I wouldn't be surprised if nearly everyone in North America has heard at least something of the SHAC case by now with all the press it's getting. Just to fill in the background, SHAC is an organization that has been attempting to shut down the animal experimentation contractor Huntingdon Life Sciences for quite a while now. They've used a combination of tactics ranging from raising public awareness to convincing investors to stop doing business with HLS - and it very nearly worked, until the core members of the group were arrested and charged with violating the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act. Earlier this month, they were convicted and are now awaiting sentencing.
What's striking about the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act is that it essentially outlaws anything that might damage companies that profit from exploiting animals, including pure-speech activities. In fact, all that the SHAC six have been convicted of is speech.
Curiously, for a case with such serious implications, none of those convicted in Trenton is alleged to have carried out any of the substantive crimes laid out in the indictment — from property damage to intimidation.I'm honestly not sure what to make of this. The article does a good job of pointing out the incredible imbalance between the US government's handling of animal rights and environmental direct action and its handling of more serious crimes.
Prosecutors didn't provide evidence they knew the perpetrators or had ever communicated directly with them. Rather, the six were convicted of running an Internet site that allowed others access to information that could be used in crimes.
FBI spokeswoman Cathy Milhoan says there have never been any deaths or injuries in the U.S. attributable to animal rights or environmental terrorism.But it doesn't spend any time discussing possible reasons why there's such a disproportionate amount of attention - and ire - being leveled at the animal rights movement. If I had to make a wild guess, it's that the government's primary motive isn't to protect people's safety so much as it is to protect their property. Why else would the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act be centered on financial damage rather than real terrorism, which I've always assumed to be something that involves harming people?
By comparison, radical right-wingers killed 168 people in the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing. Since then, according to a Southern Poverty Law Center report, police have uncovered 60 more right-wing plots, including plans to assassinate judges, bomb synagogues and destroy mosques.
Categories: Huntingdon Life Sciences | HLS | Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty | SHAC | Activism | Animal Rights | Terrorism
