GreenIsTheNewRed.com» Legislation

Washington “Eco-terrorist” Bill Includes Civil Disobedience and First Amendment Activity

Will Potter — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 12:00:56 +0000

Fifty years ago this month, four black students sat at a Woolworth’s whites-only lunch counter and refused to move. The following day 25 students did the same. A few days later, more than 300 showed up. The sit-ins quickly spread across the South and were a critical component of the civil rights movement. Decades later, the same conduct by animal rights and environmental activists are “terrorism” under a bill introduced in Washington State.

Senator Val Stevens has sponsored SB 6566, “an act prohibiting terrorist acts against animal and natural resource facilities.” The so-called “eco-terrorism” bill, like many others, ostensibly targets underground groups like the Animal Liberation Front and Earth Liberation Front. However, the bill is so broad that it explicitly targets non-violent civil disobedience and outlaws speaking out in support of “eco-terrorists.”

Here is the text of the bill. Among its provisions:

Its sweeping definition of “eco-terrorist organization” could wrap up countless above-ground activists. It defines “animal rights or ecological terrorist organization” to mean “two or more persons with the primary or incidental purpose of intimidating, coercing, causing fear with the intent to obstruct, or impeding any person from participating in an activity involving animals” or natural resources. That last clause is the kicker. The bill’s definition of a terrorist organization includes any activist group that impedes business operations.
Civil disobedience is “terrorism.” The bill explicitly mentions “Entering or remaining on the premises of an animal or horticultural facility if the person or organization” has “received notice to depart but failed to do so.”
Speaking out in support of “eco-terrorists” is terrorism. The bill targets those who: “Participate in or support animal or ecological terrorism, including raising, soliciting, collecting, or providing any person with material, financial support, or other resources such as lodging, training, safe houses, false documentation, or identification, communications, equipment, or transportation that will be used in whole or in part to encourage, plan, prepare, carry out, publicize, promote, or aid an act of animal or ecological terrorism, the concealment of, or an escape from an act of animal or ecological terrorism.”

That final bullet point is the most dangerous section of the entire bill. It outlaws any activity, including communications, that “will be used in whole or in part to encourage,” “publicize,” or “promote” an act of animal or ecological terrorism.

“Encourage.” “Publicize.” “Promote.” There is absolutely no doubt that this language is intended to target the work of groups like the Earth Liberation Front Press Office, North American ALF Press Office, Bite Back Magazine, Earth First Journal, and others who distribute the communiqués of underground groups and vocally defend illegal tactics.

Make no mistake: that’s what this law is about. Speech. Sure, it includes stiffer penalties for property crimes and civil disobedience. The real danger, though, is the creation of a new class of law that explicitly exempts the First Amendment activity of those who support “terrorists.”

In my opinion, the law is so broad it could go even further, targeting those who provide “financial support” through legal defense funds. That’s debatable, of course, and that’s the problem; the law is so vague and broad that it is open to the exploitation of corporations, politicians and ambitious prosecutors.

Unfortunately, bills like this are nothing new. In fact, much of the language in this bill has been directly copied and pasted from a template bill created by the corporate-funded American Legislative Exchange Council. You can read ALEC’s “Animal and Ecological Terrorism Act” here. A similar ALEC bill in Tennessee was described by its sponsor as targeting “left-wing eco-greenies.”

This bill, and others like it, have literally been bought and paid for by corporations.

Meanwhile, if you replace “animal and ecological” with “civil rights” throughout this bill, it could easily have been used against those activists at the Woolworth’s lunch counter, the Greensboro Four. Fifty years of history have made it easy, and even expected, to support once-controversial social movements and radical tactics.

The site of the Greensboro Four’s historic “terrorism” has now been commemorated with the opening of the International Civil Rights Center and Museum.

UPDATE: The bill did not make it out of committee, and will not pass this session. We’ll stay on the lookout for future incarnations, as similar versions of this bill have been introduced in Washington State many times.

State-Level “Eco-Terror” Legislation Pushed by Corporate Front Groups

Will Potter — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 13:00:57 +0000

The National Lawyers Guild has a new report on state-level versions of the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act that have been popping up around the country. As I’ve reported here previously, on laws such as the California Animal Enterprise Protection Act, they use sweeping, overly broad definitions of terrorism that are, in some cases, even worse than the federal law. (Here’s one of my all-time favorite blog posts in which a Tennessee lawmaker describes how similar legislation is needed to combat “left-wing eco-greenies.”

