Transcript of Sarahjane Blum's Live ARZone Guest Chat

[Carolyn Bailey]

Transcript of Sarahjane Blum’s Live ARZone Guest Chat

5 May 2012

6pm US Eastern Time

11pm UK Time

6 May 2012

8am Australian Eastern Standard Time

 

 

Carolyn Bailey:

ARZone would like to welcome Sarahjane Blum as today’s Live Chat Guest.

Sarahjane, who has been working for more than 15 years to educate the public about the obligations humans owe other animals, is one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit filed by the Centre for Constitutional Rights against the Department of Justice (Blum -vs- Holder) on behalf of six animal advocates seeking to overturn the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (A.E.T.A.).

In 2003 Sarahjane co-founded GourmetCruelty.com, a grassroots coalition dedicated to exposing the abuse of ducks and geese raised for foie gras. The following year, the group released a short film, Delicacy of Despair, Behind the Closed Doors of the Foie Gras Industry, documenting their investigation of deplorable conditions on foie gras farms, and featuring the “open rescue” of a number of ducks.

After her arrest for the open rescue of several ducks from the Hudson Valley Foie Gras facility, she became increasingly active in raising awareness of the ongoing repression of activists throughout the United States, particularly as the result of the A.E.T.A. (Please click this link for full details about Sarahjane’s pending lawsuit: http://ccrjustice.org/ourcases/Blum)

Sarahjane lives in Minneapolis, Minnesota, serves on the board of directors of Support Vegans in the Prison System and the NYC-based Empty Cages Collective. She has experience with grassroots and national organisations exposing and educating about the truth of the exploitation of other animals throughout the United States.

Sarahjane welcomes the opportunity to speak with ARZone members today. Would you please join with me in welcoming her to ARZone?

Welcome, Sarahjane

 

Sarahjane Blum:

Thanks!

 

Roger Yates:

Hi Sarahjane - Welcome to ARZone

 

Jason ✯ Ward:

Welcome Sarahjane

 

Sharni Buckley:
Hi Sarahjane

 

Billy Lovci:

Welcome

Al Nowatzki:

Hello there, Sarahjane!

olly stearn:

welcome and hello :)

 

Daniel Dorado:

Welcome

John Simecek:

Hi Sarahjane!

Sarahjane Blum:

Thank you all for the kind welcome and thanks for taking time out of your day to chat with me.

 

Carolyn Bailey:

Sarahjane will be responding to her ten pre-registered questions from ARZone members first today, during which time all members are invited to contact myself or Roger Yates if they wish to engage Sarahjane. At the completion of these questions, ARZone members will be invited to ask Sarahjane any other questions you may have, in a free chat.

I’ll now ask Sarahjane her first of the ten formal questions.

Hi Sarahjane, you have been a very important and strong advocate against the use of geese and ducks in the foie gras industry. Could you please explain why this particular form of abuse is important to you, and why you chose to dedicate much of your life to ending the exploitation of birds in this particular industry, more than others?

 

Sarahjane Blum:

Hi everyone, thanks for inviting me to take part in this conversation. I try to do work where I see it needing to be done, which has led me to work on issues that run the gamut from dolphin captivity to factory farming.

 

My activism has always been driven by being in a certain place at a certain time and then trying to find the niche where I could be most helpful. When I first began looking into conditions on foie gras farms, taking undercover video and eventually participating in an open rescue, I hoped that my work would both help at least some individual animals, and also open doors for larger conversations about animal exploitation in general It has done both, in my opinion.

 

My experience on foie gras farms has enabled me to speak with first hand knowledge about something that few in the US have seen with their own eyes, and to raise issues about animal agriculture in general.

 

Foie gras is in some ways a unique case, it’s true. Most farmers view disease and sickness within the animals they are raising to be a nuisance, and then use selective breeding or antibiotics to try and create a scenario where animals can survive in impossible conditions, but on foie gras farms, the disease is the whole point.

