal acts can only hamper any banning of the fur trade. Firstly it provides governments with an excuse not to consider the issue seriously as they can portray those who are anti fur as a lunatic criminal fringe group, secondly governments have to refuse to be moved by criminal acts as to do so creates the most terrible precedent. Any acts outside the law can only hamper animal rights actions in the long term.


    • Emy Wilhelm says:

      Spoken like a true advocate:) Thanks Chris. Of course the ultimate aim is to ban fur totally, but how do people channel their emotions over the years that it takes to change legislation? I think the issue is also an ideological one where violence is endemic to revolution. Think of the role the armed struggle played in bringing down the apartheid regime. Through their actions ALF has managed to close certain fur farms and hopefully people will be reluctant to open new ones in the future. A complex topic indeed!


  3. Heather Howe says:

    It’s a bit like an “Alice in Wonderland” situation where reality and logic are turned inside out: those who commit institutional violence against animals in laboratories and farms are deemed respectable and those who liberate animals from the sadism of laboratories and factory farming are called “terrorists”. As long as humans remain anthropocentric and believe that human animals have a higher value than non-human animals and that humans’ interests supercede animals – animals will continue to be abused and exploited.


    • Emy Wilhelm says:

      Exactly Heather! Who are the real criminals when it comes to animal exploitation? Even the word”terrorist” has negative connotations when animal activists are in fact freedom fighters. When the law stops defining animals as “property”, attitudes might change. India now defines dolphins as non-human persons so they are protected. Every small change leads to the ultimate goal:)


    • Emy Wilhelm says:

      Thank you so much Buddy2Blogger. I glad you thought it worth a reblog:) There is so much to say and so little time. Especially thanks for caring for animals and nature.


  4. […] I would cry If he “sniped” a few mink farmers.  (See post:                   https://emynow.wordpress.com/2013/09/04/how-far-is-too-far/  for a discussion on this […]


  5. […] post: https://emynow.wordpress.com/2013/09/04/how-far-is-too-far/ for a discussion on […]


  6. […] I am not exactly sure where protests fit onto the spectrum of activism (See post: https://emynow.wordpress.com/2013/09/04/how-far-is-too-far/). […]


  7. domain says:

    It’s nearly impossible to find educated people about this topic,
    however, you sound like you know what you’re talking about!


  8. URL says:

    … [Trackback]

    […] Read More: emynow.wordpress.com/2013/09/04/how-far-is-too-far/ […]


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: