Oppose The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act
Print This Post
All you have to do is look at the groups who support the act and the groups who opposed the act to know that the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA) isn’t good for free speech, animal rights, or protecting innocent Americans from terrorism. The bill was supported by the Animal Enterprise Protection Coalition, an industry group including GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Roche and Wyeth among its members. That is, Big Pharma vivisectors supported this act whereas the ACLU, HSUS, PETA, and the ASPCA voiced opposition.
For more details about the AETA, visit these resources:
What Can You Do?
There are lots of things you can do to voice your opposition to the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act and try to get the law repealed. Here are some things you can do:
- You can blog about the issue and educate others.
- You can send letters to the editor of your local newspapers or favorite magazines.
- You can make a vlog or video voicing your opinion.
- You can write a letter to the presidential candidates. Here is a sample letter you can copy and paste:
Dear Senator Obama and Senator McCain,
As a constituent and a registered voter, I am very concerned about the trend to eradicate fundamental civil liberties that, historically, have made this country a beacon of hope around the world. I am respectfully appealing to you as my representative to consider this issue.
On November 27, 2006, S. 3880 [109th]: Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA), a bill to provide the Department of Justice the necessary authority to apprehend, prosecute, and convict individuals committing animal enterprise terror, became Public Law No: 109-374. While there is no room in our society for any actions that threaten public safety, I find it extremely worrisome that “terror” is increasingly being interpreted to include peaceful demonstrations — a cornerstone in the maturation of American society ; the restrictions that are increasingly being applied to the constitutional right of free speech is detrimental to productive social discourse.
While this Act protects “any expressive conduct (including peaceful picketing or other peaceful demonstration) from prosecution” as “terrorism”, the interpretation of this subject has been a point of debate since the inception of this law:
On October 30, 2006, the National Lawyers Guild released a statement strongly opposing the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, saying that “if enacted into law, the Act could define as a terrorist act any activity causing a business classified as an “animal enterprise” to suffer a profit loss-even if such financial decline is caused by peaceful protests, boycotts, media campaigns or leafleting.” Guild President, Marjorie Cohn said, “The AETA could lead to the prosecution of undercover investigators, whistle-blowers and other activists as ‘terrorists.’”
“Animal enterprise terror” is too vague a term to mean anything either definable or adjudicatable, but it seems under the Act to include anything which in any way interferes with the conduct of any animal commerce whatsoever, be it legal or illegal.
As an average citizen, it appears that the initial concerns cited have been realized. I have learned of individuals who are being prosecuted for exposing abuses at Huntingdon Life Sciences; animal-rights organizers who were convicted of multiple felonies for running a website that advocated the closure of this notorious animal-testing lab — a vivisection firm that kills an average of 500 animals per day. Undercover video exposed accepted practices at Huntindon Life Sciences that we in absolute contrast to legal regulations. Yet, the individuals who were compelled to publicize these abuses were prosecuted because exercising their civil rights might impact Huntingdon Life Sciences’ profits.
This Act has been expanded to encompass activity “with the intent to cause physical alteration…” “for the purpose of damaging or impairing” a company using animals. In this case, “alteration” means any activity that results in “losses” of $10,000+ due to peaceful protests, consumer boycotts, or the advocacy of reforms of harmful practices. As a committed advocate of animal rights who from time to time participates in peaceful protests or other peaceful campaigns to educate the public, I find the implications of the current trend to restrict my rights by prosecution nothing short of frightening.
Legislation introduced under the current administration is extremely biased in favor of protecting corporate abusers of animals at the expense of the individual to exercise his basic rights. As we look toward the election of a new president and the prospect of a restoration to a country where freedom is a basic right rather than an elusive concept, I am confident that you will give serious consideration to the dire implications of continuing along this path.
Finally, I am also concerned with America’s place in the international community. It is widely accepted that our failed foreign policies have placed this country in a precarious position with our global neighbors. I hope this great country does not compound this situation by denying its citizens the basic rights that we should model for the rest of the world. The America I love encourages freedom and is a trusted international ally.
Thank you in advance for your attention to these important issues.
Sincerely,
[your name]
Here are the contact information for the two major presidential candidates:
Senator Barack Obama
Obama for America
P.O. Box 8102
Chicago, IL 60680
Phone: 866-675-2008
Online Contact: http://my.barackobama.com/page/s/contact2
Website: www.barackobama.com
Senator John McCain
John McCain 2008
P.O. Box 16118
Arlington, VA 22215
Phone: 703-418-2008
Online Contact: http://www.johnmccain.com/Contact
Website: www.JohnMcCain.com
—
Thanks to Mary Martin and Angela.
One Response to Oppose The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act
Respond