 

This flies in the face of the idea that animal products are healthy and natural and because of the inherent cruelty of forced-feeding, that's obvious to most anyone.

Hepatic lipidosis (fatty liver disease) is foie gras, and its one of the places within animal industries that you can most clearly see that whether a large scale factory farm or a small family operation animal farming causes animal suffering.

 

In the state of Minnesota, where I live currently, we have one of the only three foie gras farms in the US. It is currently being touted as one of the models of “artisanal farming” and small-scale agriculture. But when I look at the pictures of the forced fed ducks being raised there, I see signs of the same clear trauma which I encountered doing investigations into the largest foie gras factory farm in the country.

 

From my experience, I have found that foie gras can be a bridge into work on everything from factory farming to the myth of “humane farming” that is becoming so popular today.

 

Carolyn Bailey:

Thanks, Sarahjane!

 

Jason ✯ Ward:

Hi Sarahjane, I’d like to ask if you’re vegan, and if so, what was it that led you to become vegan?

 

Sarahjane Blum:

I am vegan, and have been since 1996, when I graduated high school and moved out of my parents’ house. For me it was a natural extension of the vegetarian diet which I adopted in 1990, after seeing a bloodied raccoon on the side of the road as I was biking and realizing that the deaths of animals I ate but didn’t see was as horrible and heart wrenching as the death of the raccoon who nearly put me in tears.

 

Back in those days however, there wasn’t a lot of information readily available about veganism, and about the relationship between eggs/dairy and animal suffering, so it took getting involved in the movement for me to learn about why I might choose to live a vegan life, but once I knew, I started to try and live my values, and when I went to college I fully transitioned to a vegan diet.

 

Jason ✯ Ward:

Thanks Sarahjane

 

Roger Yates:

This is the third pre-registered question....

You are one of the plaintiffs in the Blum -vs- Holder lawsuit against the Department of Justice in the United States. This suit is seeking to overturn the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (A.E.T.A.). For those of us outside the US who are less familiar with this case, could you please explain your role in it, and what you are hoping to achieve and why, please?

 

Sarahjane Blum:

The AETA is a federal criminal law that punishes advocacy and protest that causes a business to lose property or profits. It singles out animal rights activists, and others whose advocacy might damage the profitability of businesses that use animal products for heightened penalties. It creates a special class of “thought crimes” so to speak, which is unconstitutional and creates a climate in which activists are afraid to speak freely.

 

My co-plaintiffs and I have lived in fear of being singled out for prosecution under the AETA for attending legal protests and watched a vibrant social justice movement lose steam, as we have been forced to censor ourselves and refrain from exercising our First Amendment rights to free speech. If you’ll bear with me, I’ll briefly share my own story as example:

 

As the introduction mentioned, in 2003 I co-founded a group that did an undercover investigation into the foie gras industry, and was involved with an open rescue.

Excerpts from the documentary we made were featured on everything from the nightly news to an Animal Planet TV show that documented the rehabilitation of two ducks rescued from the farm.

 

I, my colleagues, and the journalists we spoke with all understood our work to be part of the proud history of civil disobedience and whistleblowing which we were always taught were keys to thriving democracy. It's the thing I've done in my life of which I'm most proud.

 

But today, due to the AETAs unconstitutional attack on free speech, I am afraid to even publicly screen the documentary we produced. Though foie gras farming has been outlawed in California due to our work, the AETA could criminalize me for asking people to boycott restaurants which serve it.

 

If Cesar Chavez had called for boycott of California grapes today, he would be considered a terrorist rather than a national hero who has even been immortalized on a postage stamp.

My co-plaintiffs and I have come forward to challenge this law because our compassion is not terrorism.

 

Silencing the right to free speech serves only the corporations who lobbied to push through the AETA and I had to stand up and do something. Ironically, the law was passed through congress just hours after legislators celebrated the ground breaking for a memorial to Martin Luther King, Jr., another man whose style of activism would be considered terrorism under this law.

