Found flier warns of terrorist protesters.

Ongoing anti-fur protests by Portland animal rights activists have helped shut down one fur salon, Schumacher Furs. (The owner unsuccessfully tried to retaliate by calling on federal prosecutors to use the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act against the protesters).

Now activists are protesting Ungar Furs. But be careful, everyone, the grammatically-impaired right-wingers of the Republic of Portland are not going to take your Constitutionally-protected activity lying down!

“Why wait till they are in front of your business protesting. Stop these Terrorists now! There is something called The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act that is supposed to protect merchants from these people but the left wingers who run Portland will not stand up for decent folk trying to make a living. If they were protesting in front of a gay vegan hemp store, you bet your ass the city would be trying to stop them. Enough is enough. The last time I looked this was America.”

And the last time I looked there was still a First Amendment.

But hold up, forget all of my typical “protect the Constitution” rhetoric. Gay vegan hemp store? How have I never heard of this magical place?

If such a place were to exist, it would truly represent a “domestic terrorist” Axis of Evil. On this site we’ve seen how Pat Boone is fighting “sexual jihadists” and homo-grown terrorism. We’ve seen how “vegetarians are terrorist scum.” And we’ve seen how environmental activists like Tim DeChristopher are “eco-terrorists.”

This store would reflect a dangerous new development in the War on Terror, and the unification of the gays, the vegans and the hippies into the Holy Trinity of Terrorism.

Maybe it could move in to the vegan mini-mall? I hear the hemp-lovers at Food Fight have a vegan cheese pump.

(Thanks to Chad for sending the photo.)

The headline speaks for itself. This article, by Bryan Denson of The Oregonian, came out a few weeks ago, and I thought you all would enjoy it. The owner of Schumacher Furs, remember, had called for new “eco-terrorism” legislation to be used against those protesting his business. He later brought a lawsuit against animal groups and a couple activists, most of which has been rejected.

Here’s the kicker, though, from Denson:

Many Portlanders, including business leaders, were outraged by this collision of old values and new sensibilities. How, they wondered, could anti-fur activists get away with destroying a venerable institution that had stood since 1895?

But it turns out the tale was more fable than fact.

Schumacher Fur Co., one of the oldest family furriers in America, was financially moribund a year before the anti-fur folks came to roost. The company hadn’t turned a profit in a decade, and accountants had appraised its value at zero.

The fall of the house of Schumacher, as recounted in metropolitan court files, is really about two middle-aged brothers who fought so bitterly over the business that they killed it almost entirely by themselves — even as the fur industry soared.

Check out the full article, including the bit about how Gregg Schumacher’s brother allegedly forced him to “clock himself in the face with his own fist.”

In all seriousness, though, this is a good example of the danger of recklessly using all this “eco-terrorism” rhetoric: it can be exploited to instill fear and push a political, or personal, agenda… even one clearly divorced from reality.

With all the “terrorism enhancement” news this week, I missed some good news (I know, it’s shocking, GNR can be full of so much “eco-terrorism” gloom and doom). But on Tuesday a federal judge defended the rights of activists to protest despite the “terrorism” rhetoric of the fur salon’s owners.

Schumacher Furs has been the target of weekly protests by animal rights activists, and the owners have gone on the offensive: they’ve refused to mediate with the activists, calling them a “terrorist organization,” and have called on the government to use the newly-passed Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act. (Here’s a more detailed account of this saga.)

From The Oregonian:

U.S. District Judge Michael W. Mosman wrote that concerns about jurisdiction and enforcement caused him to reject a motion by Schumacher Furs & Outerwear to impose limits on the protest rights of 20 unnamed protesters.

In a two-page order, Mosman wrote that he could not put restrictions on the free speech rights of the group “in order to prevent some from exceeding the bounds of protected activity.”

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.