The Scavenger

I suspect that most people will sometimes agree that the use of “violence” as a response to what they believe is a grave injustice is justified. The point, then, is that the use of “violence,” for most people, including the critics of Nicoal here, falls into two moral categories: one is justifiable (anti-colonial violence, anti-slavery violence, or Nazi resistance in pre-war Germany are often cited examples) and the other is unjustified (for these critics, animal liberation efforts). Therefore, it seems to be the case that basing the challenge to the use of “violence” on the grounds that it is “violence” doesn’t respond to my challenge that most would probably agree with the use of “violence”...just sometimes. In other words, these kinds of challenges beg the relevant moral question.

And here we see that the distinction between "activism" and "extremism" is beside the point if "extremism" means: using "violence" as a method. Those who used "extremism" to liberate human slaves in late-nineteenth century Virginia, say, are commonly thought to be justified in doing so. The use of "violence," then, is not the crucial moral question. That question, rather, is this: on what grounds do we distinguish between cases where "violence" is morally justified and those that are not?

Nicoal is moving speedily into extremist territory. A pity she won't condemn violence in her movement.
My full view on her interview:
http://speakingofresearch.com/2011/08/17/ar-profile-nicoal-sheen/

Hey Denis, you do realise that there is a difference between activism and extremism don't you? It's not about their ultimate aims or beliefs, rather about how they seek to persuade society to accept them or to impose them on society.

Hey Rob - you use the rod "extremist" to discredit someone's philosophy instead of just dealing with it factually. There is no such thing as an "animal rights extremist." There may be a person who believe non-human animals should be accorded rights in line with their interests, and they may believe that to not do so is an immoral and violent act. As such, they may suggest different methods through which this immorality and violence can be confronted. If you really want to discuss this issue in what seems to be an adult forum for ideas, I'd suggest you stop using the language of politicians / demagogues / children.

Wow...I mean wow. Nicoal claims to be in favour of reproductive rights, yets see's no problem in animal rights extremists using the self same tactics that anti-abortion extremists have used to make access to abortion difficult - if not impossible - in many states. Does she condone the use of such tactics, ranging from home demonstrations (a.k.a. intimidation and harassment) to arson, to the murder of abortion providers, by anti-abortion fanatics?

Anti-abortion extremists to have a moral and ethical position that they and many others believe in very strongly, so why should one rule apply to them while another applies to Nicoal's animal rights extremist friends? I really don't fancy living in the society Nicoal wants, where social policy is decided on the basis of who is the most willing and able to murder their opponents (though I guess a lot of anti-abortion extremists might be comfortable with it).

Personally, I say a plague on both their extremist houses.