 

Carolyn Bailey:

Thanks for your insight, Sarahjane!

 

Roger Yates:

What do you say to those people who would argue that advocates are doing at least as much harm as good for all other animals when those advocates focus on one particular form of abuse against one (or a few) species of other animals?

 

Sarahjane Blum:

I don’t believe that doing work that brings to light one of the many manifestations of speciesism (and the many oppressions with which it’s connected) takes anything away from the bigger picture.

 

When activists began staging sit-ins at lunch counters to challenge segregation, no one argued that the lack of access to sandwiches was the biggest injustice faced by black America. And when people volunteer their time at battered women’s shelters, advocates for affordable housing and prison reform don’t accuse them of doing more harm then good. More often than not, we are on the same team.

 

I believe we can do the most good as activists by being direct, honest, and specific while still recognizing that oppression is interconnected and that we can't fight for justice for one animal without believing in justice for all.

 

Roger Yates:

Thanks Sj

 

Carolyn Bailey:

When you consider the legal and social climate in the US with respect to those who are being labeled “extremists” or “terrorists” of some sort (whether in regard to the environment or advocacy for other animals), do you believe that it’s time for advocates to adopt an “insider strategy”? That is, do you think that the tactics that some advocates have employed have served to marginalize the movement as a whole, thereby providing an excuse for the general public to not take their demands at all seriously?

 

Sarahjane Blum:

One of the reasons I am so committed to challenging the AETA is that it is part of a broader effort by corporate interests to constrain social and political activism by making people afraid of being labelled “terrorists.” If the movement has been marginalized, it has been marginalized by companies that profit off of animal exploitation not by any particular tactic.

 

Carolyn Bailey:

Thanks, again, Sarahjane!

 

Jason ✯ Ward:

Here's the next question: Are you concerned that, if your pending suit against Justice Department fails, then a precedent will be set such that future challenges to the AETA will be made more difficult?

 

Sarahjane Blum:

Challenging the AETA is inherently an uphill battle, but the more time it stands on the books, the more time animal exploitation industries have to lobby to create state laws that mirror it.

 

Every day the law stands it unlawfully silences activists and no matter what the outcome of this suit is, I hope that it will make citizens more aware that we need to pay attention to what is happening to our laws, as corporations take hold of more political power.

 

The alternative to filing this lawsuit would have been to let the AETA continue to silence our movement and that’s not something I could live with myself if I did.

 

Jason ✯ Ward:

Thanks again

 

Carolyn Bailey:

Sarahjane, what role do you see documentary films playing in the future with respect to educating the general public about the issues you are concerned with? Do you think that, unless such films are able to attract a diverse and broad-based audience that they are more or less one more example of “preaching to the choir”?

 

Sarahjane Blum:

Documentaries and undercover investigations are some of our most powerful methods of persuasion. I can’t tell you how many times I have heard new activists introduce themselves with “and then I saw Earthlings.”

 

Just this morning I was volunteering at an event where we were showing Farm to Fridge and I had two people tell me they were going vegan after watching it. I think there is a growing interest in documentaries about animal and environmental issues, at least in the US.

 

Forks Over Knives was reviewed in newspapers across the country and screened widely, and the documentary If A Tree Falls, about the ELF and the green scare was even nominated for an Oscar this year.

 

What I am worried about is the backlash which has come about because footage of animal exploitation is such a powerful tool for change. Along with the AETA, 10 states have introduced “ag-gag” bills, which target anyone who takes undercover footage on a factory farm with up to 30 years in prison in some cases.

 

Jason ✯ Ward:

Thanks Sarahjane. In your experience, is there a gender or age gap in the advocacy movement? In other words, is the movement populated primarily (or mostly) by college aged and younger people and/or is the representation within the movement disproportionately female? If so, what do you think that means for the movement now and in the future?