Take a look at the full report, and the influence of a corporate front group called the American Legislative Exchange Council: “Beyond the AETA: How Corporate-Crafted Legislation Brands Activists as Terrorists.”

As NLG Executive Director Heidi Boghosian said:

“Although many states considered and outright rejected the ALEC bill soon after its release, there are still signs that parts of the legislation are being incorporated in some states’ laws that equate animal rights activists with domestic terrorism.”

The National Lawyers Guild continues to be out front on these issues, with its publication of a know your rights booklet for activists, and it’s Green Scare hotline, 1-888-NLG-ECOL. And NLG lawyers around the country have been working hard on behalf of animal rights and environmental activists labeled “terrorists.” If you’re a lawyer, please join the Guild. And if you’re not a lawyer, write a check, volunteer, or just drop them a note of support.

Grad Student Indicted on Terrorism Charges

Will Potter — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 19:20:33 +0000

As a follow up to David Pellow’s guest post, “My Student is a Sociologist, Not a Terrorist,” here is an update from his grad student facing terrorism charges, Scott DeMuth.

DeMuth has been indicted for conspiracy to commit “animal enterprise terrorism” in relation to the unsolved Animal Liberation Front raid at the University of Iowa. The government has argued that DeMuth is an anarchist, and “therefore, he is a domestic terrorist.”

This is an excerpt from a public statement by DeMuth:

…I believe I was targeted by this grand jury because of my involvement in doing prisoner support as a part of EWOK! (Earth Warriors are OK!). Further, as a part of my academic career, I have been involved in researching the animal rights and environmental movements and interviewing participants of those movements. The identity and contents of interviews are protected by confidentiality agreements, and I have an obligation to this confidentiality as outlined by the Institutional Review Board and American Sociological Association guidelines.

Because of the grand jury’s use in investigating social movements, I refused to cooperate and testify in the proceedings. Additionally, because grand jury proceedings are held in secret, there is no real way to verify if I had only given my name or if I had given away the identity and contents of each interview I have done. Therefore, if for no other reason, I believed that my participation would violate the trust and confidentiality of those who I have interviewed. I went to Davenport on November 17th, knowing that I could be jailed for contempt of court, and I was willing to deal with whatever legal consequences came with that decision.

As expected, I was jailed for contempt of court. However, two days later, I was unexpectedly charged with “conspiracy with unknown persons” under the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA). As evidenced by the vagueness of the charge and its filing a day before the statute of limitations expired, I believe that this charge is being used punitively against me because of my non-cooperation with the grand jury. Additionally, it seems that this charge is a last-ditch effort by the prosecution eager to get a conviction in a failed investigation…

Under the AETA (and its predecessor the AEPA), the ever-expanding definition of terrorism has included everything from the ALF to PETA, even going as far as charging people who chalk on sidewalks as “terrorists.” Regardless of the many laws that exist to charge illegal activities, laws such as the AETA are written specifically to charge political ideologies and those who support them.

But this expanding definition of terrorism does not just affect animal rights activists, to which my case should attest. The government makes broad and dangerous generalizations across the board, conflating ideologies from all sides of the political spectrum with terrorism (e.g. anti-abortion activists, gun-rights advocates, environmentalists, and anarchists). Not only does the government target political activity, but it also uses the guise of the “war on terror” to target entire communities based on religion, ethnicity, national origin, and immigrant status. We must ask ourselves, “Who will be next?”

It is not just animal rights activists and anarchists who have a stake in this case, in the abolition of the AETA, and in the overall “terrorizing” of political dissent, but everyone who lives within America, everyone who values our inalienable rights and liberties, and everyone who seeks a better way of living than the one we have been given.

PETA Classified as a “Terrorist Threat” by the USDA

Will Potter — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 13:00:31 +0000

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals has been classified as as a “terrorist threat” in a document created by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

The USDA created a new “APHIS Facility Security Profile” form to send to animal experimentation facilities. Recipients were asked to answer about their experiences, and return the form to the government so the USDA can better meet their needs. [Update: After this article was posted, the USDA took down the form. Here is a link to a pdf of the APHIS form.]

