Why should people with a particular political agenda committing a particular act be treated differently than another person with another agenda committing the same act? Scary stuff, this law, in the precedent it sets for ANY activist.

The use of that term in this legislation is worrisome.

The protests, demonstrations, confrontations with certain personnel, etc., used by animal-rights activists are analogous to the protests, etc., of anti-abortion-rights activists.  My understanding is that at least here in New York, peaceful demonstrations at medical facilities which provide abortion services are permitted, but much negotiation was required before the current compromise was in place.  One big difficulty is that demonstrators like to address women entering or leaving those facilities, and such speech is often haranguing, distressing and abusive.  A friend of ours volunteers on Saturdays with a pro-reproductive-rights group, and escorts women past the demonstrators.

(And by the way, I strongly dislike the tactic, used by some animal-rights activists, of confronting aggressively, angrily, even threateningly, individuals connected with some animal-exploiting enterprise.  It strikes me as ugly and unpersuasive, and of no help to the cause.  But at what point does it become criminal?)

It seems it would be hard to check the speech of those anti-reproductive-rights demonstrators, without also violating their First Amendment rights.  But I do not think I have ever heard any of their actions, even the violent actions of a few of them, characterized as "terrorism."  To use that term to characterize the conduct of animal-rights activists, given the current climate, seems most unfairly to prejudice any judicial proceeding against them.

Thank God for Dennis Kucinich!  It was very well done that he raised those two issues, the need to protect the rights of the activists, and the need to take into consideration the inhumane treatment of animals.

Cynically, though, I have doubts whether the new Democratic majority will want to do anything toward dismantling this legislation, come January.  Inasmuch as the official Democratic mood seems to be, "The American people did not give us a mandate, they gave us the majority so that the business of the people can get done in a bipartisan way," it seems not impossible that they are going to give in on this issue, with the expectation of ensuring the passage of their own central agenda.

One form of activism that does not seem to be referred to -- and I very much hope I am right, because it is very effective -- is the taking of photographs or shooting of videos in such installations as factory farms, puppy mills and laboratories.  Typically, the activists have been invited in, with one understanding or another on the part of the proprietors, e.g. receiving them as guests, customers, even employees.  Typically, the special pro-animal-rights concerns of the activists are not known to the proprietors.  Often, the photographs and videos are made without the proprietors' knowledge.  It would seem to me that once the photographs and videos are published, any suit that the proprietors might want to bring must be based on a charge that the taking of the images violated some sort of legal restriction against it.  But I do not think it could be connected to vandalism, or to the alleged disruption of business.

In a not unrelated issue, the Canadian government seems to be putting in place legislation that would greatly restrict the freedom of activists with cameras to video the slaughter of thousands of young harp seals, scheduled for late winter and early spring, 2007.

Chickens are our cousins! So are other sensitive animals! Enough is enough! No more factory farms!

  We can notice that anti-abortionists activists aren't considered "terrorists".

  Nor are right wing hate groups, the NRA, militias or anti-immigrant groups (which run around society carrying guns).

  Frankly, I feel physically threatened by Republicans!!  Arrest them all!!!

  Oh, they aren't included either... Umm, don't tell the poor Iraqis.

patrick

  BioD, does that mean I am one??  Oh, migosh, and I have only a knife for cutting veggies!!  Wait, a weapon!

  The use  of the term "terrorist" has come to resemble the uses of the terms "Communist" and "Marxist" in the sense of meaning "an evil demon of an unspecified type".

  Of course, there are real terrorists out there, but they may be too hard to deal with.  

patrick (who is not a member of the Terrorist Liberation Front)

COnsidering what jackasses these people are in this current administration, perhaps this bill is indeed meant to protect them from animal protestors after all.  No harrassing the jackasses!!  Guess this lameduck Congressional session is focused on the plight of animals in general???

when Cheney goes out and shoots his buddy Harry in the face whilst hunting.... is Harry then a terrorist for "interfering with animal enterprises?"

"I swear, Dick, I didn't mean to get in the way!"

Personally, I have only been on the receiving end of assaults related to my animal-rights-suporting protests--I got physically assaulted by a Shriner at a circus because I was standing there holding a sign!  I actually have scars on my right hand where he grabbed by sign and hit me with it.

