Scott Brenton

Since at least the 1970s, one of the stock standard tools in the animal protection movement’s arsenal has been illegal entry into factory farms and animal research facilities. This activity has been followed by the publication of images and footage captured inside those otherwise socially invisible places. This activity presents a conundrum: trespass is illegal and it is an apparent violation of private property rights. In this paper we argue that trespass onto private property can be justified as an act of civil disobedience. We look at one particular type of justification: the use of information gathered through trespass in public policy formation. We then animate this analysis both with an historical overview of the effects of sharing information about animal agriculture, and with a specific case study of trespass undertaken recently

Certification schemes and labels such as the Forest Stewardship Council, Fairtrade, and Rainforest Alliance are market-based mechanisms designed to harness consumer power in economically developed countries to influence companies to improve the economic, social and environmental welfare of producers, workers and communities in economically developing countries. However, consumers are largely not convinced that certification schemes are acting in the interests of developing countries, because consumers have different understandings of the ethics of global trade. Drawing on the results of six semi-structured focus groups comprising 58 consumers and an online panel-based survey of 1014 respondents, this study tests the central assumption underlying these schemes that consumers are motivated to hold companies responsible for unethical behaviour. Most consumers hold sceptical, and at times, conflicting views in terms of how they perceive the root causes of the problems, possible solutions and ethical trade beneficiaries. This study contributes to the nascent literature on political consumerism, by highlighting an under-theorised and contradictory challenge for certification schemes. Political consumers are required to recognise the complexities of ethical trade while believing that the simple act of purchasing their labelled products is effective. Consumers also envisage a role for government regulation.

Traditionally, acts of civil disobedience are understood as a mechanism by which citizens may express dissatisfaction with a law of their country. That expression will typically be morally motivated, non-violent and aimed at changing their government’s policy, practice or law. Building on existing work, in this paper we explore the limits of one well-received definition of civil disobedience by considering the challenging case of the actions of animal activists at sea. Drawing on original interviews with advocates associated with Sea Shepherd, Greenpeace and Humane Society International we find that even if animal activists are morally motivated and civil, the transnational nature of their activity makes it difficult to assess their intention to bring about a change in law or public policy. This means that a civil disobedience defence may not be available to activists operating across international borders. This raises important questions about the usefulness of the civil disobedience concept within the context of a globalised world. We conclude that while the actions of some anti-whaling activists may not meet definitions of civil disobedience as conventionally understood, this says more about the narrow way in which that concept has been traditionally defined, than it does about the type of activity some anti-whaling activists have undertaken in the Southern Ocean. Finally, we argue that activists wishing to make a stand against whaling may have no choice but to act as global citizens because policy change within a single nation-state is unlikely to lead to the cessation of this inherently transnational activity.