 

Sarahjane Blum:

There is no question that the movement is predominantly female, and yet that in many cases, the leadership is composed disproportionately of men. This has been documented statistically time and again but yet it is persistently true. Which begs the question of why? Where is the disconnect between feminism and animal liberation that keeps women from demanding that their voices be heard within our movement?

 

Like a broken record I’ll say it again. All oppression is interconnected.

 

And while I’m on that subject I’ll bring up with I see as an even more troubling dynamic—race. If we are talking about disparities of representations among animal advocates, race is the most obvious and the one that animal rights has been most behind the times in addressing. I think the recent anthology “Sister Species: Women, Animals, and Social Justice” does a good job in beginning to look at some of these vexing issues, but it’s a place where we really need to do more.

 

As for college kids, I think that’s just the normal state of affairs for any movement. They often have time to spare, limitless energy, and an optimism that our culture tries to beat out of us.

 

Jason ✯ Ward:

Thanks Sarahjane.

 

Roger Yates:

Here's a question writted (in pencil) by me.....

Hi Sarahjane. I consider the recent moves to establish veganism as the moral baseline of a rights-based animal rights movement a good thing. However, we are learning, not least through several ARZone podcasts, that some major animal advocacy groups are still shy and wary about talking openly about veganism. They tend to try to hide veganism within or alongside vegetarianism and “veg*n.” The Support Vegans In the Prison System group uses a PCRM flyer for its FAQs section. This document, entitled “Vegetarian Diets for Correctional Facilities” seems to be exclusively about veganism despite the title and, as such, seems to be part of what I see as a problem in movement claims about our relations with other animals. Why in your view are so many groups apparently frightened of the “V” word?

 

Sarahjane Blum:

I think some groups have chosen to use the term vegetarian rather than vegan because they feel its more inviting, as its more familiar. Also, eggs aren't vegetables and neither are dairy products, so the terms SHOULD be synonymous, even though to most people they aren't. However, personally I am more comfortable using the term vegan as I find it is simpler and it’s certainly how I think of myself.

 

More important to me than picking over which term people use is making sure that we deliver a clear message about speciesism as an overarching system of oppression and that adopting a vegan lifestyle (whether using the term vegan/vegetarian/plant based diet) is a tremendous step to combatting the all-pervasive notion of animals as commodities..

 

Roger Yates:

Can I have a follow-up?

 

Sarahjane Blum:

Sure

 

Roger Yates:

Can you clarify what you mean by "a vegan lifestyle (whether using the term vegan/vegetarian/plant based diet)" If the idea is to promote veganism, surely it is important to use the term - to "ripen up" people to it?

 

Sarahjane Blum:

I always go back to the original coinage of the word. That we should live without exploiting animals to the best of our ability. I see the word gaining traction every year, wasn't 2011 declared in the blogosphere the year of the vegan? And I think in the future we will see it being used more and more, but I think it's all for the good if vegetarian does again become synonymous with vegan. So the literature doesn't bother me.

 

Roger Yates:

OK, thanks

 

Carolyn Bailey:

Before we ask Sarahjane her last pre-registered question, I’d like to remind ARZone members that we encourage you to feel free to ask Sarahjane any questions in the following open session. Just let myself, Roger or Jason know, so we may introduce your question

 

Sarahjane, are you an optimist or pessimist in terms of the future? Do you see “the movement” progressing or perhaps stagnating? Do you think, given the environmental crisis, we even have time to bring about necessary change? Can you share your general view of campaigning for animal rights in the next few years?

 

Sarahjane Blum:

I must be an optimist, or I wouldn’t still be doing this.

 

When I look back at my own experiences doing animal rights work for the last 15 years, I have seen any number of cases of two steps forward, one step back, and sometimes, it’s true, one step forward two steps back. But in general, I would say people are much more aware of issues of animal cruelty, and much more willing to be engaged in conversations about speciesist attitudes.

 

Earlier in this chat, I mentioned how in 2003, when we had finished the foie gras investigation, the television station Animal Planet decided to feature a story about it. The producer of the show spent what seemed like forever going back and forth with people within the company trying to figure out just how much footage from the farm we could show without scaring viewers away.

