Struggling Fur Salon Owner Says “Eco-terrorism” Legislation Should Be Used Against Protests
Dec 2nd, 2006 by Will Potter
A 111-year-old Portland fur store closed last week after ongoing protests by local activists, and the owner of the store says he has been “terrorized.” Greg Schumacher of Schumacher Furs & Outerwear says the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act should be used to silence the protestors. The New McCarthyists are rushing to his defense, trying to spin the successful, legal campaign as “eco-terrorism” because it has hurt corporate profits.
Patti Strand, national director of the National Animal Interest Alliance, an industry group, told The Oregonian:
“There’s no question the lines of free speech are being probed by the kind of protest activity that has been going on in front of Schumacher’s,” she said.
Really? That’s not what city officials say. Spencer Heinz and Seth Prince at The Oregonian reported:
City Commissioner Randy Leonard, who said he’d offered to help Schumacher and his wife, Linda, after the protests started last November, recalled how quickly he came to regret the move.
“I honestly had never been involved in anything in which I felt like the folks I was trying to help did not want to be helped,” Leonard said.
“The Schumachers carry at minimum — at minimum — equal responsibility for what happened outside their store,” Leonard said. “I think the case could be made they did what they could to fan the flames at every opportunity.”
Schumacher has put signs in his window, like the one posted here from KGW.com advocating violence against nonviolent activists. And activist Matt Rossell said the Schumacher security guard has threatened to “break your arms and legs.”
Meanwhile, Portland police have spent about $25,000 to appease Schumacher and have a presence at the demonstrations. The protests usually involve a dozen people on Saturday afternoons, and there have been 13 arrests since last December (none for violence).
Police say Schumacher has rejected their advice and prompted more protests. The Mayor, Tom Potter (no relation) offered to mediate but Schumacher replied, “I don’t think it is reasonable to ask me to mediate with a terroristic organization.”
That scare-mongering and green baiting has worked its way into public discourse as well. Local letters to the editor have proclaimed “animal terrorists win,” and implied activists will go after anyone with a leather couch.
There has been a flood of statements from corporations and the politicians that represent them about how the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act won’t be used to silence First Amendment activity. (Never mind the fact that the original law was used to do exactly that, and convict the SHAC 7 on “terrorism” charges for running a website.
Yet here we have a business owner targeted by legal protests who expects the law to protect his profits. And industry groups have come to his defense, also expecting the law to protect his profits. Activists, though, don’t know what to expect from this vague and overly broad legislation—and that’s the danger. As a local news station said about the bill, “It’s language is not crystal clear.” It remains to be seen how the law will be used to overtly silence dissent. In the meantime, activists are preparing for the next campaign.
The sign in the store says it all…wishing what
is done to fur animals be done to humans that protest
the pain and suffering he sells in his store.
what more evidence is needed?
This kind of thing makes me sick to my stomach. Freedom of speech is as American as apple pie. To call it terrorism is blatantly unAmerican.
Thought you might be interested in this article that recounts some of the origins of the eco-anarchist movement, at least on the West Coast (via Infoshop).
“Flames of Dissent Part III: Eco-Anarchy Imploding”
http://www.eugeneweekly.com/2006/11/22/coverstory.html
There have not been 13 arrests that I am aware of, I think the number is a bit smaller - I think that was a number the police just threw off without checking it - and of the total arrests, at least one that I know of falls in the Schumacher supporter camp. The other few that I know of are very questionable, and are from some time ago, when the police were extremely heavy-handed with young protesters and seemed to want to find any excuse to clear them out. Regardless, they were not major infractions (one involved spitting on the sidewalk), and some were dismissed. Now, the police take a more even-handed approach to protests, after realizing that Gregg Schumacher provokes, lies, and “cries wolf” to get police out and stir things up. Regardless, in order to protect themselves - from Gregg Schumacher’s threatened lawsuit against the city for not “protecting” him from protests - the police are there at every protest for many months now - and there have been no arrests, no problems, all legal.
