| ||||||
| Environment Debate and defend the issues our world faces on topics such as global warming, environmental pollution, and the many proposals that might help solve these problems. |
 |
| | LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
11-16-2006, 06:08 PM
| #1 (permalink) | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Super Moderator   Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: RI Gender:  Posts: 2,846 Country: 
  |  Republican sliegh of hands Congress Criminalizes Non-Violent Acts Against Animal Mistreatment WASHINGTON, D.C., Nov. 14 -- The government yesterday paid tribute to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., in an emotional groundbreaking ceremony for a memorial to recognize the iconic civil rights leader’s legacy and celebrate his advocacy of non-violence to achieve social change. Tragically, only a few hours later and at the opposite end of the National Mall, the House of Representatives voted in favor of the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA) to criminalize many of the same legitimate and constitutionally protected tactics used by Dr. King when they are used to advance animal protections. Following the Senate’s passage of the measure in late September, the House passed the AETA by a simple voice vote preceded by virtually no substantive debate. When signed by the President, this bill could be used to arrest, prosecute and imprison law-abiding citizens exercising their first amendment rights to peacefully assemble and protest. “It is shameful that on the same day America honored the memory and legacy of Dr. King, Congress declared the millions of Americans who advocate for greater protection of animals to be terrorists and criminalized many of the tools used by activists to challenge industry abuse of animals,” said Society for Animal Protective Legislation Legislative Counsel Tracy Silverman. Under the terms of this industry-endorsed bill, a citizen who travels across state or county lines or uses the mail or Internet to protest the mistreatment of animals could be fined and/or imprisoned if his or her actions cause economic damage to companies that use, abuse or exploit animals – or if his or her actions, even if they were non-violent, are simply deemed to represent harassment or intimidation. Animal protection advocates could be prosecuted and labeled as terrorists for conducting these peaceful forms of social justice because the bill contains language that is vague and ambiguously broad. Furthermore, the AETA is unnecessary because existing laws address extremist acts that result in property damage, bodily injury or death. This poorly written measure will eventually be subject to challenge and will likely be deemed unconstitutional. Contact: Tracy Silverman, Esq. at the Society for Animal Protective Legislation, (703) 836-4300; Working for Passage of Animal Welfare Laws Since 1955 For over 50 years the Society for Animal Protective Legislation (SAPL), a division of the Animal Welfare Institute (AWI), has been committed to improving the welfare of animals through non-violent means. As Mahatma Gandhi said, "[n]on-violence is the greatest force at the disposal of mankind. It is mightier than the mightiest weapon of destruction devised by the ingenuity of man." Christopher J. Heyde, Deputy Legislative Director Society for Animal Protective Legislation (Division of the Animal Welfare Institute) Working for Passage of Animal Welfare Laws Since 1955 Compassion Index From: centcom@war-online.org Organization: Win Animal Rights Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 [WAR] UPI Article About AETA Passage United Press International - Health Business - Analysis: Bill targets animal activists Note from WAR: You can post a comment on this article by visiting the URL above. Analysis: Bill targets animal activists By STEVE MITCHELL, UPI Senior Medical Correspondent WASHINGTON, Nov. 14 (UPI) -- Congress passed an update to the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act and President Bush is expected to sign it into law, but animal rights activists say the new legislation will do little to inhibit their actions against pharmaceutical companies and other animal research firms and may even spur increased extremist activities. The biomedical research industry was pushing for the bill because they wanted laws in place to thwart new tactics employed by activists, including harassing and intimidating individual researchers and companies that do businesses with animal research firms. "Hopefully, this will give law enforcement the tools they need to address more quickly and swiftly that kind of campaign," Frankie Trull, president of Foundation for Biomedical Research, a group supported by industry, told United Press International. In recent years, animal activists have begun targeting homes of individual researchers and executives of pharmaceutical companies, including threats to take further action if they do not cease their business with animal research firms, such as Huntingdon Life Sciences. Activists have also sent threatening letters to shareholders of pharmaceutical companies and waged a successful campaign to prevent Huntingdon from being listed on the New York Stock Exchange. "Right now, a researcher who's under attack really has no where to go and this will help them get law enforcement attention," Trull added. "We're hoping this new law will help make the climate more friendly and those that seek to end all animal research will do so through legitimate means as opposed to this kind of intimidation and harassment." This was passed on the first afternoon back. There was only 6 members present, 5 of which were republicans. It passed, 4 to 2. Politics, it seems to me, for years, or all too long, has been concerned with right or left instead of right or wrong. ~Richard Armour There are many men of principle in both parties in America, but there is no party of principle. ~Alexis de Tocqueville Last edited by tyreay; 11-16-2006 at 06:11 PM. | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Sponsored Links |
|
11-16-2006, 07:10 PM
| #2 (permalink) | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Senator   Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 5,836
| Quote:
So 1 year or a fine is possible for "violations" where the recipient does not even fear bodily harm, or "economic damages" just because some people heard a message that might cause them to boycott? What the @%#$@ is this #%@$##??? There are EXISTING laws regarding harassment and intimidation. Laws which should be enforced if animal activists overstep the line. But THIS legislation obviously gives WAYYYY too much protection at the expense of limiting free speech. "(Gay marriage) is a debate about whether you think gay people are part of the human condition or just a random fetish." -- Jon Stewart "Please don't judge others by your own standards." -- Garysher  | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
11-17-2006, 05:08 AM
| #3 (permalink) | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Super Moderator Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: RI Gender: Posts: 2,846 Country:
| Quote:
