Senate Passes Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act
Good for the United States Senate (which, unfortunately, is not something one can say very often). It has passed the Animal Enterprises Terrorism Act, 100-0. (To view the entire bill, type S. 3880 in the appropriate box and hit the search function.)
If it becomes law, which seems likely, it provides: "Whoever travels in interstate or foreign commerce, or uses or causes to be used the mail...(1) for the purpose of damaging or interfering with the operations of an animal enterprise; and (2) in connection with such purpose, (A) intentionally damages, or causes the loss of any property (including animals or records) used by an animal enterprise, or any property of a person or entity having a connection to, relationship with, or transactions with an animal enterprise; (B) intentionally places a person in reasonable fear of the death of, or serious bodily injury to that person, a member of the immediate family (as defined in section 115) of that person, or a spouse or intimate partner of that person by a course of conduct involving threats, acts of vandalism, property damage, criminal trespass, harassment, or intimidation; or C) conspires or attempts to do so; shall be punished as provided for in subsection (b)."
This is a good law, although I would prefer that it provide a bit more explicit protection against "tertiary targeting" in which these soon-to-be banned tactics are applied against an animal enterprise's insurance company, bank, or other provider of goods or services.
As you would expect, the liberationists who get a kick out of terrorizing law abiding citizens merely because they work for or do business with animal industries are whining that their constitutional rights are being infringed. One such concern was posted on this blog site, worrying that "People who participate in national boycotts against any animal enterprise are now subject to being charged with terrorism." Pure cow manure, of course. The bill explicitly states that "the term `economic damage'...(B) does not include any lawful economic disruption (including a lawful boycott) that results from lawful public, governmental, or business reaction to the disclosure of information about an animal enterprise."
Here is the bottom line: These faceless radicals can dish it out. They can laugh at terrorizing children and families. But when the law finally responds, they can't take it.
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 10:04 PM
8 Comments
8 Comments:
Have there been many instances of "tertiary targetting"? That does sound like dissolution of sound boundaries and unleashing of chaotic and destructive violence on society under a thin veneer of justice. (It sounds like the kind of "justice" in the Bacchae).
Yes. For example, it led to the NY Stock Exchange refusing to list Life Sciences due to threats and the publications of executives' personal information. See my article "Wall Street Goes Wobbly." Seven members of SHAC have been convicted of tertiary targeting in PA. The problem is bad and getting worse.
I just finished your article. You are a most congenial educator. I am learning a lot from your writings. It does sound alarming and and dangerous. People are capable of vicious insanity over sweet simple creations.
Thanks. I need to do some research about the anarchist movement of the early 20th Century, which was about tearing down, and not building up. The misanthropes of radical animal liberation who engage in violence and threats remind me of those earlier misanthropes. Indeed, they often hang out with the anarchists of our own day.
Recently I watched an old film of Noam Chomsky, the anarchist, in which he recounted that his biggest influence as a child was his uncle who was a convicted criminal. I don't think that is an indicater in itself of a person's character, of course, but combined with his public life it seems to suggest to me that his brilliant mind was set on the course of massive rationalization very early because of defficient identification morally with, in truth, reprehensible actions of admired influences.
I thought Chomsky was a socialist. But I have never read him.
Wikipedia says the following of him: " Chomsky describes himself as a libertarian socialist and a sympathizer of anarcho-syndicalism (he is a member of the IWW). " so I guess socialist is closer to the mark but also an acknowledgement of his anarchist leanings seems in order in summarizing his beliefs.
The problem with the AETA is not that it pealizes illegal activity.
The first problem with the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act is that it imposes heavier penalties on activities that are already illegal simply because they are associated with animal rights activism.
The second problem with the act is that it defines terrorism as economic damage, when in fact the true definition of terrorism must include violence.
Animal rights activists are not violent terrorists. The animal rights movement hasn't claimed one single human life. We aren't violent and we aren't terrorists!
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home