DoggieNews: Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act

Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act

Monday, November 13, 2006

There's a bill in Congress (introduced over a year ago), dubbed the "Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act.

Read the official text online, HR4239, on Congress' website (Click Here).

To summarize it, this bill seeks to convict people with a felony if they hurt anyone, damage any property, or conspire to do the same, with regards to an "animal enterprise".

So what is an "animal enterprise"?

It's any kind of business, school, laboratory, pet shop, zoo, circus, breeder, event, county fair, etc., where animals are used in some way. It could be for profit, for entertainment, for education, for work, for anything.

The reason why this law is being proposed is because there have been several animal rights groups, and vegan groups actually visiting these places and setting them on fire! They have been tackling people who work there, or visit there, and kicking crap out of them.

All you have to do is take a look at the list of organizations who oppose AETA and see all the animal rights groups and vegan groups, and it's easy to figure this out.

But imagine that! Kind hearted animal lovers supporting their right to burn, maim, and hurt other people.

I guess I'm shaking my head in disbelief why at least one dog blogger out there wants fellow dog owners to oppose it also. As if to say that people ought to have the right to burn down buildings, and beat people senseless. Does that make any sense?

If you want to argue that animals used in shows, or for testing, or education, might be "cruel", that's fair enough. But then again, it's hard for a group like PETA to make this argument when they've admitted up front that they kill every dog and cat they "rescue" in North Carolina. Ooops!

Opponents to AETA claim that this law is unfair, because it targets only animal rights groups. Not true. It targets ANYBODY who does bodily harm to another person or business involved with an animal enterprise.

But if you really think about it, a law like AETA isn't necessarily needed anyways, since there are already laws against assault and battery, arson, theft, etc. All that's needed is to enforce those laws.

Instead of writing your Congressman about AETA, talk to your county supervisor, or city councilman, about putting more cops on the street, and busting these domestic terrorists.

13 Comments:

This new law is meant to intimidate animal lovers from peacefully protesting cruel conditions that helpless animals are trapped in. I called Petri's office and even his telephone flunky could not defend this law. There is still time to contact your Congressmen and women to ask for huge changes. It is unconstitutional. This flawed law was passed on the sly, with very few legislators voting.

By Anonymous, at 5:39 PM, November 14, 2006
Hey, animal rights person here. Why aren't you concerned with institutional violence? Or, doesn't the violence visited on animals in labs, circuses, slaughterhouses, puppy mills, factory farms, mink ranches, movie sets bother you? They sure didn't volunteer for those gigs. They don't get to keep the paychecks. Basically, might makes right. But, only for some, right?

By Anonymous, at 5:50 PM, November 14, 2006
It was violence got this bill written. Had animal rights groups not resorted to violence, we'd never have gotten to this point.

By Steve, at 6:45 PM, November 14, 2006
Um, no. This bill does not prohibit the "peaceful" protesting which is rotected by the U.S. Constitution. In fact, there's an entire portion dedicated to what shall not be considered illegal under this new act. These roughl;y include peaceful portesting (not harrassing people as ALF and PETA like to do), boycotts (when you're not forcing other people to do so as well), and such. If you have to chain yourself to a door and bar people from going inside to hear your message, you're doing something wrong.

All the people here who believe the AETA is to limit your rights as animal rights activists, it's not. I, not being one, could do the same thing as ALF like stealing turkeys from a farm during November and guess what? I'd be prosecuted under this law as well. Am I an animal rights activist? No. Did I commit a crime under this new law? Yes. So, therefore, I will be fined for whatever I stole because of this new law much easier than people.

All the animal rights people who do peaceful protests and marches are not affected. The ones who vandalize KFC, steal mink from fur farms and release them into the wild (which cause severe ecological damage), or post people's phone numbers on a wesbite and urge people to "call and change their way" are affected.

~The Bison~

By The Bison, at 6:45 PM, November 14, 2006
Are the same perps that beat there kids and/or shot a bird w a bb gun when they were young!?

By BEN, at 8:02 AM, November 16, 2006
From BEN.Correction "Are these the (same)perps that abuse there kids and were bullied when they were kids?...

By Anonymous, at 8:05 AM, November 16, 2006
I say amen to the animal-lovers!!!!

By Lisa Covton, at 12:43 PM, November 26, 2006
Despite public claims that only "violent" activity is targeted by the AETA, penalties up to 18 months' imprisonment are included *specifically* for *non-violent* actions (civil disobedience) in which no person is injured or threatened, but which cause "economic damage."

By M Groesbeck, at 11:41 AM, November 29, 2006
Poor defenseless animals already have no rights and now the people who try to help them are having their rights taken away also. WAKE UP people and take a stand or we shall have no rights left!

By Anonymous, at 3:56 PM, December 04, 2006
Regarding the above comment...

What rights are being taken away? Are you referring to the right to burn down buildings and beat people senseless?

By Steve, at 5:44 PM, December 04, 2006
First, there have been ZERO substantiated incidents of death or serious bodily injury due to animal activists. Also, in the event of a death or extreme battery, our existing criminal law should be sufficient to prosecute/convict the perpetrator. Most "animal terrorism" involves only property damage. Burning buildings or vandalizing labs are, like murder, punishable by existing criminal law. So what is the true motive behind the AETA? It's to suppress speech, simple. Any conduct that causes the LOSS OF PROFITS of an animal enterprise falls under the AETA. This can mean acts of civil disobedience, protesting outside a slaughterhouse, for example. Everyone should be worried about this law, because suppressing First Amendment rights is a critical matter to every American and cannot be dismissed as merely punishing animal "terrorists". Read the Senate transcripts and you will see the unconstitutionality of this law...

By Anonymous, at 7:49 PM, December 04, 2006
Regarding the above comment,

AETA does not suppress free speech, but rather, suppresses violence. Read the text of the Bill, as linked in the article.

It's a very simple bill, that establishes a felony offense when someone does the following...

"intentionally damages, disrupts, or causes the loss of any property

"intentionally places a person in reasonable fear of the death of, or serious bodily injury to that person, a member of the immediate family (as defined in section 115) of that person, or a spouse or intimate partner of that person by a course of conduct involving threats, acts of vandalism, property damage, trespass, harassment, or intimidation; or"

"conspires or attempts to do so;"

If you consider such acts as "First Amendment Rights", then Osama Bin Laden has a job for you.

By Steve, at 8:16 PM, December 04, 2006
"then Osama Bin Laden has a job for you."

You are an ass hole.
Don't you dare associate someone with love in their hearts for animals with Bin Laden.

By Anonymous, at 8:27 PM, November 11, 2007

Sponsored Links

Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act

13 Comments:

Previously on DoggieNews