[news] US Repression of Animal Rights Activists

[ron]

Animal Rights Arrests

by Will Potter; May 27, 2004

The Bush administration sent a calculated message to grassroots political
activists this week: The War on Terrorism has come home.

FBI agents rounded up seven American political activists from across the
country Wednesday morning, and the U.S. Attorney's Office in New Jersey held
a press conference trumpeting that "terrorists" have been indicted.

That's right: "Terrorists." The activists have been charged with violating
the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act of 1992, which at the time garnered
little public attention except from the corporations who lobbied for it.
Their crime, according to the indictment, is "conspiring" to shut down
Huntingdon Life Sciences, a company that tests products on animals and has
been exposed multiple times for violating animal welfare laws.

The terrorism charges could mean a maximum of three years in prison and a
$250,000 fine. The activists also face additional charges of interstate
stalking and three counts of conspiracy to engage in interstate stalking:
Each count could mean up to five years in prison and a $250,000 fine.

Since September 11, the T-word has been tossed around by law enforcement and
politicians with more and more ease. Grassroots environmental and animal
activists, and even national organizations like Greenpeace, have been called
"eco-terrorists" by the corporations and politicians they oppose. The
arrests on Wednesday, though, mark the official opening of a new domestic
front in the War on Terrorism.

Bush's War on Terrorism is no longer limited to Al Qaeda or Osama Bin Laden.
It's not limited to Afghanistan or Iraq (or Syria, or Iran, or whichever
country is next). And it's not limited to the animal rights movement, or
even the campaign against Huntingdon Life Sciences. The rounding up of
activists on Wednesday should set off alarms heard by every social movement
in the United States: This "war" is about protecting corporate and political
interests under the guise of fighting terrorism.

To use a non-animal rights analogy, these activists are the canaries in the
mine. They are part of a relatively new, isolated social movement, and
therefore more vulnerable to attacks on civil liberties. But what happens to
them now will happen to other movements soon enough.

The activists arrested are part of a group called Stop Huntingdon Animal
Cruelty, an international organization aimed solely at closing the
controversial lab. The group uses home demonstrations, phone and email
blockades, and plenty of smart-ass, aggressive rhetoric to pressure
companies to cut ties with the lab. It has worked. The lab has been brought
near bankruptcy, after international corporations like Marsh Inc. have
pulled out their investments.

To most, this is effective-- albeit controversial-- organizing. According to
the indictment, though, it's "terrorism" because the activists aim to cause
"physical disruption to the functioning of HLS, an animal enterprise, and
intentionally damage and cause the loss of property used by HLS."

That's like saying the Montgomery bus boycott, a catalyst of the civil
rights movement, was terrorism because it aimed to "intentionally damage and
cause the loss of property" of the bus company.

It seems the biggest act of "terrorism" by the group is a website. Members
of the group are outspoken supporters of illegal direct action like civil
disobedience, rescuing animals from labs, and vandalism. Whenever
actions-legal or not-take place against the lab, the group puts it on the
website. The activists are not accused of taking part in any of these
crimes.

Such news postings are so threatening, apparently, that the indictment
doesn't even name the corporations that have been targeted. They are only
identified by single letters, like "S. Inc." or "M. Corp."

"Because of the nature of the campaign against these companies, we didn't
want to subject them further to the tactics of SHAC," said Michael Drewniak,
spokesperson for the U.S. Attorney's Office in New jersey, in an interview.

Some of the wealthiest corporations on the planet, and the U.S. Attorney's
Office must protect them from a bunch of protesters. This is what the War on
Terrorism has become: The Bush administration can't find real terrorists
abroad, yet it spends law enforcement time and resources protecting
corporations from political activists.

The lawsuit is so outlandish that some activists, who asked that they not be
identified, said they don't think it is intended to win. Instead, they see
it as an important political move in the War on Terror. In a hearing before
the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee just last week, a U.S. Attorney said the
Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act needed to go further to successfully be used
against Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty. If this lawsuit fails, the Justice
Department can say, "We told you so."

So, these activists face a double-edged sword. If they lose, they go to
prison, and are labeled "terrorists" for the rest of their lives. If they
win, it could be fodder for an even harsher political crackdown.

Their only chance is for activists of all social movements-- regardless of
their political views-- to support them, and oppose the assault on basic
civil liberties. Otherwise, in Bush's America, we could all be terrorists.

Will Potter is a freelance reporter in Washington, D.C. He has written for
the Chicago Tribune, Dallas Morning News, and Chronicle of Higher Education,
and closely follows how the War on Terrorism affects civil liberties.