Animal Enterprise Terrorism

I just called all my reps and it's really easy to do. This bill can change AR activism in this country by labeling any kind of demonstrating that causes "economic disruption" as TERRORISM.


---------------------------------------------------------------

Immediate Action Needed!

New federal law may pass TOMORROW
that labels peaceful activism as "terrorism!"

The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA) is pending in Congress (HR 4239). Industry groups are pushing it through quickly and with little public scrutiny (fast-tracking it like the Patriot Act... first through the House of Reps, then through the Senate ) before the Fall recess.

They plan to vote on this tomorrow, Friday, September 29 in the House.
This is the most important call yet because it affects our ability to help ALL animals!

************************************************** *

We need to flood the lines with calls in opposition now!

PLEASE CALL YOUR SENATORS AND REPRESENTATIVES ASAP!

You can find your Reps at http://www.house.gov/ by inputting your zip-code in the box in the top left corner and your Senators at http://www.senate.gov/ -- top right corner box.

· Contact U.S. Representatives and urge them to oppose HR 4239.

· Contact U.S. Senators and urge them to oppose S 3880 (previously S 1926).

Contact co-sponsors Senators Inhof & Feinstein at 202-224-3121 to oppose S 3880.

************************************************** **

Ohio has already pushed the Ohio State version of this act, OH S.B. 9 Animal Terrorism, into LAW, and it's a given that OH Federal legislators will do the same IF YOU DON'T ACT NOW.

Forward this message to friends, the ACLU & social advocacy groups.


Details & Talking Points:

The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act drastically expands the Animal Enterprise Protection Act of 1992.

AETA labels the tactics of Martin Luther King and Gandhi as “terrorism.” It spells out penalties for “an offense involving exclusively a nonviolent physical obstruction of an animal enterprise or a business having a connection to, or relationship with, an animal enterprise, that may result in loss of profits but does not result in bodily injury….” In other words any act that causes a loss of profits to animal-exploiting industries (like a reduction in meat consumption) can be treated as terrorism.

AETA risks the prosecution of undercover investigators, whistle-blowers and other activists as “terrorists.” It defines “economic damage” as including “the loss of profits.” The extremely vague and broad sweeping language puts all animal advocates at risk. Causing the loss of profits is NOT terrorism. It’s effective activism. And even activists that are not prosecuted under the law will be affected by the extreme rhetoric.

AETA is unnecessary. There are already laws to protect industries against illegal actions, regardless of who commits the acts.
All Americans should be concerned about this gross infringement on the first amendment. The term terrorism should not be used against peaceful social justice advocacy. Who will be next?


************************************************** *******

For more in-depth information, visit http://www.GreenIsTheNewRed.com

For more in-depth information, visit:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s109-3880

To read HR 4239, see: http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.4239:

To read S. 3880, see: http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:S.3880:

Orwell was right.

http://stopaeta.org/


Everybody need to call your House of Rep and Senators TODAY(September 29) between 9 AM to 5 PM and ask these elected officials to vote AGAINST HR4239.
No matter how busy you are, you cannot ignore this most important legislation in Animal Rights movement!
We must protect our First Amendment rights to freedum of speech by opposing the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act.
HR 4239 is another step toward taking away civil rights.

Um, doesn't it say in section... uh... 6:

Quote:

---

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h109-4239

(B) does not include any lawful economic
11 disruption that results from lawful public, gov-
12 ernmental, or business reaction to the disclo-
13 sure of information about an animal enterprise;

---

Doesn't that mean lawful protest would still be legal, and not considered terrorism?

null void, no, lawful protest would considered terrorism.

Okay... I'll assume you know more about this than I do, but could you elaborate some? Where in the bill does it say so? I like to make sure something is actually offensive before I take offense, and reading it through, I couldn't see where it said that legal assembly would be demoted to terrorism (even if veiled). Or alternatively, could you provide a source where it points it out in less... legally obfuscated terms?

Edit: The sites cited above point out the offending paragraph, but do nothing to talk about the part where the paper says that lawful reaction is excluded.

It must be tough living in the USA at the moment. But the UK is not far behind in suppressing protest, although the rhetoric is not quite so hysterical.