The store hasn’t closed - they announced a move that will happen at the end of the season. They want to move out of the city as they feel the police and city government here is not “protecting” them (what they seem to want to be protected from is the First Amendment).
Gregg Schumacher lies repeatedly to the press, and blows things up beyond reason. So much so that city commissioner Randy Leonard was on a radio talk show a few days ago and said himself that the Schumachers are “liars.” Schumacher even accuses the police of being in the pocket of the protesters! He claims that protesters are breaking the law even while the police are there - but feels so victimized that he claims the police won’t enforce the law. Now, have you ever known police officers to reject enforcement of the law in favor or protesters?
It would all be quite ridiculous except for the fact that the language of terrorism is being thrown around as though it means something, and a certain number of people buy into it.
HAHAHAHAHA!!!
VICTORY - that SOB can cry about beating protestors all day… If his freedom of speech to say crap like that is protected then so should the freedom of speech of the protestors…
In actuality the store receives one protest per week, beginning at 1 pm. Customers are free to buy fur while protesters are there, and if they want to avoid protests they can come in any day of the week, any time. If the business cannot withstand that, its problems go further than protests.
This speaks to the fact that Schumacher has a failed business plan for which he is trying to blame the protests. If he were making money there - i.e. if his customer base were supporting him by buying fur, he would certainly not be moving.
Fur is a dying industry, in a progressive city like Portland (in which fur is also not particularly practical). Especially when people come to know the truth about how fur is produced (which is the speech that Schumacher would like to quell). There were 25 furriers in Portland in 1940. Today there are two (soon to be one).
[...] were deemed worthy of an extra level of protection via AETA. You can read the whole post here. ———- Forwarded message ———- From: In [...]
This makes me sick! You guys all complain about your rights being violated, what about this store owner’s rights? In this country doesn’t one have the right to make a living doing something that is LEGAL ? He should have the right to do business without protester’s on his doorstep night and day! This is why the ATEA is in place.
The comment above serves as exhibit A as to why the terrorist rhetoric of AETA is so problematic. Certainly the store owner in this case has the right to do what is legal. As do the activists who were exercising their Constitutional rights (darn that Constitution, eh?)
We must also keep in mind that that which is legal must not be confused as the standard by which we judge that which is ethical. They are two different things. The passage of AETA into law demonstrates that the legislative process can fail to turn out laws that are ethically reflective. Thus AETA will soon be legal but not ethical because it includes major loopholes which certain people may exploit for the purpose of willfully misconstruing First Amendment activities as terrorism in service of their personal or business agendas.
Where do you have a Constitutional right to commit arson and other crimes such as assalting people who wear fur? The AETA does not take away your first ammendment rights, it puts higher penelties on those who would commit such crimes….sorry “direct actions” to you guys.
Uh, Joe, where did you hear that people committed arson against this fur store? And assault? I assure you there has been no arson (although someone visiting the fur store threw a lit cigarette at a protester), and the only person charged with assault is one of the patrons of the store! Get your facts straight.
When you say “you guys” to whom, specifically, are you referring? Or, are you placing all animal activists in one category–criminal? And when you say that AETA places higher penalites on, as you write, “those would commit such crimes” are you suggesting that animal activists who do these things should be singled out among others who commit the same or similar crimes? If so, you’re advocating that a certain group of people be punished not only for their actions but for their political beliefs.
And, by the way, the language of AETA is so broad as to threaten the Consitutional rights of animal activists. Brush off your critical thinking skills and read it again.
No, not all activist are criminals.However those that choose to cross the line and commit crimes against ligitiment business such as fur stores and fur farms do indeed deserve higher penalites. It is no differnt than any other hate crime…if one person burns down as house because they want to burn a house, its arson. The same person burns a house becase of the race of people that own it, its a hate crime with higher penalites. The AETA is just another version of hate crime laws.
As to Elie I was refering to fur stores in general not just this one.
This is a rationalization that has nothing to do with AETA. It’s not worthy of comment.
You don’t like the fact that it is true!
