Does anyone have an opinion on the AETA bill (Animal Enterprise
Terrorism Act)? I'm getting bombarded with crap about it by someone
I work with. Apparently, the ASPCA, HSUS, PeTA and a slew of
various AR and AW groups are frothing about it. I've read the bill,
and while I really don't like the idea of additional "terrorism"
legislation (enough, already!), I don't see that the claims being
made are based on reality.

Specifically:

First, she sent me this, from the ASPCA:
https://secure2.convio.net/aspca/site/Advocacy?pagename=homepage&page=UserAction&id=2037

Full text of the bill is he
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill...bill=h109-4239

"Proof" she sent me that the claims are not bogus:
http://www.noaeta.com/

Am I missing something, or is this basically a bunch of AR groups
getting whiny about being held accountable for their unethical
practices? Because that's what it looks like to me.

--
Shelly (Warning: see label for details)
http://www.cat-sidh.net (the Mother Ship)
http://esther.cat-sidh.net (Letters to Esther)

On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 07:21:27 -0500, shelly wrote:

Am I missing something, or is this basically a bunch of AR groups
getting whiny about being held accountable for their unethical
practices? Because that's what it looks like to me.

I don't think I'd call what the bill outlaws "unethical practices".
Criminal practices would be a better fit - vandalism, arson, assault, and
extortion.

--
When a clever man was stupid, he was stupid in a way a man who was
stupid all the time could never hope to match, for the clever man's
stupidity, drawing as it did on so much more knowledge, had a breadth
and depth to it the run-of-the-mill fool found impossible to duplicate.
- Harry Turtledove

Jeff Dege wrote:

I don't think I'd call what the bill outlaws "unethical practices".
Criminal practices would be a better fit - vandalism, arson, assault, and
extortion.

Well, yes, only they apparently aren't criminal *yet*--or, at least,
AR groups like PeTA have so far been able to distance themselves
enough to keep from being held legally accountable. This bill would
change that, which is why it's fringey AR groups like PeTA and the
HSUS who have their knickers in a knot. But then there's the
ASPCA's "call to action," which confuses me. I'd always assumed
they were a legit AW group, not a nutty AR group.

Mostly, I'm just frustrated with my coworker. I think she's a well
meaning animal nut, but kind of gullible, in that she seems to take
the written word as some sort of gospel.

Says she: "According to this website [http://noaeta.org/], more
than 100 animal protection and social justice organizations oppose
this act. Sounds like it's not as benign as we had hoped..."

Well, yeah, but who the hell *are* NOAETA? Why would any reasonable
person care what they--or the groups they are affiliated with--have
to say on the issue? They've talked a lot about protecting the
right to protest, but unless I'm misunderstanding the bill, the
right to protest shouldn't be affected by it.

--
Shelly (Warning: see label for details)
http://www.cat-sidh.net (the Mother Ship)
http://esther.cat-sidh.net (Letters to Esther)

shelly wrote:

Does anyone have an opinion on the AETA bill (Animal Enterprise
Terrorism Act)?

It was a good bill as originally written. AR terrorists have had
substantial economic impact. We at SAOVA were hoping they
would add protections for outfitters and hunting preserves.
Instead of a scheduled markup where we could be heard,
it was modified quietly, and the penalty section was gutted.
The ARs are way ahead in lobbyists and money, and they
beat us on this one.

The Senate version has not been passed. If the outcome of
the election were different, we might be lobbying to kill it in the
Senate and bring it back next year in stronger form. As it is,
however, the House is decidedly more AR, especially as we
will lose some key committee chairmen who have blocked AR
legislation. Our conclusion is that we want to do all we can to
encourage passage of the Senate in what remains of this year.


Am I missing something, or is this basically a bunch of AR groups
getting whiny about being held accountable for their unethical
practices? Because that's what it looks like to me.

That's the way it looks to me. There's a lot less in the bill than
it started with, but it's all we're likely to get for some time. The
ARs know how much damage their domestic terrorism has done,
even those that don't support it explicitly.

Amy Dahl

shelly wrote:

This bill would
change that, which is why it's fringey AR groups like PeTA and the
HSUS who have their knickers in a knot.

Wake up! HSUS is not not not "fringey." They claim 10 million
members, spent a *huge* amount on this election, and in some ways
have met their goal of being bigger than the NRA.

Amy Dahl

Amy Dahl wrote:

Wake up! HSUS is not not not "fringey." They claim 10 million
members, spent a *huge* amount on this election, and in some ways
have met their goal of being bigger than the NRA.

