NEWS RELEASE about Direct Action posted on December 1, 2012 by Roslyn Cassells
In Support of Rebecca Rubin - Vancouver activist ends 10 years underground for jail
Animal Enterprise Anti-Terrorism Act Criiminalizes Animal Activists, Protects Animal Abusers
Love is the answer, no matter what the question
Born to be free
Giving wildlife a second chance
Rebecca Rubin, Vancouver animal activist, wildlife rehabilitator, vegan, local woman, gave herself up to authorities after 10 years underground. She was wanted by the FBI, on their most wanted list in fact, despite the fact she has never taken a life. She has, in fact, defended life. This was her unforgivable crime. In this world where money and power are often valued over life and freedom, Rebecca stood on the side of those about to lose their lives, their freedom.
I met Rebecca Rubin years ago in Vancouver. She is a kind and gentle person who has devoted her life to standing up for those who have no voice, the animals and our beloved earth. For this she has been called a terrorist. For this she has been hounded to the ends of the earth, our Mother Earth, for her defence of our animal sisters and brothers.
The true terrorists are those who deny our animal sisters and brothers their lives, their homes, their right to exist. The Animal Liberation Front is non-violent, no lives are taken. Laws such as the federal US Animal Enterprise Anti-Terrorism Act criminalize those who choose to defend lives over blood profits, and in doing so, put their own freedom at risk.
One day people like Rebecca Rubin, and others like her, will be seen for what they really are...the frontrunners, the trail-breakers, the leaders of a new world order where compassion and respect for all living creatures are valued over money and power. I send my love out to Rebecca, who has no doubt suffered much over the past decade, her friends and family, and all those who, through their lives and their actions live lives that allow others to simply live.
In solidarity, Roslyn Cassells, former Vancouver Park Commissioner and Canada's first elected Green
The site for the Vancouver local of The Media Co-op has been archived and will no longer be updated. Please visit the main Media Co-op website to learn more about the organization.
Comments
If she is snitching, she is no longer an activist
From CBC:
Oregon Assistant United States Attorney Stephen Peifer confirmed Rubin is co-operating with authorities.
"It's very significant that she's decided to co-operate and turn herself in," he said.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2012/11/30/bc-rebec...
We will see what Rebecca's legal strategy is from her legal team
Rebecca's legal team will determine what her legal strategy is. For all you know (nameless person alleging snitching) "cooperating" could refer to her own part in any alleged actions, not others, if there even are others.
I'm tired of people slagging other activists without reason or proof. Sometimes I think some so-called activists are really there to divide us not unite us.
To make nasty personal allegations that are in fact actionable, and to do so anonymously is cowardly LRA.
Grow a pair LRA (tits, balls, brain lobes...whatever it is you're missing). I doubt you've ever faced an interminably long jail sentence yourself, so stop judging someone who could be.
You should notice I said "if"
You should notice I said "if". I did not make any definitive statement since I don't know for sure. But there may be some evidence that she is a police informant, since this is what the State means by "cooperating", plus her lawyer's statement that she spent years working a deal out with the State. Are we supposed to support her as an activist without knowing whether she is a police informant or not? She could simply tell us.
maybe you're a state agent LRA -if not check ALF link to clarify
http://www.animalliberationfrontline.com/after-six-years-alf-elf-fugitiv...
And what evidence would lead
And what evidence would lead you to that possibility? Or do you just operate on blind faith rather than logic? And what is LRA?
LRA = Last Real Anarchist
LRA you have quite an opinion about yourself....are you the only real anarchist out there? That's just grand-eur.
Am done sparring with you, if you really want to help, which I doubt, you'll know how from the last link I posted.
Not wasting more time on u!
My name is a bit of a joke. I
My name is a bit of a joke. I thought that would be very obvious but maybe I over estimated activists' humor and wit.
The link you provide has no references and only says she will not give information on the remaining fugitives. But what of those already caught?
If Rubin is deserving of social movement or activist support surely we are deserving of the facts of her deal with the State.
Unfortunately for you, not everyone will turn off their critical thinking capacity and be bullied into supporting those you demand us to.
You never sparred with me, since you never addressed my questions or evidence. You also have not explained your position on informants.
I posed a question and you've done nothing but name-call in response, which only makes you more obviously irrational to any thinking person.
.
.
I did pose a question
In reality, I did pose a question. Is she a snitch or not? Is this question off limits? I don't think so.
People can personally support whoever they want, snitch or otherwise. But writing a defense of someone as an activist, in a political or social movement context, is another thing. People in social movements need to defend themselves from State repression, one element of which is State informants.
The Green Scare case Rubin is a part of has had a particularly high number of informants. Only four are not cooperating with the State. One killed himself rather than cooperate.
Deciding one's own legal defense strategy does not have to include snitching. Are you arguing that people should be free to decide their own strategy to the extent that they literally sell the freedom of their co-defendants to the State in exchange for their own freedom, as Rubin's co-defendant Darren Thurston did?
I never said anyone should take the CBC or a State attorney at their word. I presented it as evidence not conclusive fact.