Read this.
http://www.greenisthenewred.com/blog/2006/11/02/prosecuting-intent-turning-vandalism-into-eco-terrorism/
ter·ror·ism (těr’ə-rĭz’əm)
n. The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
Please read the above definition of terrorism and tell me how any of those arson’s tried to meet this goal.
Ah, the FBI definition of terrorism. You forgot to include the line that immediately precede’s it:
“There is no single, universally accepted definition of terrorism.” Like hate legislation, it’s the subject of much debate. In any case:
Also, note the word “unlawful.”
Those in power pass the laws. Those who pushed AETA through congress legitimated their own forms of coercion and violence against society for ideological and political reasons.
Lastly, we can go around in circles on this forever. AETA targets not just violent offenders, but those who are non-violent and are exercising First Amendment rights.
Your a fool, Joe.
Nice chatting with you.
“It’s hard to make someone understand something if his salary depends on him not understanding it.”
–Upton Sinclair (from an “Inconvenient Truth”)
Ahh…name calling and goodbye the last resort of a sore loser! I don’t know if the FBI uses that definition of terrorism I got it from the American Dictionary.
Yes I did not the use of “unlawful” and my question to you is where can you show me the LEGAL use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments?
I also understand terrorism by animal rights groups having been the victim of it. I am a state Wildlife Biologist, myself and colleagues do more to help wildlife in a month than ALL animal rights groups have ever done.
Sorry the above was messed up….I meant to say that I DID notice the use of the word unlawful. The cat jumped on the keyboard looking far attention as I wrote that. Remember cats can’t read and they don’t want us too either.
sometimes you gotta break the law to preserve justice. and joe. as a wildlife officer. your a hall monitor on path of extinction. and maybe your conscience is buried too deep under your indoctrination. but for others…we have hope that the corporate dick will be removed from our collective asses. and we will survive.
So its really funny to me that they say they are “scared to go to work at the fur store” but they walk out and protest the protesters standing side by side!
ha ha these clueless freak shows will lie and try to sound like victims yet they glorify torture and murder and ask people to shop with them! Who do they think they are!
I say the “awareness” should follow them no matter where they go!!!!
It’s not about BUSINESS its about life an this is a prime example of the HORROR and GREED that money creates…people no longer care for life…just the heartless fools who make $ of murder…I think we ALL know who the REAL TERRORISTS are!!
Stop Animal Cruelty!!!
KEEP IT UP!!!
I went to Bite Back web page and fond this entry on the long list of crimes (direct actions) they keep.
received anonymously:
“Friday Aug 25 : Schumacher furs lock glued and spray painted ‘If your conscience doesn’t keep you up at night - we will.’
This and the list at Bite Back is why we have and need the AETA!
The real terrorism is that which is committed against fur-bearing animals every day: intensely confining them, denying them their most basic needs, brutally killing them, trapping them with medieval steel-jaw leghold traps, drowning them, electrocuting them, breaking their necks, bludgeoning them, suffocating them, skinning them alive. For the purveyors and profiteers of this cruelty to claim that they are the victims of “terrorism” is obscene.
The millions of animal victims of terrorism-for-profit have no rights, no voice. They are utterly dependent on the consciences, goodwill, and mercy of humans. How can anyone support such a bloody, violent enterprise as the fur trade? How could one’s sympathies not lie with the animals who are incarcerated, tortured, and slaughtered en masse, who are treated like mere things? How can anyone not side with the desperate and terrified coyote who chews off her own leg in a last-gasp effort to escape death - and perhaps feed her young? Why would anyone side with her tormentor? Who could not be up in arms about the millions of “non target” animals - including cats and dogs - who are crippled and killed by the fur trade’s traps?
That animal defenders and animal rights activists have been, overall, as calm as they have been shows incredible restraint; it is a testament to their resolve to bring justice to animals though peaceful means, it is an indication of their acknowledgment that animal liberation and animal rights requires a long-term overhaul of societal conditioning and prejudices.
