Henderson 1

Jamee Henderson
Mrs. Debock
English 4 Honors
Essential Question: Are animal rights activists terrorists?
Working Thesis: Animal rights activists are true to their cause, generally mislabeled, and
justified in their actions.
Refined Thesis: Animal rights activists are generally mislabeled by the government, yet justified
in their actions and loyal to their beliefs.
Annotated Bibliography
Best, Steven, and Richard Kahn. "Animal Rights Activists Are Not Terrorists." Animal

Experimentation. Ed. Ronnie D. Lankford, Jr. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2009. At Issue.
Rpt. from "Trial By Fire: The SHAC 7 and the Future of Democracy." No Compromise
25 (Fall 2004): 9. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 4 Oct. 2016.
The author of the article introduces SHAC activists, the Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty
group, and shows the struggles they have endured to help animals. The group believes that their
civil liberties are under attack. Multiple pieces of legislation were passed in order to delay animal
activists from their cause. Although most aspects of the government oppose radical animal
activism, some rebel and believe in the cause. Most state-level governments agree that animal
rights activism is not considered terrorism while larger national-level governments believe that it
is terrorism. The author believes that, in the eyes of the government, corporate interests are
superior to the interests of the people. Corporates that oppose animal activism respond to protests
with threats, surveillance, and harassment. Because the federal government generally opposes

Henderson 2

animal rights activists, they support and even defend the actions of big corporations. The federal
government and corporations refer to animal activism as terrorism only because they benefit
from animal experimentation. After the SHAC arrests, the government proposed the idea that
they were only removing uncivilized people from a civilized society. During a legislative
meeting, high-level vivisectors and animal industry heads were allowed to speak about how
animal activism is terrorism; animal activists were not permitted to attend the meeting. The only
reason the government considers animal activists to be terrorists is because the system is rigged
against them. Animal activists are not terrorists. The source is relevant to the research because it
presents an explanation as to why animal activist are considered terrorists and provides examples
of how that statement is untrue.

Cartmill, Jane. "Animal Rights Activists Are Not Terrorists." Animal Experimentation. Ed.
Helen Cothran. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2002. Opposing Viewpoints. Rpt. from
"Animals

Are Victims of Violence." San Diego North County Times 29 June 1997.
Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 4 Oct. 2016.
Cartmills article clearly disputes the societal belief that the animal rights movement is
violent. The author clarifies the real origin of violence and brutality; it comes from the circuses,
research labs, slaughterhouses, hunting trips, and factory farms that abuse and disfigure their
animals. The events that occur in those places are horrific; the heinous acts committed
precedented one of the main causes of animal rights activism. The source regards the terrorism
connotation surrounding animal rights activists as simply untrue; this is because the only people
that ever got hurt during an animal liberation protest were animal rights activists. The crowd that

Henderson 3

should be feared by the community is the one that inflicts pain on animals, not the one that tries
endlessly to protect them. The members of society who commit these heinous acts are the real
terrorists, not the animal rights activists. They are causing mental and physical harm to innocent
animals, usually for monetary benefit; financial benefit is one of the only reasons that the
government and corporations are against animal rights activism. This source is relevant to the
research because it goes into detail about the heinous acts imposed on the animals and the
motivations behind the people who oppose animal activism.

Fullmer, Darius. "Radical Animal Rights Activism Is Justified." Extremist Groups. Ed. Tamara
L. Roleff. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2001. Opposing Viewpoints. Opposing
Viewpoints in Context. Web. 4 Oct. 2016.
The article is written from the point of view of the author after being arrested and labeled
a terrorist for being a radical animal activist. Fullmer contains some radical beliefs, but would
never harm anyone in the fight to protect animals; the beliefs include destroying property when it
is used to harm animals and that some illegal action needs to be taken when animals are in severe
danger of being disfigured or murdered. These beliefs are shared by animal activists everywhere.
Animal activists have never and would never harm people, they only send messages to
businesses and corporations who condone violence against animals. The government feels
threatened by the strong beliefs and actions of animal activists so they refer to the activists as
terrorists. Although some animal activists are against direct action, the majority, including
Fullmer, understand that animals are suffering and enslaved at all times. Legal action takes a
long time to impose and by then a significant amount of animals will have already endured

Henderson 4

torture and death; illegal actions, although risky, could have prevented horrendous acts. This
source is relevant to the research because it not only shows the motive behind radical animal
activism, but provides his story after carrying out that type of activism.