Rubin can simply reveal the details of her agreement with the State. If she chooses not to, this in itself would be evidence that she is in fact snitching.
And I didn't just turn up out of the blue. Whether or not I am the last real anarchist alive, I have been alive and an anarchist for some time now. And I'm not trying to discredit Rubin. I'm merely trying to discover the nature of her agreement with the State.
http://www.crimethinc.com/texts/atoz/greenscared.php
http://vancouver.mediacoop.ca/story/broken-bridges-vancouver-activist-da...
.
.
Watch what I say, then watch what you say
I never said or meant that the terms activist and anarchist are synonymous. But there is much overlap.
Questioning a politician's credibility was not my focus at that moment. It was Rubin's agreement with the State.
As it happens, not only do I have no particular interest in the alf/elf organizations, I am opposed to them as organizations and I also oppose much of their politics. But I am interested in social movements, which are something these groups and individuals have an impact on. State repression also impacts us all, regardless of our politics or lack of them.
The links I provided are specifically about the case and the organization Rubin was and is a part of.
You are either a fool or you are purposefully spreading disinformation. This is not only made obvious by your inane and obtuse comments, but also by the name you chose, "anonarchy", which means rule by the anonymous.
Sad and pathetic, or just plain mischievous? Only you know for sure. But the rest of us can guess.
LRA is behaving like an agent provocateur
Good points Anonarchy. Like you I just can't resist, as an English teacher, to point out LRA's clear lack of understanding of the meaning of the words "anarchist" and "activist" and all they entail. Please sign up for one of my basic English courses LRA.
I have heard similar diatribes before, from people who turned out to be agents provocateurs. That's a French expression LRA and likely your job description.
Not everyone you attack will be bullied into withdrawing their public support from persons they admire LRA. And who are you to demand ANYTHING from Ms. Rubin anyways. She does not owe you or me or anyone anything.
Your tactics are similar to those I have seen before when provocateurs try to isolate vulnerable individuals under attack from unjust state repression. Your behaviour increases the repression on said individuals under the guise of activist. Nice try LRA, take of your mask, we've seen your true face.
Oh, and get yourself a dictionary before you get yourself into more idiotic arguments about words that, yes, do start with the same letter, but no, do not have the same meaning.
Feel free to get yourself a life LRA, make yourself useful to the world instead of dumping all over those who already have.
Bill Rodgers - death in custody
I am putting this under a separate heading out of respect for the man who lost his life. Bill Rodgers was arrested and charged under the Animal Enterprise Anti-Terrorism Act and was facing possibly spending the remainder of his life in jail.
His death was a death in custody. As such, it is difficult to know if he killed himself, if he was killed, or if he died for other reasons (misadventure).
LRA for you to say what his reason for killing himself was is wrong and self-serving. Who can know what was in his mind as he died? If he was killed? If he killed himself?
If you weren't there LRA, you can't know. Neither can we.
Yes I heard about a note. Yes I heard about the bird in a cage analogy. But we just don't know for sure, so you can put a sock in it on this one too.
Have some respect.
Don't do the crime if you can't do the time
Asking whether an activist is cooperating with the State against her codefendants is not in itself behaviour that is particular to agent provocateurs. What would the State be trying to provoke in this context? Critical thinking? I doubt it. The State would prefer activists were confused on the matter.
My understanding of the terms activist and anarchist are far clearer than yours I'm sure. For example, I understand that both anarchists and activists can benefit from critical thinking, as well as an understanding of and opposition to State informants. Do you understand this? Or do you think you can distract people by changing the subject? Too bad for you.
I never demanded anything of Rubin. I made a clear distinction between personal support and social movement support. I have no problem with the first, whether she is a snitch or not. But the second is a matter of safety. It is a free choice to make, but choosing to allow and support informants within social movements is self-destructive and I personally oppose that.
I merely pointed out that the State is claiming she is cooperating (which means informing in the sense they use it). She can choose to clarify the matter or not. So far she has chosen not to. So people can choose to support her or not based on whatever information they have available to them.
I also never claimed divine knowledge of exactly why Rogers killed himself. I merely was pointing out that he did not inform on his comrades and that he killed himself. I can see how they way I worded it might seem otherwise. That's my mistake.
At any rate, I fail to see how you show respect to someone by distracting from the matter of his former comrades who informed against him for the State.
LRA police agent?
LRA police agent?
LRA you did not bother to read the court transcripts of the trial as it appears Bill Rodgers did name other activists involved in the alleged action prior to his death. To start saying what he didn't would be contrary to that information which was presented at trial. It's too bad he's not around to confirm this one way or the other, although others have. What you are doing LRA is spreading misinformation about activists and events which is standard practice for agents provocateurs/some state agents/some police agents etc., not an anarchist tactic.
Your leading quote "Don't do the crime if you can't do the time" is a common staple of law enforcement, you know, at school presentations etc. That you would see liberation actions as crimes speaks volumes, your choice of words is so telling.