In one section of the form, on p4, item #2 B and C, PETA is listed as a “domestic special interest terrorist”:

B. Terrorist Threat. What terrorist activities have occurred in or around your building/facility in the past 5 years (documented cases)? Please check all that apply.

[ ] Attack from international terrorists
[ ] Attack from domestic special interest terrorists
-[ ] Earth Liberation Front (ELF)
-[ ] Animal Liberation Front (ALF)
-[ ] People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA)
-[ ] Animal Defense League (ADL)
-[ ] Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC)
-[ ] Formal hate group(s) (please specify):
-[ ] Other (please specify): ____________________
[ ] Cyber Attack from a known or unknown source.

I have written extensively on this site about how the ELF and ALF have become the number one domestic terrorism threat, even though they have targeted property and not people. And Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty activists were convicted on “terrorism” charges for running a website that vocally supported the actions of those groups. The listing of PETA and the Animal Defense League is something else entirely.

PETA is perhaps the most recognized organization in the animal rights movement. They are known for their undercover investigations, and their use of celebrities and outlandish media stunts to draw attention to factory farming, fur, circuses and animal experimentation.

Regardless of how you feel about PETA and their tactics, they are a lawful, above-ground, national non-profit.

So why in another section of the USDA form, are they listed as a possible answer under “Greatest Threat or Danger. What do you consider the greatest source of danger to your organization and/or fellow workers?”

Because they expose what goes on behind closed doors.

Justin Goodman, research associate supervisor for PETA, had a fantastic oped in the Sacramento Bee about the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act and the misuses of the “terrorism” label against non-violent activists. In California, four activists are facing terrorism charges for protesting at individuals homes and allegedly creating fliers with names and addresses on them.

From Goodman’s oped:

This should give all Americans pause. People who engage in nonviolent protests and civil disobedience are sitting in jail cells, stigmatized by one of the most politically charged and discrediting labels of our time, while people who wake up every morning and go to jobs in which they torment and kill animals in laboratories continue to enjoy their freedom, paychecks, social lives and families.

Animal industries are quite open about their desire to use terrorism laws to keep their practices out of the public spotlight. I recently posted about the Animal Agriculture Alliance calling for federal prosecution of undercover investigators. It’s not because the investigators are violent. It is because they pose an even greater threat: educating the public.

As Goodman wrote: “To shield them from public opinion and discussion and to protect them from peaceful and heretofore lawful pickets by locking up those who dare to challenge the suffering that occurs inside laboratories is an attack on every American’s right of protest.”

Minneapolis Activist Indicted for Conspiracy to Violate Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act

Will Potter — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 18:06:09 +0000

Scott DeMuth, a Minneapolis activist, has been indicted for conspiracy to violate the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, apparently in relation to a 2004 Animal Liberation Front raid at the University of Iowa. He faces up to 5 years in prison. His indictment marks a continued expansion of the scope of the new terrorism law, which has already been used to target activists who release mink from fur farms, and the AETA4, who are accused of protesting and chalking on public sidewalks.

The indictment comes after DeMuth and another local activist, Carrie Feldman, were found to be in contempt of court refusing to cooperate with a federal grand jury investigated that ALF burglary and vandalism. They were handcuffed and taken to jail for refusing to testify about their political beliefs and political associations.

I have written previously about Feldman’s refusal, and her statement to the grand jury (Activist to Iowa Grand Jury: “We will not be intimidated. We will not cooperate.”).

In a statement prepared prior to the grand jury hearing, DeMuth said:

“Grand juries can be very disempowering for us all, and especially for those targeted by them. We face questioning without legal counsel present or a right to remain silent. We can be threatened, coerced, and jailed. However, no punishment could be worse than surrendering our values. “

There has been some speculation about what, exactly, DeMuth’s conspiracy charges entail. Is the indictment for conspiracy to damage property? Or is it for conspiracy to instill a “reasonable fear”?

The truth: neither.

Bear with me for a moment. The indictment lists sections 43(a) and 43(b)(2) of the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, and says the conspiracy was to commit economic damage in the amount exceeding $10,000. Section 43(a) is simply the offense section. Section 43(b)(2) spells out penalties for damages exceeding $10,000. The indictment does not specify whether the charges are for violating
43(a)(2)(A) (damaging property) or 43(a)(2)(B) (instilling fear). Does that make sense? I know it’s a little tedious, but I think it’s important to clear up. (I just spoke with Matthew Strugar, who was quoted on Peter Young’s blog, and he agreed.)

