By Will Potter, Green Is the New Red, December 15, 2011
A new lawsuit challenges the Animal Enterprise Terrorism
Act as unconstitutional because it has given activists reason to fear that they
could be prosecuted as “terrorists” for non-violent civil disobedience,
protests, and First Amendment activity.
The lawsuit was filed by the Center for Constitutional
Rights on behalf of 5 longtime animal rights activists. The activists say the
vague wording of the law, and the corporate-led campaigns against
animal rights activism, have made them alter their own advocacy.
The landmark case has implications for all social
justice movement, beyond the animal rights activists targeted. It sets a
dangerous precedent for labeling anyone who effectively threatens corporate
profits a “terrorist.” As the Occupy Wall Street Movement grows rapidly, and
has begun reclaiming foreclosed homes from banks and shutting down ports, this
lawsuit couldn’t come at a more pressing time. And with the impending passage
of the National Defense Authorization Act, the dangers of this parallel legal
system for “terrorists” has become strikingly clear.
The lawsuit seeks to strike down the law for violating
the First and Fifth Amendments [read the criminal complaint in Blum v. Holder]. Specifically, it argues that the
law is unconstitutional for 3 reasons:
1.
It is
so broad that it has had a chilling effect on free speech. The law hasn’t
outlawed animal rights activism, but it has made activists think twice about
using their rights. This was the primary point I raised in my
Congressional testimony against the law in 2006, and since then the political
climate has become even more toxic. The first use of the law was based on activists allegedly
chalking slogans on the sidewalk and wearing bandanas. The Animal Enterprise
Terrorism Act is an attempt by corporations to use the power of fear in order to
silence their opposition.
2.
The
language is so vague that people can’t decipher what is illegal. The law’s
criminalization of “interfering with” the operations of an animal enterprise,
or causing a “loss of profits,” leave activists wondering if they could be
labeled a terrorist for a successful lawful campaign. This is compounded by the
law’s emphasis on “tertiary targeting”: it not only protects animal
enterprises,” but any business that does business with an animal enterprise. When
politicians, the courts, lawyers, and national organizations cannot agree on
the meaning of this law, it is dangerously overbroad.
3.
It
singles out animal rights activist because of their political beliefs and their
effective advocacy. Meanwhile, violence by anti-abortion extremists is not
being labeled as terrorism. For more on this: “If Sarah Palin Were an Animal
Rights Activist, She’d Have Already Been Convicted of ‘Terrorism.” Singling out groups of people
because of their political beliefs, and restricting their First Amendment
rights, is antithetical to a healthy democracy.
Here is a detailed, step-by-step analysis of the Animal Enterprise
Terrorism Act
if you are interested. I wanted to focus a bit on the people involved in the
lawsuit, though:
Sarahjane Blum has been an animal rights activist for 23
years. She co-founded GourmetCruelty.com in 2003, which exposed the cruelty of
the foie gras industry and helped California to ban foie gras farming.
According to the lawsuit: “While she had knowingly and openly violated the law
many times through acts of non-violent civil disobedience, she was unwilling to
face the possibility of prosecution and sentencing as a terrorist. She was
stunned that the ethical, important work that she had devoted her life to had
been turned overnight into terrorism.”
Ryan Shapiro is now a doctoral candidate at MIT studying
the history of political repression against animal rights activists. With
Sarahjane Blum, he co-founded GourmetCruelty.com, produced a documentary film, and
spoke publicly about his work. He was also friends with the SHAC 7 — a group of activists convicted as
terrorists. “Faced with the imprisonment of his friends, and with the passage
of the AETA, Mr. Shapiro began to worry that the price for peaceful protest and
civil disobedience was one he could not afford to pay.”
Lana Lehr has organized for the welfare of rabbits, and
also protested the sale of their fur. After the passage of the AETA, she found
herself altering her protest activity and censoring her words and her writing
online.
Lauren Gazzola is one of the SHAC 7. She recounts a
lecture she gave at a law school class where she censored herself from
encouraging activists to follow her advocacy, because she feared her words
would be used as evidence of conspiracy to violate the AETA.
Jay Johnson, who has confirmed that he has been placed
on a terrorist watchlist, has witnessed the chilling effect on grassroots
animal rights activism. After the case of the SHAC 7 and the passage of the
AETA, protest attendance plummeted. For instance, he recounts a protest against
a company affiliated with Huntingdon Life Sciences: “When he arrived at the
site of the planned protest, he was met by over 40 police officers in riot
gear, and not a single other protestor.”
In the interest of full disclosure, I have known several
of these plaintiffs for well over a decade, as activists and as friends.
I point this out because I want to take the liberty of
saying that this lawsuit was not an easy decision for them. There’s of course a
fear of drawing a giant red target on one’s back, but the primary concern of
these plaintiffs is not themselves — it’s the animals, and those advocating on
their behalf. All of these activists are deeply committed to the animal rights
movement, and they had to answer the uncomfortable question: “Does
acknowledging fear draw even more attention to it? Could this make even more
people afraid?”
But this lawsuit is more about courage than fear. It is
about these plaintiffs and the CCR having the courage to acknowledge that this
political climate exists, that what we are experiencing is real and it is
valid, and that we can’t move forward by pretending it doesn’t affect us. It is
to say, unequivocally: “Yes, we have been afraid. Yes, we have all known fear.
And now it is time to fight back.”
No comments:
Post a Comment