War is Peace: How “Eco-terrorist” Scare-mongering Helped Pass the AETA
Nov 16th, 2006 by Will Potter
Industry groups have said again and again that Congress needed to pass the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act this week because the original legislation, the Animal Enterprise Protection Act, didn’t go far enough. There are loopholes in the law, they say, that allow for “tertiary targeting.” They also have said again and again that the expanded law won’t be used to target First Amendment activity.
Meanwhile, as corporations and the politicians that represent them rushed through this legislation, a group of nonviolent activists prepared to spend the next several years in prison. The remaining defendants in the Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty case– Josh, Jake, Kevin, Lauren and Darius– began their prison sentences today.
I try to avoid using loaded descriptions like “Orwellian,” because using them too often waters down the true meaning. But as these activists headed off to prison this morning, I kept thinking “War is Peace.” Members of Congress and industry groups have pulled off a PR feat that would make Joseph McCarthy proud.
Corporations and the politicians that represent them cry out, “Our hands are tied! The original legislation didn’t go far enough!”
Meanwhile, six activists head to prison, convicted under the original legislation.
Corporations and the politicians that represent them cry out, “There are loopholes in the original bill! We can’t convict activists that engage in ‘tertiary targeting’!”
Meanwhile, six activists head to prison for their part in a campaign that did exactly that, much like the anti-apartheid movement.
Corporations and the politicians that represent them cry out, “This legislation won’t target First Amendment activity!”
Meanwhile, six activists head to prison for running a website.
Corporations and the politicians that represent them cry out, “We need protection from ‘eco-terrorists,’ vandals and violent activists!”.
Meanwhile, six activists head to prison, convicted under the original law but never accused of committing one single act of property destruction.
Corporations and the politicians that represent them cry out, “Those who play by the rules have nothing to fear!”
Meanwhile, countless activists that aren’t heading to prison wonder if they’ll be next.
so where do we go from here?
do we sit complacent and defeated and just suck it up?
I’m contacting Rep.Kucinich and thanking him for his opposition to AETA and telling him there is a vast monumental movement in this country looking for a leader. 2/3 of Americans have animals and the majority of them do care about animal welfare issues and wage a tireless uphill battle fighting the goliaths who exploit/use and abuse defenseless beings who have no voice but that of OUR OWN and that equating Americans who fight on their behalf with Arab Terrorists who blow up buildings killing thousands on our soil is nothing more than “political terrorism” brought home against the American people and we are ready to fight back.
I am asking that he consider running in 2008..he will definitely have my support and those I work with in the animal community and their families.
There’s a forum on his website if anyone else here cares to join me..maybe we can all come together and convince Rep.Kucinich we need to take this country back.
http://www.kucinich.us/
remember what the internet did for Howard Dean’s campaign in 2004.
I appreciate Kucinich’s remarks on behalf of animal activists, but I believe that as one of the handful of representatives on the floor when the AETA was brought up, Kucinich could have stopped the bill at that point by pointing out the absence of a quorum. Perhaps it still would have passed, but at least it would have gotten more attention.
In any event, the AETA is just a law. Any serious movement for social change has to challenge unjust laws.
I read the reviews.
I just don’t see where people think it will affect lawful protest, boycott, or whistleblowing when it comes to animals rights activism.
I have been trying to get people to quote text and then tell me how that wuold affect, say, someone passing information on Care2 or signing a petition etc…
This is the best result I have got:
—–”if the offense does not instill in another the reasonable
—–fear of serious bodily injury or death and–
—–(A) the offense results in no economic damage or bodily injury”
People were taking this isolated quote as meaning that you could still be improsoned for less than a year without having threatened or done a person bodily harm.
But,
If you read the whole section it is clear where their misinterpretation stemmed:
—–”(b) PENALTIES.–The punishment for a violation of section (a)
—–or an attempt or conspiracy to violate subsection (a) shall be:
—–(1) a fine under this title or imprisonment not more than 1 ——–year,
—–or both, if the offense does not instill in another the ————reasonable
—–fear of serious bodily injury or death and–
—–(A) the offense results in no economic damage or bodily ————injury; or
—–(B ) the offense results in economic damage that does not ———-exceed $10,000;
It clearly states that this is the penalty section for violation of section and subsection (a). And they meant that if you violate subsection (a) you could not be imprisoned for more than a year UNLESS you threatened or performed bodily harm.
This is what I was trying to get people to do themselves. I also witnessed people quoting older versions of the bill when they were trying to make their case.
S.3880 was passed not H.R.4239.
But I am still interested in seeing the sections that are going to impede lawful protest, boycott, whistleblowing etc…
Nice. I absolutely agree with you.
Keep up the nice work. I’ll be back for more!