This is an attack on freedom of speech

I consider my politics to be radical (relative to the mainstream) but I am not convinced this is acceptable. Damage to property in my view must be limited to where there is substantial public support (even lazy support) and the action stands a reasonable chance of "winning hearts and minds". Hence direct action involving property damage on corporate militarism (e.g. the current Smash EDO and H&K campaigns) is fine - most members of the public are with the activists on those issues - most people are suspicious of corporate motivation in general anyway. I would also say the same for anti-fascist activities too - being a spokesperson for the BNP is widely regarded as unacceptable, and direct actions that involve property damage stand a good chance of cementing that view.

But the UK (rightly or wrongly - that is a separate issue) offers overwhelming support for (a) meat eating (b) some entertainments involving animals e.g. horse racing, and (c) property ownership. Hence pouring paint-stripper on a car just because they have an "anti-animals" sticker is going to worsen ordinary peoples' views of animal rights activism. It's the same as digging up peoples' dead relatives - it doesn't win you any converts, but meanwhile it turns people off your cause, and winds up granting the police a set of new powers with which to harass all progressive activists.

Incidentally it is worth considering why people will be turned off in this case. The answer is simple: car owners in general won't be bothered by a Countryside Alliance sticker (it's a long way in itself from the owner personally setting hounds upon a terrified fox) but they will sympathise with other car owners when a car is trashed. But my guess is they would be much less sympathetic if this happened to the car of the CEO of a missile manufacturer, or a high-profile fascist - the topic matters.

I would not myself damage a car just because it had a CA sticker in. In fact to be honest I don't like it but then I am ex hunt so personally I would feel uneasy re hypocrisy etc. However as someone who has known both sides very well over the last 25 years I believe that in the scheme of things this is a form of non violent direct action against property and I cannot condemn it. Have we forgotten that 3 people have been murdered over the years 2 by hunters 1 by a shooter? That countless sabs have had arms, legs and heads smashed? That sabs have had dead animals nailed to their front doors? Suffered arson and of course far worse property damage than a smashed car window? Of course not all Countryside Alliance supporters are violent thugs but this tit for tat stuff has been going on since before world war 2 and believe me the hunt are much better at violence than any sab'! For years now many who hunt have taken down all pro hunt stickers a) to avoid being followed to meets etc, b) beause not many people like hunting. Ditto AR campaigners who also find cars damaged and unwanted stalkers when cars are plastered in AR stickers. Where it gets really complex is when of course someone goes undercover at a hunt, uses a CA sticker to bolster credibility and then gets their car damaged by AR people (on the bright side it bolsters credibility a lot more!). Presumably those who criticise this action also have a problem with damaging fur coats etc?