AETA gives yet more protections to institutionalized violence against animals. What the fur stores are most afraid of is the truth. The fur trade desperately does not want people to know, or think about, how their ill-gotten products are made. They rely on deception - such as the loophole that allows items costing less than $150 to not reveal whether they are made of animal fur - and public ignorance. A fur coat owner a few months ago told me that the fur was carefully clipped off the animal (who no doubt lived freely in an idyllic field in the country); she had no idea the animals slaughtered to make her coat lived miserable, impoverished lives and were killed by having high-voltage probes shoved into their rectums and mouths. She would never find that out from the fur industry; she would likely only learn the awful truth - directly or indirectly - from animal rights activists who conduct undercover investigations and other research, and document the misery and cruelty. The fur industry fears the truth getting out because it is more powerful than all their advertising campaigns; it incriminates them; it has the power to abolish their industry.
The fur industry promotes fur as “glamorous” and “luxurious.” They promote indulgence and greed and completely ignore the immense and completely unnecessary suffering they cause. That is wrong. Fur is murder, fur is terrorism, fur is theft. Fur is violence for profit. “Love of money is the root of all evil.” The fur industry actually is right that fur is glamorous and luxurious - on the animals who were born in it. Animals depend on that fur; it’s their only clothing. It keeps them warm; they keep it immaculate. God gives the animals fur coats; the fur trade steals them.
joe, too bad but i think the rationalization is gone from this group… too extreme to understand that petty vandalism devalues your cause and doesnt help it advance…
On the contrary, reason is on the side of civil libertarians who object to the imprisoning of people for their beliefs. Under the AETA, “terrorism enhancements” of 25 years or more are added to the sentence for what is already illegal, such as stealing animals out of laboratories, and this differential penalizes people for their beliefs.
Reason is not on the side of the supporters of the AETA. In fact, by punishing people for their politics–that is, for their opinions–they are committing a logical fallacy of “argumentum ad baculam” (argument from a stick). People have a right to believe anything they want. The use of coercion to force people to change their beliefs is unconstitutional.
The Bush administration applies the word “terrorism” to people who are not terrorists at all, such as the ALF, and does not apply it to people like the contras, praised by Reagan as “freedom fighters” although they were, in fact, terrorists by any definition.
Bush has protected known terrorists like Luis Posada Carriles and Orlando Bosch. They were responsible for the sabotage of a Cuban airliner blown up over Barbados in 1976, killing 73 passengers and crew members.
If right-wing extremists who really are terrorists are not punished, but protected, while people who are not terrorists at all, such as the ALF, are punished, then the U.S. government is discriminating unjustly and illegally against people for their political views. A more blatant violation of the Constitution can scarcely be conceived.
Justice means fairness and impartiality. If the U.S. had a clear definition of the word “terrorist” and applied it impartially to rightists and leftists, not considering people’s politics, that would at least treat people equally. But the U.S. is targeting leftists and environmentalists, who are not terrorists, and letting rightists, many of whom are terrorists, go unpunished.
The statement that petty vandalism always hurts one’s cause is a very broad generalization, which is sometimes true and sometimes false, depending on the circumstances. The suffragettes in America and Britain committed lots of petty vandalism for the cause of votes for women, and it worked: eventually there were votes for women. The Boston Tea Party involved property destruction (pouring tea into Boston Harbor to protest the Stamp Act by Americans dressed as Indians), but it did not hurt the cause of American independence. We are taught in school to revere the people who did that as patriots. But the so-called Patriot Act would have imprisoned these patriots.
If the suffragettes and the patriots of the Boston Tea Party are admirable, why are the ALF reprehensible? Let the supporters of the AETA explain that, if they can.
I’m enjoying the threads on this page. lots of entertaining discourse.
my favorite quote so far: “A fur coat owner a few months ago told me that the fur was carefully clipped off the animal (who no doubt lived freely in an idyllic field in the country); she had no idea the animals slaughtered to make her coat lived miserable, impoverished lives and were killed by having high-voltage probes shoved into their rectums and mouths.”
That just makes me feel so much better about holding signs out in front of TJMaxx or wherever.
Joe, thanks for being that guy.
It’s important to be well versed with the multitude of skewed defending arguments for the AETA.
