Friends of Animals' Statement on the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act,
Which Passed in the Senate on 29 September 2006
At Friends of Animals, we oppose the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (H.R. 4239), a bill that amends the Animal Enterprise Protection Act (AEPA), now 18 U.S.C. ยง 43. The AETA will force people into defending their traditional First Amendment rights over activities such as demonstrations, leafleting, and boycotts. The bill is overbroad, vague, and unnecessary. Federal criminal laws already provide a wide range of penalties for all unlawful activities targeted by this bill.
The bill passed the Senate (as S. 3880) and will be before the House in November. We urge our members and guests to oppose this bill.
We continue to urge activists not to support violence or intimidation as a method. It does nothing to change the lawmakers’ mistaken thinking, and indeed gives both lawmakers and industry excuses to support and promote unnecessary, oppressive, and unconstitutional laws. Animal-rights activists should always stand for peace, respect, and clear thinking.
Post your comment
Comment Guidelines: We welcome your expressions of opinion on this subject. Please avoid false commentary about individuals or groups. Facts must be verified by the person posting. Off-topic comments, and comments inappropriate for a readership of all ages, may be deleted. E-mail addresses will never be published. Only comments with valid e-mail address will be published.
7 Comments
On October 1, 2006, dave wrote:
who is the knuckle head that came up with this bill,and who gives them the right to tell us how to express our opinion. if they dont like boycotts,flyers or demonstrations, stop doing stupid actions against animals and then they dont need a bill to pass. its my god given right to voice my opinion against poeple that abuse animals, bill or no bill i still will continue to do it. if they dont like it, ask me if i care.odds is its slaughter houses,hunters and furriers and any other idiot that thinks its ok to abuse and kill animals.and if i am a thorn in there butt, what makes them think that they can shut me up. last time i checked this is america,and freedom of speech is in the constitution. maybe they should start looking at bills that protect an animals right to live free of idiots.if you find it necessary to make a living or for plesure to abuse and animal your god given right, then i find it necessary to make you aware you are a pinhead and do anything within the law to prevent you from succeeding.
On October 4, 2006, Andrea wrote:
i totally agree with boycotting alaska
On October 5, 2006, Emily wrote:
I believe in peaceful demonstrations and standing for nonviolence during our expression of our disgust at the behavior of humanity toward animals, humans and our earth. I’m shocked at this bill. I believe it will require effort from all of us to stop our government from taking away more and more rights of its citizens. Please - everyone call your senators (and congresspersons as well - thank them or express disappoinment for how they voted in the House). Go to www.vote-smart.org to find their contact info. Love for animals and all life is our platform and we must not forget this. Love!
Peace,
~Emily
On October 5, 2006, Friends of Animals wrote:
Thank you, Emily.
Non-violence, as and on behalf of true social change — which would include declining to co-operate, on a growing and eventually large scale, with the exploitative industries — is the most serious concern to agencies whose task it is to enforce the status quo. Non-violence is the key to success in social change. Non-violence is social change.
Coercion and intimidation are the tired old status quo; activists cannot match the government’s abilities in that regard and never will succeed in doing so, although they will succeed in augmenting the government’s ability to control by force; and by getting into this futile competition people demonstrate that they haven’t seriously questioned, let alone transcended, the centuries-old received view that might is what’s right.
Activists shouldn’t let anyone stop them from denouncing violence. Minds don’t change because they’re threatened. They change because they are educated and enlightened.
Laws such as the proposed AETA, and the coercive impulse that drives such bills, should be challenged strenuously — both by speaking out against such legislative hostility and by speaking in support of non-violent change.
Lee Hall.
On October 5, 2006, James wrote:
Obviously, in order to bring to fruition a world in which all animals are accorded the respect to which they are entitled by virtue of their being conscious entities, the AR movement needs to effect a radical paradigm shift — a sea change — in people’s attitudes. We need to educate the public to see animals, not as disposable and replaceable resources, but rather as inherently valuable conscious individuals, as rights bearers, as individuals who have inner mental lives and experiential welfares not different in kind from our own. Our efforts should converge and focus on promoting veganism and educating about AR—a philosophy which we should be trying to portray as eminently reasonable and just (which of course it is). But how exactly does furnishing the government with a pretext for instituting regressive and draconian legislation, and melding the AR cause with terrorism in the public’s consciousness, contribute to effecting the radical paradigm shift in attitudes that is the necessary precondition of true animal liberation? Violent and intimidatory tactics diminish the credibility of our noble message. Instead of portraying AR as egalitarian and just, these types of tactics envelop the movement in a miasma of unreasonableness and disrespectability. This must be contrary to what we are working towards and aiming for.
James
On October 5, 2006, Friends of Animals wrote:
The good thinking we see here would complement a new list that the activists at Friends of Animals started this spring. We welcome all who are sincerely interested in this dialogue to join…
Thinking about veganism?
Vegan Views, a new forum on Google, invites people to join our community.
This group began because lately vegan ideals are, in many discussion fora, being diluted or misunderstood as a tool to oppose particularly harsh or painful methods in animal industries.
The point of vegan activism is to work for a general acceptance of the ideal of non-exploitation, thereby abolishing vast industries and replacing them with peaceful, respectful methods of providing for our human lifestyles.
So we are here not to talk about opposing the worst, but to elicit the best.
We are here not to obsessively tinker with the suffering in the system; we are here to encourage the view that other animals should be left free to experience their lives — with all the pain and pleasure, autonomy and uncertainty, risks and adventure which living in freedom involves.
Veganism is the avoidance of animal products. As a diet, it means the avoidance of dairy products, animal flesh, eggs, and honey. As a mode of living, it presents a challenge to society’s acceptance of domestication, captivity, and using or thinking of other animals as our instruments. The essence of veganism is an expression of the movement for world peace.
Vegan Views has a clear mission, one that takes commitment, energy, and effort. We welcome those who have been vegan for years, those who wish to discuss advancing veganism and understanding it at its best, those who are interested in why veganism matters to environmentalism and animal rights, and those who enjoy reading or taking part in good conversations and will be comfortable allowing a safe space for the discussion and advancement of vegan activism.
Interested people are encouraged to visit the site
http://groups.google.com/group/VeganViews/subscribe
or contact VeganViews-owner@googlegroups.com
On October 19, 2006, Cheri wrote:
I agree that we have the right to demonstrate. The problem is that some people go overboard. On TV I see demonstrations where the demonstrators are on the runway with the models. There are always extremeist who will intimidate people and that is unluckily the ones that represent us as protectors of animal rights. Unluckily, there are idiots on both sides.
James, well said.