Today Animal Planet runs three different spin offs of Whale Wars. That’s a cultural change I couldn’t have predicted in my wildest dreams.

 

With that said, of course I do worry about how those of us who struggle to make the world a better place are racing the clock of ecological destruction. It's terrifying and tragic. But my sadness and fear don't give me license to do nothing. So I keep on being optimistic and doing what I can.

 

Carolyn Bailey:

Thanks so much for your insight and thoughtful responses to these questions, Sarahjane. I'd like now to open the chat up to anyone who'd like to address Sarahjane, beginning with the first question from Al Nowatzki. Thanks, Al.

 

Al Nowatzki:

Thanks! First of all, thanks for the bravery you've shown in participating in this lawsuit.

There's a question that always nags at me when we're talking about legal crackdown on activists, and it's this: There's no question that most of what activists involved in direct action do is against current law. I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiment that what most, if not all, of those activists do should NOT be labeled as terrorism. But it's still illegal, right? I always want to see it clarified in these discussions that yes, activists who break the law are well aware that there could be legal consequences, but those consequences should not be as harsh as AETA has made them. I guess I'm just wondering if you agree or disagree with that and if you have any more thoughts on it.

 

Sarahjane Blum:

The big problem with the AETA is that it is not targeting crimes. Actual crimes are already covered by existing state and Federal laws. But it's a twisted logic to say that if someone chooses to liberate foxes from a fur farm, which could be prosecuted as a crime of theft,

that the person who did so should be subject to tenfold harsher sentences than someone who does it to then sell the animals himself.

 

In the 90s, there was a lot of non-violent civil disobedience, in the model of MLK.

Now there is virtually none. Because while activists were willing to risk their freedom to take a stand, there is a difference between going to jail and being labelled a domestic terrorist.

 

Al Nowatzki:

Follow up?

 

Sarahjane Blum:

yep

 

Al Nowatzki:

I agree with all that you've said. I guess I'm just saying that I wish the caveat of "yes, we're aware that these actions are illegal, but they're NOT terrorism" were included more in the discussion. Because when it's not, then it seems like we're saying that there should be no consequences at all for illegal action (even while we argue that our actions are just and right).

If that makes sense.

 

Sarahjane Blum:

Well, one thing that's worth noting is that the AETA is a threat that looms over actions which currently ARE legal.

 

The first time it was used, four activists were arrested in CA for protesting writing slogans on sidewalks with chalk, chanting, leafletting and using the Internet to find information on animal researchers. Thankfully a federal judge dismissed that case, but the intention of the law is to find a way to both make illegal actions "more illegal" and also make effective legal speech unlawful.

 

With all that said, as someone with a history of open rescue and civil disobedience, I fully believe that when I take a principled stand, I should be more than willing to face the actual laws of the nation about my choices.

 

Al Nowatzki:

Thanks!

 

Roger Yates:

Can I make a related point please?

 

Sarahjane Blum:

Of course

 

Roger Yates:

What with the AETA and the "Ag gag" efforts, there seems to be a focus on shutting down opposition and dissent. What interests are being protected ultimately? IOWs, is this a "capitalist thing"?

 

Sarahjane Blum:

Short answer, yes this is a capitalist thing.

 

Roger Yates:

:-)

 

Sarahjane Blum:

I cannot fully go into the history of the AETA, but I would send everyone to www.greenisthenewred.com and suggest people who want to learn more about the issue also look at the book of the same title.

 

Laws in America are currently being drafted by lobbyists for big business and then handed over already written to congresspeople, alongside large donations. It is the case right now that corporations have bought more rights than Americans. I think this is reversible obviously, or I wouldn't be part of this lawsuit, but I agree that it represents a troubling aspect of big business captialism.

