If there was any doubt that the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act is vague and overly broad, just turn to the corporations and industry groups that have supported it. It seems many bought into the “eco-terrorism” rhetoric without any idea what the legislation actually means. For instance, take a look at this recent article by Michael Albert, who writes regularly about the horse industry and sells horses at this website Horse Chit Chat.
It begins:
For the Minnesota owners who found their therapeutic riding horse Poco shot to death in the pasture, some solace might be found with the recent passage of the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act.
HUH?
He goes on to extol the “improvements” in AETA, then explains in the final paragraph:
The black and white Pinto Poco was a therapeutic riding horse and belonged to a family with two autistic sons. The family was planning to open a therapeutic riding summer camp for children with autism. The horse was found shot three times in the leg, and investigators do not believe the shooting to be an accident.
Corporations pushed AETA to crackdown on animal rights activists threatening their profits. What that has to do with the shooting of a horse, I’m not clear– but I doubt that was the work of animal rights activists. Although others have committed crimes and tried to use the Green Scare to frame activists.
Michael Albert isn’t the only one who seems confused. The owner of Schumacher Furs in Portland has called for use of AETA to arrest nonviolent protestors (something that politicians adamantly maintain is not the purpose of the bill).
If not even the supporters of the legislation know what it’s meant, or not meant, to do, the law is vague and overly broad, and will have to be struck down.