Peter Young’s home was raided the FBI this week, and the search warrant repeatedly mentions his name in relation to “animal enterprise terrorism.” In the last article we looked at how this Utah raid is, ostensibly, related to the investigation of an Animal Liberation Front raid at the University of Iowa.

As with all of these cases, though, it’s important to put this in a bigger political context. Few attempts have been made to connect Young to Iowa (the government argued in court that Young was an “associate” of Scott DeMuth, the defendant in the Iowa case, because DeMuth identified someone in his journal as ‘P’).
Young says he has never met DeMuth, a graduate student whose research has included radical social movements.

However, attempts have been made to repeatedly label Young a “terrorist” not for underground crimes like raiding fur farms (which he was convicted of years ago) but for lawful, aboveground, First Amendment activity. For instance, he published The Blueprint, a listing of fur farms in the United States.

Young wrote in the introduction:

While past fur industry investigations focused on the treatment of animals, this one sought something else: names and addresses. Of all forms of animal rights outreach, the dissemination of “names and addresses” is at once among the most overlooked, and most potent…

The fur industry is among the most vulnerable targets in our sights. We rented a car, and set out to create the roadmap to its collapse.

Fur farmers responded by labeling this document, which is listing of public information obtained lawfully and disseminated lawfully, a “terrorist handbook.”

Multiple newspapers in Utah and Wisconsin published stories with industry soundbites along these lines. The Park Record in Utah reported:

“‘The Blueprint’ is a little disturbing. Basically, what ‘The Blueprint’ is, is a terrorist handbook,” a mink rancher in Coalville told The Park Record on Wednesday.

The man, who is in his 20s, spoke to the newspaper at his ranch on the condition of anonymity.

“All this is is domestic terrorism, and I have a target on my back,” he said in the interview. “They’re out there calling death threats in to ranchers. We spend many sleepless nights on the ranch.”

Most times he is armed, the rancher added.

All of this has the effect of increasing fear of animal rights activists as “terrorists,” and legitimizing any subsequent actions such as FBI raids of activists’ homes. As in all of these Green Scare cases, these media campaigns and this raid are, above all else, about instilling fear.

I just ran across an announcement from the Fur Commission on the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, where the industry group proclaims “Mission Accomplished!” The New McCarthyists have been eager to appropriate much of the War on Terrorism rhetoric, but this one was an interesting choice. Bush stood on the USS Abraham Lincoln in front of a banner proclaiming “Mission Accomplished” in 2003, only to be dogged by that hubris months, and now years, later.

If the purpose of AETA is to go after underground activists, that mission is far from accomplished. And if the purpose of AETA is to go after “the above ground,” activists are organizing to challenge that mission as well.

Just a few weeks ago, student activists in Massachusetts got a promise from U.S. Rep. James P. McGovern that he would work to repeal the law.

And this week, activists in Colorado are doing the same. According to the Colorado Indymedia website:

There will be a demonstration against the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act at the office of US Representative Diana DeGette @ 600 Grant St on December 12, at 12:00 PM. This demo is not against Representative DeGette, as she has represented her constituents fairly well on other animal issues. We want her to understand our frustration at the passing of this bill.

Oh, and then there were dozens of community events around the world to raise awareness about labeling activists as “eco-terrorists.” Ahem.

And on top of the grassroots and student organizing, animal welfare organizations and civil liberties advocates are coming together at the national level. They had formed the Equal Justice Alliance leading up to the passage of the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, and aren’t backing down. The coalition has resolved to proactively fight this legislative wing of the Green Scare. Here’s an excerpt from the statement recently put out by the alliance about their plans.

We plan to pursue three ways of neutralizing AETA:

* By convincing federal district attorneys not to prosecute under AETA because the law is too broad and vague to make it through the courts;
* By convincing federal courts to dismiss a test case because the law is too broad and vague;
* By convincing Congress that the law is unworkable, unconstitutional, and should be repealed.

Activists around the country are proving that the mission of corporations and industry groups to label activists as “terrorists” is far from accomplished. Frankly, though, I’m a little disappointed that the New McCarthyists didn’t put more into this PR stunt. I know, I know, aircraft carriers are expensive. But considering animal rights activists and environmentalists are labeled the “number one domestic terrorist threat” by the FBI, you’d think they’d at least rent a tug boat.

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.