Isacat, Ben. "Extremist Animal Rights Activists Are Not Terrorists." How to Do Animal
Rightsand Win the War on Animals. 2008. Rpt. in Extremism. Ed. Laurie Willis.
Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2011. Opposing Viewpoints. Opposing Viewpoints in
Context. Web. 4 Oct. 2016.
The article begins by giving a definition of terrorism; terrorism is the use of violence and
intimidation for the pursuit of political aims. The argument presented is that the goal of animal
activism is not for any political reason, it is simply for the well being of animals. Animal rights
activists want to prevent the torture and murder of innocent animals, they do not take action to
make a political point. The government has mislabeled animal activists as terrorists, yet the
public generally supports animal activism. Isacat believes that when the government calls animal
activists terrorists, it is purely for political purposes. The media typically relies on the word of
the government rather than the people, so the media regularly associates extreme animal activism
with popular terrorist groups like Al qaeda. Like most radical animal activists, the author
believes that direct action leads to big results. The article refers back to the past and indicates
that most reforms did not happen without some kind of illegal action. Extreme animal rights
activists are needed to make some kind of a reform in todays society. This source is relevant
because is provides an explanation on how the terrorism label came about and an explanation for
illegal action. Kearney

Henderson 5

Kearney, Lauren. "Animal Rights Activist." Teen Ink 26.9 (2015): 25. Points of View Reference
Center. Web. 20 Oct. 2016.
This source is a periodical dedicated to the life of a radical animal activist, Rachel
Atcheson. She chose to be an animal activist because animals are probably the most
underrepresented group of all. Atcheson did not believe that she could make a real difference;
this changed when she turned to radical animal activism. She started in a local animal protection
group in her community, then became involved in much larger groups. Atcheson believes in
doing whatever it takes to ensure animals are not suffering. She holds on to the belief that in
order to see a change in the world, some difficult and possibly illegal actions must be taken; this
belief is commonly shared through the society of animal activists. Animal rights activists hold
strong to their cause and do not wish to hurt anyone. This source is relevant to the research
because it gives insight to the life of a radical animal activist; it allows the reader to see the issue
from a different point of view.

Molland, Noel. "Radical Animal Activism Is Justified." Extremist Groups. Ed. Karen F. Balkin.
San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2005. Opposing Viewpoints. Opposing Viewpoints in
Context. Web. 4 Oct. 2016.
The article highlights two of the most abhorrent acts one can commit, hunting and the
seal cull. Hunting is portrayed as an innocent and fun sport for humans, but the animals
experience extreme psychological terror and physical pain. Typically, the animals are not killed
with the first shot; out of fear for their lives, the animals begin to run, bleeding and injured. The
seal cull includes fishermen going out on a boat and mass slaughtering seals; it is a savage and

Henderson 6

bloody attack. The fishermen predominantly go out on boats while hunting occurs in the woods
or forests; the article tells of animal activists putting an end to these barbarous activities. The
activists would sabotage hunting rifles and vehicles and then burn the boats used for the seal cull.
The activists essentially earned a tremendous victory with these actions; the seal cull could not
go on and the hunting was reduced. The activists felt accomplished and rejoiced after performing
illegal, but direct action; innocent animals were saved and the torture for them was over. Not
only were the radical animal activists achieving results, but they began campaigning to inform
the public. The motive for animal activism is simple, but bold; it is to save innocent animals that
do not have a voice and can not consent. Terrorism is a hateful and malicious ideology, but
animal activism is heroic courageous. The acts committed by animal activists are illegal, but it
proves how true they are to the cause. This article is relevant to the research because it presents
the actions of animal activists as just and helps provide additional information on the motive
behind them.