Quote:

---

null_void

Okay... I'll assume you know more about this than I do, but could you elaborate some? Where in the bill does it say so? I like to make sure something is actually offensive before I take offense, and reading it through, I couldn't see where it said that legal assembly would be demoted to terrorism (even if veiled). Or alternatively, could you provide a source where it points it out in less... legally obfuscated terms?

Edit: The sites cited above point out the offending paragraph, but do nothing to talk about the part where the paper says that lawful reaction is excluded.

---

Here is a link to an interesting analysis of the bill as it was passed in the Senate. It looks like they eliminated the part I saw the most problem with, about including "non-violent" obstruction causing economic damage, etc.

http://www.greenisthenewred.com/blog/s3880-analysis

Ah. I must have seen the updated version, then. Sorry for the confusion. I would have had issues with the original wording.

Below is a bit more information, but apparently the bill was not voted on back in September, so if you haven't contacted your representative, here's your chance:
https://secure2.convio.net/pcrm/site...435i04v1.app2b

H.R. 4239, the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA) would criminalize peaceful forms of advocacy undertaken by citizens and organizations seeking change.
As you know, PCRM advocates for changes in nutrition policies and practices and promotes alternatives to the use of animals in research. We often highlight the health risks associated with consuming animal products, such as grilled chicken products at McDonald’s and Burger King that contain known carcinogens. In other cases, PCRM advocates that people avoid companies that conduct cruel animal experiments. Under the AETA, PCRM’s advocacy work could be viewed as “interference” with “animal enterprises” and could warrant investigations into our efforts.
The AETA violates the First Amendment because it is so vague in describing where lawful advocacy ends and unlawful advocacy begins, and it fails to define what constitutes “interference” with an “animal enterprise.” Citizens could come under investigation and be branded as “terrorists” for publicly boycotting a fast-food restaurant. By using the word “terrorism” to describe peaceful advocacy, the AETA inappropriately exploits fears of real terrorism, such as the events of Sept. 11. Law enforcement agencies already have the tools to successfully prosecute and convict people who engage in campaigns of harassment and intimidation, making the AETA unnecessary and unfair.
The AETA has already passed in the Senate. Unless members of the House of Representatives hear from enough people, the AETA could fly through the House as an “uncontroversial bill” after Congress reconvenes on Nov. 13. Thank you for taking action. Feel free to e-mail PCRM legislative coordinator Kyle Ash at kash@pcrm.org if you have any questions.

From the NewStandard:

House Passes ‘Terrorism’ Act Against Animal Activists


by Megan Tady


Nov. 15 – Monday afternoon, the US House of Representatives passed a bill that reclassifies unlawful animal-rights tactics as terrorism under certain conditions, even if they are non-violent.
As reported by The NewStandard just hours before the House took its voice vote on the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA), the bill will classify civil disobedience actions – such as blockades, property destruction, trespassing, and the freeing of captive animals – as terrorism.
The AETA amends current law enabling the government to prosecute activists for intentionally damaging property used by "animal enterprises" – businesses that use or sell animals. The AETA expands those provisions to enhance penalties against activists who "interfere" with animal enterprises by destroying property or engaging in behavior that appears "threatening." It even includes perceive threats to companies that work with animal enterprises and takes into account resulting profit losses.
The House passed the Senate’s version of the bill, which was approved in September. Critics consider that version bad enough, but they had been especially alarmed that a House version of the bill swept in "non-violent physical obstruction of an animal enterprise" as an offense if it causes a loss of profits. While the Senate version does not explicitly ban such activity, critics believe it to be vague enough to encompass civil disobedience in its scope.
The AETA does make specific provisions to safeguard activity protected under the First Amendment, but critics have raised concerns it could have the effect of discouraging even lawful protests.
Because only a voice vote was taken, there is no record of who approved or opposed the AETA bill. Representative Dennis Kucinich (D–Ohio) spoke against the legislation, saying it compromises civil rights and threatens to "chill" free speech.
Kucinich also addressed the animals he fears will be less protected if the legislation scares off protesters. "Just as we need to protect people’s right to conduct their work without fear of assault, so too this Congress has yet to address some fundamental ethical principles with respect to animals. How should animals be treated humanely? This is a debate that hasn't come here."

Pathetic.