Let’s play a round of spot the criminal. Is it A, this guy, B, one of these people,
or C, these people. If you guessed C, you’re a caring person with a heart brimming with
compassion. And, you’re legally wrong. ‘Cause in the real world, you free Willy, you go to jail.
Where do we draw the line when it comes to animal activism? When are certain actions compassionate
versus criminal. When is saving a life an act of terrorism versus heroism?
In the United States at least, the legal line is moving further and further in favor of
criminalizing activism. The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, or AETA, was signed into law
on Nov 27th, 2006 by President George W Bush. This act amended and expanded the Animal Enterprise
Protection Act of 1992. The Defending Dissent Foundation puts it this
way: The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act criminalizes a broad range of organizing and protest activity,
and brands it as ‘terrorism’. The law is intended to muzzle animal rights advocates,
but it’s so broad that it could be used against virtually anyone who uses the internet
to research or provide information about an issue, or who organizes a protest or boycott.
Yes, it is that bad! That’s why we call it the Activism Equals Terrorism Act.
This is particularly true when considering that the AETA leaves room for conspiracy charges,
which allows for prosecution based not on your actions alone, but on your connection
to other peoples’ actions, regardless of participation or even knowledge of those actions.
The past decade has seen a number of prosecutions under both the AEPA and the AETA. These prosecutions
have been notable in that they have both criminalized activities that are generally protected under
the First Amendment, such as chanting and leafleting and they’ve also been used to
enhance charges for direct actions, which are already criminalized by existing federal
or state statutes.
I had something of my own experience with this when I faced potential legal repercussions
for a performance art piece I did in which I was branded with a cattle iron. Because
apparently that hurt other people more than it hurt me.
Now, what if you don’t steal anything, free any animals or destroy any property. What
if all you want to do is show what’s happening behind the closed doors of farm, factories,
and labs? In many places in the US, this is, or is becoming, a crime as well. Ag-Gag laws
are becoming standard across the country. Ag-gag is a term used for a variety of anti-whistleblower
laws in the United States that prohibit the making of undercover videos, photographs and
sound recordings. Kansas was the first state to enact an ag-gag law, in 1990.
Undercover videos are important for a number of reasons. They educate the public on what
is really happening to produce our food, fashion, cosmetics, etc. They also give a voice to
the animals who suffer and die behind closed doors without a chance for anyone to tell
their story. They help keep companies accountable for their actions. And, believe it or not,
they help human society. You see, ag-gag bills are troubling not only for animal activists,
but also people concerned with food safety, labor issues, free speech, and freedom of
the press. These bills apply equally to journalists, employees, and activists. By prohibiting any
type of undercover recordings, a farm's own employees would be prohibited from attempting
to record food safety violations, labor violations, sexual harassment incidents or other illegal
activity.
Let’s do a quick summary. And if you’re sensitive to graphic imagery, just listen
to the audio on this, and I’ll tell you when it’s okay to look again.
So the law protects the mink farmer using anal electrocution and skinning animals alive.
It protects the vivisectionist performing cruel and useless experiments on conscious
animals. It protects the farmer cramming a veal calf into a crate, lopping off appendages
without anesthetic, and blatantly abusing animals. But what the law does not protect
and, in fact prosecutes is the people trying to stop all of this.
How logical is this? Criminal. Legally Protected. Terrorist. Legally Protected. Illegal. Legal.
For those of you turned away, the graphic part’s over. This whole situation is ass
backwards. The law needs to stop criminalizing those who are trying to stop cruelty and start
protecting those upon whom this cruelty is being inflicted. In the end, isn’t that
what legal protection is supposed to do? Protect those who cannot protect themselves?
So you tell me. Who’s the real criminal? And if we asked the animals, I’m pretty
sure what their answer would be. Let me know your thoughts in the comments and give the
video a thumbs up if you liked it. Please share it around to spread the word and I’ll
see you next time.