I mean, leaving ‘cocktails’ on doorsteps? What does that even mean? I wouldn’t be so eager, as is the author of this article, to attribute the word ‘cocktail’ to an incendiary device; its no less likely that jars of faecal matter, for example, were left outside these people’s homes. You just can’t tell with the ambiguous wording of the communiqué.

I think this action, like so many others, cheapens the movement and alienates most people from the issue of animal rights. These activists actually admit that they went so far as to “vandalise near-by cars.” This means that they probably damaged the vehicles of neighbours and strangers which were parked in the vicinity. How is this going to progress our cause in any way?

The only way things are going to change is if we influence the hearts and minds of ordinary people, our families and friends, i.e. the people who are solely responsible for the existence of battery farms and slaughterhouses. A conspiring gang of CEO sadists doesn’t deliberately torture animals for its own satisfaction. Our loved ones demand that labs and fur farms operate; they pay the electricity bills of the slaughterhouse and the wages of the chicken farmer, don’t they? So why don’t we intimidate our mothers or leave ‘cocktails’ outside our grandparents’ home?

This type of liberationist activity simply scares away the very people who need to be drawn in. People see it as a deranged, senseless attack. It just doesn’t make any sense to do this; to alienate people from Animal Rights. These antics deprive us of support and the means by which real change can be affected. Less emphasis should be put on the supply of animal exploitation and more on the demand.