 

Roger Yates:

thanks Sj

 

Carolyn Bailey:

Thanks, Sarahjane! In regard to the great site, greenisthenewred.com, Will Potter's ARZone chat can also be accessed here:http://arzone.ning.com/profiles/blogs/transcript-of-will-potters

Al Nowatzki would like to ask another question, Sarahjane. Go ahead, Al.

 

Al Nowatzki:

Thanks. What stage is the lawsuit at right now? Is there anything anyone can do to help it along?

 

Sarahjane Blum:

For the past couple of months, the lawyers have been submitting motions back and forth and the judge has been reading them in usual fashion. At some point, a date will be set for oral arguments, but that hasn't happened yet. In the meantime the best thing people can do is both raise awareness about the AETA itself, and also the ag-gag bills that are appearing on the state level. The more of those laws that DON'T get passed, the better off the animals will be.

 

Roger Yates:

Next up is a question from Olly Stearn - Olly....

 

olly stearn:

Thanks :) In your challenging of the A.E.T.A do you think if helpful to collaborate with outer justice movements that have an interest in combating this sort of legislation? I am thinking particularly of leftists and do you currently collaborate with any such movements?

Also do you think the animal rights movement should be working with leftists in a similar way to the way many advocates feel we should be working with justice movements such as feminism?

 

Sarahjane Blum:

Could I have a clarification of what you mean when you say leftists? In terms of trying to repeal the AETA (which is something that would happen at the congressional level if the lawsuit does not overturn it first) there is a group that is trying to create broad based coalition support.

 

olly stearn:

Sorry, yes! It is a bit broad. I mean those working for social change in the political system, such as socialists, labour reformists.....ect. In a fairly radical sense.

 

Sarahjane Blum:

College professors, free speech advocates and people who had never thought of themselves as "animal people" have been outraged by what is seen by many as just incredible overreach in the name of "the war on terror."

So that is that part.

The reason I asked you to clarify is that it does vary so much country by country what it means to work for change within the political system. I do consider myself a radical, and do try to explore in conversation what I see as natural bridges between radical politics in the US and animal exploitation, if that answers your question...

 

olly stearn:

yes thanks.

follow up?

 

Sarahjane Blum:

Also, I think it is important that as a movement we don't model racist, zenophobic, sexist behavior.

yes

 

olly stearn:

Thanks, relatedly, do you see these connections being made?

 

Sarahjane Blum:

Not nearly enough.

 

olly stearn:

in the movement generally i mean....

aaa, thanks :)

 

Sarahjane Blum:

I repeat, not nearly enough.

 

olly stearn:

agreed!

 

Sarahjane Blum:

Again, if people want to think more about those issues, especially in the US, I do think Sister Species is a good place to start thinking critically without having to use a dictionary every page.

 

Jason ✯ Ward:

Roger Yates has the next question - go ahead Roger when you are ready

 

Roger Yates:

Going back to the Foie Gras issue, Sarahjane…

Sociologists often see social movements as claims-makers in society. They make claims about the things they regard as societal problems and they often hold governments to account. From an animal rights point of view, however, the claims associated with foie gras campaigns can seem rather weak and problematic. For example, I’ve seen claims that eliminating foie gras from menus is somehow making them “cruelty-free,” and campaigns often have “vegetarian” links rather than vegan ones. The critique would be that such a campaign implies that some other animals are more important than others morally. I get the impression that you think foie gras ~is~ a special case and, also, opens the door to talking about other issues. Is that right and, therefore, do you think the frequent attacks on single-issues campaigning to be misplaced? And, how important is it that single-issues are framed within a general vegan, anti-speciesist, framework?

 

Sarahjane Blum:

I don't think you can put every "single-issue" campaign in the same box, necessarily, so let me just make a few points about why I find foie gras an important issue.

It is specific enough that when I talk with people about it they stay engaged and want to learn more about animal issues, but it is also clear what I am asking for when I state my opposition to it. I want restaurants to take it off their menus, I want foie gras farms to go out of business, I want people to choose not to eat it. The third of those is the most important.