Speaking of choice of words you refer to "comrades". You are making this so easy for me. Generally speaking, while earth activists may consider themselves to be in solidarity with popular revolutions in the sense of social justice, human rights, and indigenous sovereignty, it is understood that many communist regimes around the world, in practice, have done as much and more damage to the ecology as capitalist systems. So fuck off with the "comrade" schtick.
LRA you're spreading lies and misinformation and sowing the seeds of doubt towards people who did more to improve the world in one day than you will do in your entire miserable life, LRA.
Your actions, lies, and general ignorance shows you are neither a practicing anarchist nor a good candidate to be one either. Your natural tendency to undermine others based on lies and misinformation you or others generated is typical of agents provocateurs/state agents/police agents so nice try pretending to be an anarchist you pathetic little poseur.
Also a non-argument is your assertion that Rebecca Rubin would be a danger to work with as you call her a snitch and a state informer. As Rebecca will likely be stuck in jail for ages she will not be in a position to pull off any actions for a long time, even imagining she wanted to. And if you imagined that anyone in their right mind would consider doing an action with you after all the crap you've spouted on this website you're completely mad.
Go back to your bosses and tell them you really sucked at this faking an anarchist identity bit and like I said before get yourself a dictionary before you go spouting misinformation about the English language too.
Informants are always and everywhere a threat
No, I didn't read the trial transcripts. I don't know what you mean by saying he named the other activists involved before his death. But if Rogers was an informant would that make it okay for Rubin to be one too? I don't think so, but do you?
Providing a quote from a State attorney saying Rubin is cooperating and questioning the full details of her agreement with the State is not spreading disinformation. Attempting to distract from the issue, as you are doing through name-calling and moralizing, is spreading disinformation.
The State and the police say, don't do the crime at all, not don't do it if you can't do the time, which is instead a criminal saying. I don't respect the law. I wouldn't consider myself an anarchist if I did. I don't use the word criminal in a negative sense here. My point is that those who do illegal actions together shouldn't do those actions if the possible sentence is too much for them and will lead them to sell out their fellow activists.
I also oppose State communism. I use the word comrade only in the sense of solidarity between actvists. A solidarity that is broken by turning informant.
You know nothing of me and my background, so your attempts at character assassination only reveal your arguments to be baseless and irrelevant.
Whether or not Rubin is in jail for a long time or does more actions is beyond being besides the point. If she is not an informant, she is not a threat to social movements. If she is, she is a threat wherever she may be and regardless of what actions she does. The goal of the State is to repress movements not just poor little individuals. They need information in order to map and target movements for destruction. The informant kind of information.
We don't yet really know what Rubin's deal is. We have limited evidence. Your attempt to muddy the waters and build up irrational and unquestioning support for her regardless of whether she is an informant or not has already failed. No wonder you've thrown yourself into an emotional tizzy.
LRA enjoys attacking public people from position of anonymity
LRA since you are name-calling, and I and Rebecca are public and identifiable targets, do you have the guts to identify yourself?
Or do you plan to continue your cowardly attacks anonymously?
I know you are but what am I?
I'm rubber and you're glue. Whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you. But these childish antics of yours will never cover up the fact that social movements need to identify and exclude informants. My anonymity does not delegitimize my statements about or position on State informants, or my questioning of the full extent of Rubin's deal with the State.
LRA are you a police person?
LRA are you a police person?
As it happens, I'm not. But
As it happens, I'm not. But what is the point of asking such a question? An actual cop wouldn't need to answer truthfully. And what evidence would lead you to ask such a question? Or is your thinking not based on evidence, logic and reality? It doesn't seem that it is.
If you don't oppose police informants why oppose their handlers?
Police and police informants don't typically encourage critical thinking, or the identification and exclusion of themselves and their fellows from social movements. Their goal is to infiltrate social movements. The opposite of being excluded from them.
On the other hand police and their informants have a well-documented history of using the snitch-jacketing or bad-jacketing tactic of labelling genuine movement members as police or informants, as happened to Anna Mae Aquash of the American Indian Movement, for example.
Your conspiracy theory thinking, snitch-jacketing and attempt to divert attention from the matter of police informants should be opposed by those involved in social movements.
In Canada a police person would have to answer that question
truthfully or any evidence acquired subsequently has a good chance of being thrown out of court. This applies to all provinces except Quebec which operates on canon law. The US has a different legal system than Canada too of course, in case you were not aware.
This website is Canada-hosted so subject ot Canadian law.
Are you sure? I disagree..
There are many moments where undercover RCMP officers will refuse to answer, since they can no longer acquire any evidence, I can think of a few based on my personal experiences. It doesn't mean that undercover police officers can't use misdirection or otherwise try to sabotage or prevent an offence from occuring.
Honestly, if someone is being asked if they were a police officer, the chances of them gathering any future evidence is close to zero.
Do you have any links to cases regarding undercover police officers in Canada having evidence thrown out because they lied while undercover? I would be very interested in seeing the CanLii cases for this.
LRA stop putting words in my mouth it's a cheap trick and clear
to anyone reading all the posts what you're up to. If you choose to make a statement, bloody well own it. Your American-style rants are so transparent.