Local press has been speculating. But regardless of what, specifically, DeMuth is charged with conspiring to do, one thing is clear: conspiracy charges have been used throughout U.S. history as a catch-all when prosecutors can’t get anything else to stick. That’s exactly what happened in the case of the SHAC 7, under the previous version of the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act.

I have personally met both Scott DeMuth and Carrie Feldman, on multiple occasions. They were involved in organizing a Green Scare speaking event in Minneapolis. They are both incredibly kind, passionate, activists who are involved in a variety of local issues, including organizing public lectures and supporting the RNC 8. They are lawful, above-ground activists who have organized against the Green Scare. Now they, themselves, have become targets, and they need your support.

You can write letters to Carrie Feldman and Scott DeMuth, and email them to: davenportgrandjury@riseup.net. You can also donate to their legal support at http://davenportgrandjury.wordpress.com/

Pet Shop Protesters Shot–Will It Be Labeled Terrorism?

Will Potter — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 13:00:37 +0000

Three animal rights activists were shot with brass pellets during a recent protest against puppy mills in Santa Monica, California. According to local news outlets, the police are investigating the shootings as an assault with a deadly weapon.

About 20 activists were protesting Aquarium & Pet Center in Santa Monica, which they say sells dogs bred in puppy mills in inhumane conditions.

Carole Raphaelle Davis, the West Coast director of the Companion Animal Protection Society, said store employees have threatened the protesters and were seen laughing after three activists were hit.

The shooting resulted in minor injuries, including welts.

“It’s shocking to think that people would try to intimidate people or cause them harm simply because they expressed their views,” said WeHo council member Jeffrey Prang, who has been working with the group to write a municipal ban on the re-selling of any pets except bred or rescued animals in West Hollywood.

The incident is disturbing enough on its own, but it needs to be put in a broader context. The animal rights and environmental movements are labeled the “number one domestic terrorism threat,” according to the FBI. Some elements of those movements have engaged in property destruction, economic sabotage and arson. In the history of the U.S. animal rights movement, though, not one person has ever been targeted with physical violence and no one has been shot.

If an animal rights activist had committed a crime like this, against an animal researcher for instance, they would undoubtedly be prosecuted as a “terrorists” under the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act.

In fact, the government’s threshold for what constitutes “terrorism” is much, much lower when it comes to the conduct of animal rights and environmental activists. Right now, four animal rights activists in California are facing charges under the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act for chanting and chalking slogans on the sidewalk. They’re being labeled “terrorists.”

Incidents like this should be it abundantly clear that there are two systems of law in this country. One is for the wealthy, the corporations, the animal research industry. If they are under attack, they can lobby for new terrorism legislation and pressure the politicians and government officials who represent them to crack down on the “terrorists.” They can carve out special crimes to protect them, and only them.

The other system of law is for everybody else. If they are under attack–through violence, not just home protests or economic sabotage–well, it’s just business as usual.

So what do you think? Will the government labeling this violent, politically-motivated crime “terrorism”?

Animal Rights Protesters Face Higher Sentences than Racist Cross Burners

Will Potter — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 13:00:38 +0000

Four animal rights activists are facing charges under the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act for chanting, demonstrating with masks covering their faces, and chalking defamatory slogans on the sidewalk. If convicted, the “AETA 4,”—Joseph Buddenburg, Maryam Khajavi, Nathan Pope, and Adriana Stumpo—could be sentenced to 5-10 years in prison.

The AETA 4 case is a startling example of how federal terrorism laws are being used to create new crimes targeting political activists, and astronomically increase sentences for existing crimes. For instance, Marie Mason was sentenced to nearly 22 years in prison for setting fire to empty buildings and taking precautions to not harm anyone.