So many people forget that they have agency with their decision making, and asking people to make a choice to me always seems like a good way to start getting them to think about other choices they can make. However, I am not going to ask someone to switch to more humanely farmed meat or dairy, as that is not something I truly want to see.

I do want to see foie gras disappear. It's a subtle distinction but to me it’s very important

as I do agree that everything I do should be in keeping with the goal of creating a less and less speciesist world. I don't think that we should tout restaurants who take foie gras off their menus as "cruelty free" and none of the campaigns I have worked with have done so.

Roger Yates:

Thanks Sj - I appreciate your agency point. In general terms I think foie gras campaigns say "this is torture" implying other use is not. The claims-making has to be very carefully crafted I believe.

 

Sarahjane Blum:

Agreed.

 

Carolyn Bailey:

Thanks again, Sarahjane. The last question for today will be from Al Nowatzki. When you're ready, thanks, Al.

 

Al Nowatzki:

Thanks for always spelling my last name correctly, Carolyn.

 

Roger Yates:

:-)

 

Carolyn Bailey:

:)

 

Al Nowatzki:

Some people (and if I'm being honest, I include myself here) might be hesitant to send letters, books, etc. to vegans in the prison system, because of the fear that it would put them (the senders) on some kind of government list they don't want to be on. The same fears could be voiced by activists wanting to participate in certain types of above-ground legal campaigns. It's one thing to say that people SHOULDN'T be persecuted for legal actions, but it's another thing entirely to say that even though you might be persecuted, you should do it anyway because the government is in the wrong and the work you're doing is an expression of love and justice.

 

So my question is, what would you say to people who feel paralyzed in that way? I realize that you are fighting for people like this in the lawsuit, but in the meantime, until the lawsuit is victorious [::crosses fingers::], what, if anything, would you say to those activists? Words of encouragement or practical advice?

 

Sarahjane Blum:

Yes, you are echoing the way I feel exactly--I'm in this peculiar position with the lawsuit where because I am scared by what unjust terrible thing might happen to me if I speak up, I am screaming at the top of my lungs. But I have been living with these fears for years. I was close friends with almost all of the SHAC defendants and many other green scare prisoners during their trial and at that same time my mother was dying and I was caring for her. I'm not saying this to be a bummer, but to make the point that because of my obligations to her, I did not feel comfortable doing a lot of the things you mentioned for a time.

 

So my words of encouragement is that nothing we say when we talk about being scared sounds weak. And as long as we try to do SOMETHING, when we back off from doing something else that seems too risky, we are supporting our community, our movement, our world.

Sorry if that's too corny.

 

Al Nowatzki:

Sounds good to me. Thanks!

 

Carolyn Bailey:

Thanks again, Sarahjane!

 

Sarahjane Blum:

Thanks everyone for the thoughtful questions, my brain got quite a workout!

 

Jason ✯ Ward:
Thanks for your time here today

:)

 

Carolyn Bailey:

That concludes the chat for today, but I'd like to very sincerely thank you for being our guest, Sarahjane, and for your time and the great information you've given us today.

 

Roger Yates:

Thanks Sarahjane.

 

Al Nowatzki:

Thanks Sarahjane. And good luck with the lawsuit. You have a lot of people rooting for you.

 

olly stearn:

thanks and good luck!

 

Jason ✯ Ward:

Goodnight

 

Maynard S. Clark:

Thank you, Sarahjane, and thank you for all your prior SOUL-SEARCHING and for your lucidity this evening.

Kate Go Vegan:

Many thanks and much respect to you Sarahjane. Well done for what you are achieving. :)

 

Lynne Yates:

Thank you Sarahjane

 

Sarahjane Blum:

Thanks! Good day or night everyone!

 

 

 

 ARZone exists to promote rational discussion about our relations with other animals and about issues within the animal advocacy movement. Please continue the debate after “chats” by starting a forum discussion or making a point under a transcript.