VeggieBoards banner

1 - 3 of 3 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
414 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
[from Infoshop News]<br><br><br><br>
In March, six activists were convicted on "animal enterprise<br><br>
terrorism" chargesthat's right, terrorismfor campaigning to shut<br><br>
down the notorious animal-testing lab Huntingdon Life Sciences. On<br><br>
June 7, they will be sentenced: two defendants face up to a year in<br><br>
federal prison, and others likely face five to 10 years.<br><br><br><br>
They weren't accused of murder, bombings or taking hostages. They're<br><br>
big crime? Running a website.<br><br><br><br>
They posted news about the international campaign to close HLSlegal<br><br>
actions like protests and illegal actions like stealing animals from<br><br>
labsand unabashedly supported all of it. The government never accused<br><br>
the SHAC 7 of committing any of those acts, but said that posting<br><br>
communiqués and supporting direct action amounted to a campaign of<br><br>
harassment, intimidation and "terrorism."<br><br><br><br>
Even in this post 9/11 climate, running a website probably wouldn't<br><br>
top most people's list of terrorist plots. So how did corporations use<br><br>
the government to turn protectedalbeit controversialFirst Amendment<br><br>
activity into "terrorism"?<br><br><br><br>
ANIMAL ENTERPRISE PROTECTION ACT<br><br><br><br>
The Patriot Act, domestic spying, no-fly lists: the scope of the War<br><br>
on Terrorism's impact on activism, and everyday life, grows wider and<br><br>
wider. But the legislation that led to these charges started long<br><br>
before 9/11, and had been sitting idly until now.<br><br><br><br>
In 1992 Congress passed the Animal Enterprise Protection Act. It<br><br>
received little attention except from groups like the National<br><br>
Association for Biomedical Research that pushed it through.<br><br><br><br>
It created the crime of "animal enterprise terrorism" for anyone who<br><br>
travels in "interstate or foreign commerce" (like crossing state lines<br><br>
or using the mail) and "intentionally damages or causes the loss of<br><br>
any property (including animals or records) used by the animal<br><br>
enterprise, or conspires to do so."<br><br><br><br>
It also spelled out sentencing guidelines:<br><br>
...<br><br>
Even before the SHAC7 conviction, industry groups pushed for<br><br>
expansions of "animal enterprise terrorism" legislation both federally<br><br>
and at the state level. The convictions of Justin Samuel, Peter Young,<br><br>
and now the SHAC defendants, have only whetted their appetites. As<br><br>
David Martosko of the Center for Consumer Freedom, an industry lobby<br><br>
group, said after the conviction: "This is just the starting gun."<br><br>
(Toronto Star, 3/13/06, "U.S. terror hunt targets animal activists,"<br><br>
Walkom).<br><br>
...<br><br>
The Humane Society of the United States, along with the American Civil<br><br>
Liberties Union, have opposed the bill because, as HSUS notes in a<br><br>
letter to members of Congress, "this amendment would sweep up and<br><br>
discourage lawful and constitutionally protected activity intended to<br><br>
cause loss of profits, such as boycotts, whistle blowing, protests,<br><br>
media campaigning, enforcement actions by private humane societies,<br><br>
etc."<br><br><br><br>
--<br><br>
full story:<br><br><a href="http://www.infoshop.org/inews/article.php?story=20060803183428211" target="_blank">http://www.infoshop.org/inews/articl...60803183428211</a>
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
706 Posts
so are they only focused on Huntingdon or all in general? will they consider it terrorism to protest stupid jen lopez when she comes out wearing furs from a movie shoot now too?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,984 Posts
The "law" in this country is a joke.<br><br><br><br><br><br>
In fact, this entire political system is a joke.
 
1 - 3 of 3 Posts
Top