Politics, it seems to me, for years, or all too long, has been concerned with right or left instead of right or wrong. ~Richard Armour There are many men of principle in both parties in America, but there is no party of principle. ~Alexis de Tocqueville | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
11-17-2006, 08:05 AM
| #4 (permalink) | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Banned  Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Omaha Beach Posts: 7,298
| Any dolt knows that this will have NOTHING to do with peaceful protestors who picket outside packing houses, or buy billboard space displaying mistreatment of animals, or work to bring about governmental change. This legislation is aimed at the LAWLESS IDIOTS (PETA People, and the like) who break into and destroy testing facilities, burn down barns, disrupt people's incomes, threaten farmers, and/or cause damage that runs between $10,000 - $100,000. So exercise your right to free speech all you want. This legislation will not affect that in any way. But when you set out to be domestic terrorists, you're going to get in huge trouble - as you should! GovTrack: H.R. 4239: Text of Legislation | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
11-26-2006, 05:43 AM
| #5 (permalink) | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| The Man You Love to Hate   Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Ketchikan, AK Gender: Posts: 1,854 Country:
 | Quote:
`(e) Rules of Construction- Nothing in this section shall be construed-- `(1) to prohibit any expressive conduct (including peaceful picketing or other peaceful demonstration) protected from legal prohibition by the First Amendment to the Constitution; `(2) to create new remedies for interference with activities protected by the free speech or free exercise clauses of the First Amendment to the Constitution, regardless of the point of view expressed, or to limit any existing legal remedies for such interference; It would seem this is a now what is the word you use when you don't admit all the facts or tell the entire truth, oh that's right A LIE!!!!!! Quote:
Offense- Whoever travels in interstate or foreign commerce, or uses or causes to be used the mail or any facility of interstate or foreign commerce-- `(1) for the purpose of damaging or interfering with the operations of an animal enterprise; and `(2) in connection with such purpose-- `(A) intentionally damages or causes the loss of any real or personal property (including animals or records) used by an animal enterprise, or any real or personal property of a person or entity having a connection to, relationship with, or transactions with an animal enterprise; `(B) 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, criminal trespass, harassment, or intimidation; or `(C) conspires or attempts to do so; Again another mistatement of facts. You know what folks it is my opinion that Tracy SIlverman either is a liar or has problem comprehending the written word. Since Tracy Silverman is a Legislative Counsel I doubt it is the latter so it must be that TRACY SILVERMAN IS A LIAR!!!!!!!! The lies pile one on top of the other. Do I even need to address the second release! dmk Conservatism, I repeat is not an ideology. It does not breed fanatics....But if you want men who seek, reasonably and prudently, to reconcile the best in wisdom of our ancestors with the change which is essential to a vigorous civil social existence, then you will do well to turn to conservative principles -Russell Kirk- | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
11-26-2006, 09:08 AM
| #6 (permalink) | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Super Moderator Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: RI Gender: Posts: 2,846 Country:
| Quote:
Politics, it seems to me, for years, or all too long, has been concerned with right or left instead of right or wrong. ~Richard Armour There are many men of principle in both parties in America, but there is no party of principle. ~Alexis de Tocqueville | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
11-27-2006, 02:33 AM
| #7 (permalink) | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Citizen   Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 17
| Quote:
These are the bills that make me very edgy, bacause their vague nature means that they can encompass things that they should't encompass. A company that loses business due to an activist mailing should not be a punishable crime. There's just no reason for it. I agree with tyreay that we have enough laws already in place to cover such things as physical property damage and personal harm. This just seems to be a capitulation to companies abusing animals who happen to have deep pockets filled with campaign contributions. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
11-27-2006, 08:32 AM
| #8 (permalink) | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Banned Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Omaha Beach Posts: 7,298
| Quote:
On the other hand, if PETA sends out a slanderous mailing that disrupts or diminishes the revenue of a legitimate business, PETA should be held legally liable. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
11-28-2006, 02:25 AM
| #9 (permalink) | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| The Man You Love to Hate Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Ketchikan, AK Gender: Posts: 1,854 Country:
| Quote:
So tell me when have peaceful protests allowed vandalism, trespassing, the intentional damage of property or records, harassment or intimidation of individuals? They haven't. Read the law. It allows boycotts and protests, this is just another in a long serious of misrepresentations being used to cover asses. The law clearly states that nothing in the law should be contrued to prohibit any expressive conduct including peaceful picketing or other peaceful demonstrations. That is clearly written in to the law. Obviously again we have someone who either cannot comprehend what they read, or just ignore it and try to convince everyone else what the bill says according to them. In other words they lie, lie, and LIE!!! dmk Conservatism, I repeat is not an ideology. It does not breed fanatics....But if you want men who seek, reasonably and prudently, to reconcile the best in wisdom of our ancestors with the change which is essential to a vigorous civil social existence, then you will do well to turn to conservative principles -Russell Kirk- | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
11-28-2006, 10:51 AM
| #10 (permalink) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Super Moderator Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: RI Gender: Posts: 2,846 Country:
| Quote:
Is this not written into the law? Quote:
I though I explained this already? Quote:
Quote:
Like I said: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Politics, it seems to me, for years, or all too long, has been concerned with right or left instead of right or wrong. ~Richard Armour There are many men of principle in both parties in America, but there is no party of principle. ~Alexis de Tocqueville Last edited by tyreay; 11-28-2006 at 10:56 AM. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
| Bookmarks |
« Previous Thread
|
Next Thread »
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
Linear Mode
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:28 PM.