Vandalism and destruction of property has accompanied every change of power or transition between social paradigms. This is exactly what is happened. Such acts constitute a minority and must not be used to discount the entire movement. This law is doing exactly that.
“Protest beyond the law is not a departure from democracy, it is completely essential to it.” - Howard Zinn
This is a follow up to Elie’s comments about the Schumachers being liar. We of course have our regular Saturday protests (that began 11/12/05) but a couple Sundays ago I noticed they were open for business (they had always been closed on Sundays but they have been running their ‘evacuation’ sale that was this week renamed to a ‘the fur is flying’ sale) and we organized a protest for last Sunday. Gregg Schumacher called the police to complain about the use of a sound amplification device. None had been used during the 3 hour protest. A police officer drove up to the protest, asked me about it, I told her the truth that we had not used a sound amplification device and she smiled, said have a nice day and drove off. The police (who are present for all Saturday protests, the Sunday protest was a surprise but we expect to do it again this Sunday) know the Schumachers are liars. The Schumachers have called in false accusations many times. I concur that the few arrests that have occurred (late winter months) were for minor things. The arrest for spitting was ridiculous as were the others. Numerous threats have come from the Schumacher sympathizers. Our conduct is peaceful. We have had a very good relationship with the police since early March. It is respectful and we have good communication. The Schumachers and their security have done much to antagonize and provoke. The police and the city council know the truth about what takes place at our protests. We conduct legal protests, there is no vandalism, there are no threats, there is no “terrorism”. The Schumachers just hate that we are providing the truth about the fur industry (with big video). We are not preventing them from doing business but they want to take away our free speech rights. Shoppers are free to make their own choices. Unfortunately for the Schumachers all but a small number have chosen to shop elsewhere. We don’t prevent anyone from entering the store. Reduced profits are reflection of compassionate shopping choices by the public. Yea for them! Our purpose is to educate and we have been successful. No business has a right to guaranteed profits. So on 11/27 (the first Monday after Fur Free Friday weekend where we had Friday and Saturday protests) Gregg Schumacher announced his plans to leave downtown Portland and Multnomah County entirely. It’s his and his wife Linda’s choice. As of 12/31 they had not secured a new location for their business (the word of a Schumacher employee). It won’t break my heart if they are rejected by all potential landlords. It has been reported that their move date will be sometime in March. Our protests will continue until the Schumachers have closed their doors in downtown Portland for the last time. It is “fur season” after all and we must be the voices of and for the animals.
It is abosolutly unessesariy to where fur. it called faux fur. killing animals is wrong what if they did it to you?
Very nice site! Good work.
You people make me sick. The family has a store and they’re trying to make an honest living. Ok, you don’t agree with what they sell, but how dare you behave in that manner. You’re an embarrassment to Portland. Feces, urine, blood, naked protestors, is that the type of mentality it takes to protest? Good god, I’m sad to be an american if freedom of speech allows creatures like you to act as you do.
Kay:
It seems like the city, and the courts, feel that the animal advocates are well within their First Amendment rights to protest, and not be considered “terrorists” for doing so. Will
I wouldn’t wear fur myself, but what’s the difference between wearing a fur coat and wearing a leather belt? Is it because the fur comes from cute, cuddly animals? I mean, it’s not like the cows are treated any better, are they? Where’s the outrage and protests about that? I’d love to see you march up to Yellowknife to protest the inuits using fur pelts to shield them from the bitter cold. Oh, I see.. it’s ok because they’re not using the fur for vanity. Gotcha.
This Schumacher fellow has some videos up on his website, have you seen them? It doesn’t exactly look like peaceful protesting to me. Hooded extremists, faces covered, following people outside the shop, screaming at them, encroaching them, sounds like harrassment to me.
[...] about the “eco-terrorists” protesting outside your business. Those crazy vegetarians will turn your children into raving HOMOS! It’s not clear yet which is a [...]
goes to show what psychopaths run fur shops.
If they could get away with it, and make a buck, i am 100% they would have lots of human skin for sale.