Feminist Looking Glass

Thanks to VegiFem: Perspective on Vegan Feminist Ethics for making me aware of this issue that had somehow previously escaped me.  And for you fans and haters of PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals), there will be something about PETA at the end.

The Huffington Post has an article about the repercussions of the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA), which was pushed by the animal industry and signed into law in 2006 with virtually no discussion.  Even though it would almost certainly be overturned by any court on constitutional grounds, no one was willing to be on the record against it because it was done under the guise of anti-terrorism.  (Dennis Kucinich was the only person in the House and Senate even willing to say anything negative about it, although he ultimately chose to be absent from the vote.)

Hard to believe, but the “AETA makes into domestic terrorism any actions that physically interfere with the operation of any animal enterprise, or that cause physical or economic damage to the said enterprise, regardless of motive or reason.”  And, although the law is supposed to be about “force, violence, and threats involving animal enterprises,” its scope is far broader, as seen by the clause “for the purpose of damaging or interfering with the operations of an animal enterprise.”  And, although the law says that it does not “prohibit any expressive conduct (including peaceful picketing or other peaceful demonstration) protected from legal prohibition by the First Amendment to the Constitution,” its application is far broader and the repercussions are being seen.  (Here is the text of the law.)  As the Center for Constitutional Rights says:

[T]he language of the AETA covers many First Amendment activities, such as picketing, boycotts and undercover investigations if they “interfere” with an animal enterprise by causing a loss of profits. So in effect, The AETA silences the peaceful and lawful protest activities of animal and environmental advocates.

The HuffPo article talks about Jonathan Safran Foer’s book titled Eating Animals, which was about the abuses of animals on factory farms.  To find out what was happening, Foer did undercover investigative work.  The article says that, under the AETA, “Foer’s undercover actions — while clearly an important public service — are actually illegal, and what’s more, they constitute acts of domestic terrorism.”

According to the HuffPo article, these are the undercover investigative actions taken by Foer that define him as a domestic terrorist under the AETA and could result in serious charges.

Mr. Foer, a New York resident, illegally and under the cover of night, enters a turkey factory farm in California with an animal rights activist identified only as “C.” This is interstate travel and conspiracy, and also a violation of California’s own sweeping Animal Enterprise Protection Act and other laws prohibiting trespassing on, filming in, or otherwise documenting the operations of a factory farm.

Following the initial trespass, “C.” — with the clear foreknowledge and consent of Mr. Foer — euthanizes a sick and suffering turkey chick writhing on the floor. Now we’re talking conspiracy and destruction of property of an animal enterprise.

There are further actions and statements in the book that could also be interpreted as Mr. Foer interfering, or at least trying to interfere with the operation of various animal enterprises. Indeed, much of what Mr. Foer exposes stirs such moral indignation that it’d be strange if people didn’t take to the streets to demand change, thereby possibly interfering with the operation of one animal enterprise or another.

For all this, our laws say, Mr. Foer could be prosecuted as a domestic terrorist. But of course he won’t be. I hope. Not because what I say isn’t true, but because Mr. Foer is protected by his stature as a celebrated author. Unfortunately, animal rights activists such as “C.” are not so lucky.

Although Foer may not be charged, other not-so-well-known people who are trying to expose and stop the cruelties of U.S. animal industries have not been so lucky.  This is really hard to believe, but the article says that, in 2006, “six young American activists affiliated with the animal rights group Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty USA received a combined sentence of 23 years in federal prison, simply for operating a website that called for legal protests against the multinational animal testing giant Huntingdon Life Sciences (HLS) and its suppliers.”  All press was banned from the court proceedings.  The “verdict was recently held up on appeal by the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court in Philadelphia, which found that even legal, constitutionally protected activity can be criminalized in the context of AETA prosecutions.”  And then, in 2009, “four northern California animal rights activists were arrested and charged with terrorism for protesting, chalking the sidewalk, and leafleting outside the homes of animal researchers.”

Will Potter runs a blog called Green is the New Red, which is dedicated to the “Green Scare” about eco-terrorists and which he compares to the “Red Scare” Communist witch hunt of the 1950’s.  The blog is also about animal rights activists and the AETA.  Yesterday, Potter gave this account of a recent victim of the AETA.  Scott Demuth was “indicted on animal enterprise terrorism charges for alleged ‘conspiracy’ as part of the 2005 Animal Liberation Front raid at the University of Iowa that rescued more than 300 animals.”  The government had attempted to keep Demuth in prison while awaiting trial.  The prosecutor argued that: “Defendant’s writings, literature, and conduct suggest that he is an anarchist and associated with the ALF movement. Therefore, he is a domestic terrorist.”  The prosecutor had also argued that Demuth “participated in an anti-government demonstration in front of the courthouse” prior to the grand jury hearing. “

On Monday, the court released Demuth pending trial.  But it is easy to see the abuses of the AETA.  The government is portraying eco and animal rights protesters as terrorists (the clear language of the AETA allows mandates that they be portrayed as terrorists) and is attempting to tie them by implication to the “war on terrorism.”

And what does all of this have to do with PETA.  While many feminists hate PETA because of its sexist advertising campaigns, I don’t think there is much quarrel with its goal of eliminating abuse of animals by corporations and individuals.  You would think that PETA falls squarely under the AETA.  Well, in fact, it does.  Will Potter writes that PETA is classified as a “terrorist threat” by the USDA.  He says:

PETA is perhaps the most recognized organization in the animal rights movement. They are known for their undercover investigations, and their use of celebrities and outlandish media stunts to draw attention to factory farming, fur, circuses and animal experimentation.

Regardless of how you feel about PETA and their tactics, they are a lawful, above-ground, national non-profit.

So why in another section of the USDA form, are they listed as a possible answer under “Greatest Threat or Danger. What do you consider the greatest source of danger to your organization and/or fellow workers?”

Because they expose what goes on behind closed doors.

And this is what a PETA representative said about the AETA in an op-ed in the Sacramento Bee:

This should give all Americans pause. People who engage in nonviolent protests and civil disobedience are sitting in jail cells, stigmatized by one of the most politically charged and discrediting labels of our time, while people who wake up every morning and go to jobs in which they torment and kill animals in laboratories continue to enjoy their freedom, paychecks, social lives and families.