Meanwhile, during a Congressional hearing on the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, the Justice Department proclaimed “we are apolitical in this.” But this is anything but apolitical. Animal rights activists could receive 5-10 years in prison, as terrorists, for not harming anyone or attempting to harm anyone. Meanwhile, take a look at what some others are facing for much more serious crimes:

Burning at a cross at the home of an African-American man, close to his home, while his family is inside: 3.5 years.
Threatening president-elect Obama with statements including, “I’m going to assassinate the new president of the United States of America. PS you have 48 hours to stop it from happening”: four years probation.
Setting fire to a hotel with people inside: 1 year.
Police officer rapes a girl in juvenile custody: 8 months.
Assaulting black men on election night because Obama was elected president: about 5 years.
Enron exec guilty of $7 million in wire fraud and securities fraud: 16 months.
Possessing child pornography: 4 years.
Tying up a black student and taunting him with racial epithets as part of a high school graduation party: six months.
Mailing anthrax threats to the IRS: one year.
“Using the Internet to threaten to destroy buildings of the Federal Bureau of Investigation by fire or explosives”: one year.
Cleveland Browns wide receiver Donte Stallworth kills a construction worker while driving drunk: 30 days.
Threatening to bomb an Air Force base: one year.
Drunken man drives over his brother during an argument: 1.5 years.
Scheming to defraud an insurance company through arson: 2 years.
Mailing anthrax threats to an assistant U.S. attorney: up to 5 years.
Manufacturing and selling home-made explosive devices: 5 years probation
Sending 65 anthrax hoax letters: four years.
Dumping nearly 13 million gallons of untreated liquid waste: 15 months.
Threatening to bomb the Oklahoma city federal building: up to 5 years.
Setting a dog on fire and burning 50 percent of his body: 45 days.

According to the government, high sentences for animal rights activists are intended as a deterrent, they are intended to send a message.

What kind of message do you think this sends?

Note: Funds are needed for the AETA 4 legal defense. Please make a contribution. Go to Paypal.com and send a donation to support@aeta4.org. Or you can make a tax-deductible donation through the National Lawyers Guild Foundation. The mailing address is 132 Nassau Street, Suite 922, NY, NY 10039, please indicate AETA Defense Fund on your check.

“Good Time Bill” Could Reduce Prison Times for Environmentalists and Animal Rights Activists

Will Potter — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 13:15:32 +0000

Two federal Green Scare prisoners, Jonathan Paul and Daniel McGowan.

I have sat through so many sentencing hearings for environmentalists and animal rights activists when the judges and prosecutors have noted, and even applauded, how activists are not like “typical” defendants. By this, they mean that the defendants have solid education backgrounds (some even pursuing law degrees and master’s degrees while incarcerated), they have supportive family and friends, and they frequently have letters of support from professors and clergy.

By all accounts, judges and prosecutors often say, there is every reason to believe that these activists can, and should, be leaders in their communities.

That’s exactly why new legislation called the Good Time Bill (H.R. 1475) is so vitally needed. It will reduce the sentences of people in federal prisons by increasing the “good time” credit they can receive. The bill would impact all federal prisoners (except those serving life sentences), but Green Scare prisoners would be some of the ideal candidates.

That being said, this is an issue that impacts everyone, regardless of how you feel about environmental issues or animal rights, and regardless of how you feel about these defendants. Along the lines of my previous post, “5 Reasons Why Republicans Should Care About the Government Labeling Activists “Terrorists,” here are three reasons why every taxpayer should support the Good Time Bill:

Money. The bill could save taxpayers more than $2-billion per year. It costs about $40,000 per year to keep each federal prisoner behind bars. With the greatest economic crisis since the depression, this money shouldn’t be spent on prisoners with a long, demonstrated track record of good behavior and rehabilitation.
Safety. The Federal Bureau of Prisons is over 40% overcrowded and many facilities are operating at 100% capacity. Increased incentives for good behavior will keep prisons at a more controlled level, and make them safer prisoners and staff.
Priorities. Nearly three out of every four federal prisoners are serving time for a non-violent offense and have no history of violence. They aren’t the only ones who suffer from being locked up: they have children, spouses, and friends whose lives have been impacted. People in federal prison deserve a second chance to make positive contributions to society.

The bill was introduced last week, and has 11 cosponsors. It’s still early in the process, which makes it a great time to get involved and take action. Visit GoodTimeBill.info for a list of things you can do.

2 Animal Rights Activists Arrested as “Terrorists” for Freeing Mink in Utah

Will Potter — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 03:08:01 +0000

A mink escaping in an Animal Liberation Front style raid in Sweden. Photo from DirectAction.info.

Two animal rights activists have been arrested under the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act in connection to the release of mink from Utah fur farms. The crimes are attributed to the Animal Liberation Front, which the FBI labels the “number one domestic terrorism threat.”