Bad word choice on my part. I liken them to PeTA (which is what I
meant by "fringey") in that they are an AR group whose
supporters--for the most part--have no idea what sort of wacked-out
things the group is *actually* up to. Pay no attention to the man
behind the curtain! My faith in the average American's ability to
think critically, or to even question that there might *be* a man
behind the curtain, is quite dim, and it's getting dimmer by the day.

But yes, the HSUS is huge, and they're plausible. That's what makes
them so damned scary.

--
Shelly (Warning: see label for details)
http://www.cat-sidh.net (the Mother Ship)
http://esther.cat-sidh.net (Letters to Esther)

Amy Dahl wrote:

It was a good bill as originally written. AR terrorists have had
substantial economic impact. We at SAOVA were hoping they
would add protections for outfitters and hunting preserves.
Instead of a scheduled markup where we could be heard,
it was modified quietly, and the penalty section was gutted.
The ARs are way ahead in lobbyists and money, and they
beat us on this one.

Thank you! I assume the copy I found, which seems to date from
2005, is the older, stronger version?

The Senate version has not been passed.

Right.

If the outcome of
the election were different, we might be lobbying to kill it in the
Senate and bring it back next year in stronger form. As it is,
however, the House is decidedly more AR, especially as we
will lose some key committee chairmen who have blocked AR
legislation. Our conclusion is that we want to do all we can to
encourage passage of the Senate in what remains of this year.

It seems like a reasonable bill to me. There's no way I'd campaign
against it, that's for sure, and I sure as heck won't be encouraging
any of my friends/colleagues to do so, either.

That's the way it looks to me. There's a lot less in the bill than
it started with, but it's all we're likely to get for some time. The
ARs know how much damage their domestic terrorism has done,
even those that don't support it explicitly.

Thanks. You're far more involved in AR/AW issues than I've ever
been, so I really value your input.

As much as I am suspicious of terrorism legislation aimed at US
citizens (Lordy, it seems *so* wrong!), I think groups like PeTA and
the HSUS need to be exposed for what they are and hung out to dry.
I have absolutely zero sense of humor about them, so I really want
to think that this legislation--should it pass--would be a good thing.

Now, how I explain all this to my dim but presumably well meaning
coworker is a whole 'nother kettle of fishes.

--
Shelly (Warning: see label for details)
http://www.cat-sidh.net (the Mother Ship)
http://esther.cat-sidh.net (Letters to Esther)

shelly wrote:

As much as I am suspicious of terrorism legislation aimed at US
citizens (Lordy, it seems *so* wrong!), I think groups like PeTA and
the HSUS need to be exposed for what they are and hung out to dry.
I have absolutely zero sense of humor about them, so I really want
to think that this legislation--should it pass--would be a good thing.

Now that you've jogged my memory, my first reaction to the
bill was similar. Sure, it protects interests I care about, but does
that outrank the protection of civil liberties? As I learned more
about it, I decided that was not an issue. It is about defining acts
that are directed at altering people's economic and life choices,
not about threatening civil liberties.

Amy Dahl

In article ,
Amy Dahl wrote:
Now that you've jogged my memory, my first reaction to the
bill was similar. Sure, it protects interests I care about, but does
that outrank the protection of civil liberties? As I learned more
about it, I decided that was not an issue. It is about defining acts
that are directed at altering people's economic and life choices,
not about threatening civil liberties.

Yeah - you don't want to punish people for having
disagreeable or even loathesome opinions, but it's fair game
to take those into consideration when trying to account for
illegal actions. In some sense it's similar to hate crime
legislation - it's legally okay to hate black people, gay
people, Latinos, etc., but it's not okay to commit crimes
against individuals from those communities and if the crime
is committed in a way that's intended to intimidate the
entire community it becomes a hate crime. Similarly,
there's a difference between 1st and 2nd degree murder.
--
Melinda Shore - Software longa, hardware brevis -

Prouder than ever to be a member of the reality-based community

Amy Dahl wrote:

Now that you've jogged my memory, my first reaction to the
bill was similar. Sure, it protects interests I care about, but does
that outrank the protection of civil liberties? As I learned more
about it, I decided that was not an issue. It is about defining acts
that are directed at altering people's economic and life choices,
not about threatening civil liberties.

Well said! That was what I came away with after actually reading
the bill. My livelihood isn't affected by the issues it addresses,
though, so I wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something.

--
Shelly (Warning: see label for details)
http://www.cat-sidh.net (the Mother Ship)
http://esther.cat-sidh.net (Letters to Esther)