Add this Page to Facebook!   Submit to Twitter   Submit to Reddit   Submit to Stumble Upon   Pin It!   Fark It!   Tell A Friend  
Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite Save As Favorite View Article Stats
4 comments

OpEdNews Op Eds

Dissent Victory for Animal Rights Activists

By (about the author)     Permalink       (Page 1 of 2 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

Supported 3   Must Read 2   Well Said 2  
View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com

Dissent Victory for Animal Rights Activists

By Bill Quigley and Rachel Meeropol. Bill and Rachel are human rights attorneys at the Center for Constitutional Rights.

Police reports state that on October 21, 2007 a group of about twenty people trespassed onto the front lawn of the home of a Berkeley professor involved in bio-medical research on animals. According to the US government, some of the protestors had bandanas covering the lower half of their faces and they made "a lot of noise, chanting animal rights slogans" like "1,2,3,4, open up the cage door; 5,6,7,8, smash the locks and liberate, 9,10,11,12, vivisectors go to hell."

A year and a half later, four young activists were indicted in California federal court under the little known and rarely used "Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act" (AETA) for their alleged involvement in this and others pickets.

The federal criminal indictment charged Joseph Buddenberg, Maryam Khajavi, Nathan Pope and Adriana Stumpo (now the AETA 4) with one count of "animal enterprise terrorism," and one count of conspiracy. They each face ten years in prison if convicted.

Strangely, the criminal indictment against them doesn't actually say anything about their chants or leaflets, or what else they are supposed to have done to violate the law.

There is some good news here. On July 12, 2010 a federal judge threw out that indictment, explaining that is was so general and vague it failed to provide the defendants with notice of what criminal act they are accused of committing, a constitutional requirement.

In his order, Judge Ronald M. Whyte described the indictment as "quite generic." For "an indictment to fulfill its constitutional purposes," he explained, "it must allege facts that sufficiently inform each defendant of what it is he or she is alleged to have done that constitutes a crime. This is particularly important where the species of behavior in question spans a wide spectrum from criminal conduct to constitutionally protected political protest." According to the judge's ruling, the government can re-indict these activists if they make the charges much more specific.

AETA prosecutions are not your average criminal cases. Trespass, threats, harassment these are all activities that violate state law and carry criminal penalties. And any violence by activists, of course, can also be punished under state law.

The animal rights and radical environmental movements aren't violent against people. The alleged illegal action that has occurred within those groups has primarily been the type of time-honored non-violent civil disobedience Martin Luther King, Jr. made famous, although there has been some property destruction.

If no one is hurt, how can the government prosecute these kinds of acts as terrorism? Simple. First reward rapacious corporate interests with an incredibly broad federal law that equates any action that hurts the bottom line of a corporation with "terrorism." Then issue generic indictments calling picketers terrorists, without explaining what they actually did. That is what happened to the AETA4.

This governmental tactic can drive those few activists who actually commit serious illegal acts far underground, while terrifying the mainstream movements into silence.

The AETA4 ruling is a rare victory for animal rights and environmental activists, whose communities are under COINTELRO-style attack in what has come to be known as the "green scare."

Recent victims of this kind of governmental prosecution include the "SHAC7," activists who ran a website documenting both lawful and unlawful protest activities undertaken in the campaign against animal testing by Huntington Life Sciences.

The SHAC7 were convicted of "terrorism" under the precursor to the AETA, the Animal Enterprise Protection Act, (AEPA) despite the fact that none of them were accused, much less convicted, of doing anything other than commenting on others' legal and illegal actions.

Also threatened with jail time under the AEPA is Scott Demuth, a young activist who defied an Iowa grand jury subpoena and was promptly charged with animal enterprise terrorism. His indictment is so vague and far-reaching that it seems designed to hold him accountable for every act of property destruction attributed to animal rights activists over two years and across several states.

Next Page  1  |  2

 

Bill Quigley is a human rights lawyer and law professor at Loyola University New Orleans and Legal Director for the Center for Constitutional Rights.
Add this Page to Facebook!   Submit to Twitter   Submit to Reddit   Submit to Stumble Upon   Pin It!   Fark It!   Tell A Friend
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Social Justice Quiz 2008 - Twenty Questions

McCain Owes America an Apology

The United States of Fear - Ten Examples

Fourteen Examples of Systemic Racism in the U.S. Criminal Justice System

Katrina Pain Index - Three Years Later

Bush Insider Reveals Guantanamo Deception: Hundreds of Innocents Jailed

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
3 people are discussing this page, with 4 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)

Attacks by government on our human and civil right... by Bill Quigley on Friday, Jul 16, 2010 at 8:28:00 PM
Did you also know that this supposed anti-terroris... by Suzana Megles on Saturday, Jul 17, 2010 at 10:46:30 AM
This is no doubt the most ridiculous act/law passe... by Sandra Nathan on Saturday, Jul 17, 2010 at 11:45:50 PM
Thanx Sandra I agree. Sadly, we are probably in th... by Suzana Megles on Sunday, Jul 18, 2010 at 5:31:33 AM