William Viehl, 22, and Alex Hall, 20, were arrested in connection with the August, 2008 release of 300 minks from a South Jordan fur farm. It caused about $10,000 in damages. Spray painted slogans were found on the scene, including “No More Mink, No More Murder” and “ALF: We Are Watching.” The two are also accused of attempting to damage another mink farm a few months later.

The anonymous communiqué for the fur farm raid simply said:

This is a local soldier out of Utah just letting you guys know of a raid that just happened last night at the South Jordan, Utah McMullen Mink Farm, 300 plus mink were released with all their breeding records destroyed. Good news, haven’t seen this done in a while so it had to be done.

Details of both charges are still quite sparse. The Department of Justice press release surprisingly doesn’t mention the AETA, or the word “terrorism,” but the language of the charges are pulled directly from the legislation. The first charge, a felony related to the raid at McMullin mink farm, could mean up to five years in prison and a $250,000 fine. The second charge, a misdemeanor, could mean up to a year in prison.

The Utah indictment comes on the heels of the recent Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act charges in California. In that case, the FBI argues that the activists were involved in a campaign of “terror” that including chalking defamatory slogans on the sidewalk, wearing bandanas at a protest, distributing fliers, and attending a protest where an alleged forced entry took place.

Combined, the two sets of arrests reflect the true breadth and depth of the government’s efforts to wrap up a broad range of political activity as “eco-terrorism” and “animal enterprise terrorism.” From First Amendment activity to non-violent direct action saving animals, the government is relentlessly branding all of it as “terrorism.”

Unlike what most think of when they hear the word “terrorism,” though, none of it–no crime by the Animal Liberation Front, Earth Liberation Front, or related groups–has ever resulted in the loss of a single human life. Perhaps the most significant difference between Al Qaeda terrorism and “animal enterprise” terrorism, a difference that has been completely ignored by mainstream news articles and government press releases, is that one is intended to destroy life while the other is intended to save it.

B.J. Viehl Pleads Guilty to ALF Fur Farm Raid

Dear Congress: You Lied to Me About the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act

Will Potter — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 13:00:14 +0000

The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act has a chilling effect on First Amendment activity.

March 4, 2009

Dear Member of Congress:

When I testified before the House Judiciary Committee about the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act in 2006, I argued that such sweeping legislation risks criminalizing First Amendment activity as “terrorism” and chilling free speech. Members of the committee, including Rep. Bobby Scott and Rep. James Sensenbrenner, quickly dismissed my concerns and promised that the law would only target property destruction and violence. Lawmakers went so far as to respond to my concerns by including token language in the bill exempting the First Amendment.

The FBI recently used the law, for the first time, and erased any question of whether it will target First Amendment activity. Agents arrested four animal rights activists for “chalking defamatory slogans,” protesting while wearing masks, distributing fliers, and attending a home protest where an alleged forced entry took place. Members of Congress, you have either been duped by the corporations and law enforcement agencies that supported this law, or you have lied to me and lied to the American people.

The Constitutional threat posed by this law extends far beyond these arrests or any that may follow. Corporations, law enforcement agencies and politicians are using “terrorism” rhetoric to instill fear and silence dissent; the true danger posed by this legislation is its chilling effect on speech. Through interviews with hundreds of activists across the country, I have heard that activists feel they must either remain silent about the issues they care about or risk being labeled a “terrorist.” That is not a choice any American should have to make.

This letter may come as quite a surprise to you. Few members of Congress knew of this legislation, and others simply saw no cause for concern. Indeed, the bill passed the Senate in the middle of the night, by unanimous consent. And its supporters rushed this bill through the House using the suspension calendar, with only six Representatives in the room. In a striking example of the hypocrisy of this “War on Terrorism,” many lawmakers were on the national mall praising the non-violent civil disobedience of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King while the House labeled the same tactics used by animal rights activists as “terrorism.”

Members of Congress must send a message, loud and clear, that the tragedy of September 11th should not be exploited to push a political agenda, and that the word “terrorist” should not be a fluid brand to slap on the enemy of the hour. Scarce anti-terrorism resources should not be squandered harassing, infiltrating, and arresting political activists. Flying planes into buildings is not the same thing as chalking slogans.

It is time to repeal the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act. Animal rights activists are the first political activists targeted by legislation like this. Unless you take action, they will not be the last.

Sincerely,

Will Potter

No related posts.