Animal activists have been among the most noted domestic "terrorists" for several years now, according to the Bush regime, er, administration.  I think it's groups like ALF (and, of course, the environmentalist version, ELF), that actually do commit violent acts every once in a while, that make this sort of thing possible.  That said, I can't say I disagree with them or completely object to their activities...

I suspect that either PETA or ALDF (Animal Legal Defense Fund) is going to bring a lawsuit over this in the relatively immediate future, which will hopefully end the ridiculousness.

Groups such as Sea Shepherd have been denounced for "terrorist" acts in the past (see IWC, 1994). Sea Shepherd has actually sunk and rammed ships engaged in lawful activity though.

A definition of terrorism is simply: "the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes".

We should not be confused here. The terrorism we saw on 9/11 was extreme. But that is no excuse for lower class terrorism of the likes that we will probably see in the Antarctic over the following months.

You might not like what Sea Shepherd does, but it is an open confrontation and those the SS dogs and confronts can get ready for it, respond to it and seek redress if SS violates rules of the road.

Let us not collapse all meaningful distinctions between such intimidation, or attempts at inimidation or interference by known and openly acting animals rights activists, with mass and anonymous, mass and indiscrimminate terrorist activities by groups not subject to police jurisdiction.

It is not well known what lay behind the alleged collisions between Sea Shepherd and whaling vessels.  It is unlikely that there was ever an objective witness to those events, whatever those events were.  Later, possibly, inspectors with expertise in diagnosing nautical accidents might have objectively determined who struck who, where, how, with what force.  But we must remain skeptical regarding such diagnoses.

It seems that David in Tokyo's statement cannot be altogether trusted.  That statement may hold a grain of truth, or even more.  But David in Tokyo is famously a defender of the whalers and their rights, and an opponent of their critics, especially of their activist critics.  Therefore his testimony inevitably appears in any fair court with some reasonable prejudice against it.

That is not to say that the Sea Shepherd people have acted beyond culpability.  I know little about them: a schismatic group that broke away from Greenpeace a couple of decades ago, avowing a more aggressive conduct of protest?  Something like that.

David in Tokyo writes:
<<
Sea Shepherd has actually sunk and rammed ships engaged in lawful activity.
>>

Probably "rammed and sunk" would make more logical chronological sense.  Anyway, are we to imagine that the Sea Shepherd people conducted themselves as captains of ancient Mediterranean triremes, as in Themistocles' victory over the Persians at the decisive battle of Salamis, 480 BCE, or as in the classic Jew-vs.-Goy-plus-Christian epic "Ben Hur"?  ("Alms? ... Alms? ... for the blind? ... Oh no, you are lepers!  Run!  Lepers!")

There is nothing defensible at all in the conduct of a civilian captain who would deliberately endanger the lives of the people aboard his vessel, or who would deliberately endanger the lives of civilians aboard another vessel.

Right now, I have no way of knowing that the captain of the Sea Shepherd ever conducted himself with either probable result in view.  If he had, of course I denounce his actions at once.

Trickier is judging what I think is likelier to have happened: a game of "Chicken," more or less, in which the Sea Shepherd took very risky maneuvers to put itself between a whaling vessel and a whale.  That is impossible to judge, from the accounts of eye-witnesses, all of whom are anyway likely to be interested.  And even if we ourselves were eye-witnesses, the task would be extremely difficult.

Tokyo Tom's observation makes perfect sense.  If Sea Shepherd did something wrong, Sea Shepherd made it very clear where the Law can find them.  That distinguishes them radically from the kind of people that we usually call "terrorists."

Back to Willa's comment: I hope whoever tries to raise a suit will choose the battleground wisely.  I had been thinking of a media-friendly, well-populated place, such as the National Zoo in DC.  Imagine a bunch of totally non-violent, Gandhi-like demonstrators, suddenly sitting down outside the elephant house, on a Saturday afternoon, more or less blocking access to the outside wall.  But that would not really work, because the National Zoo takes pretty good care of its couple of elephants.

And factory farms, puppy mills, etc., are no where near where people normally go.

Hopefully there are activists out there, much more astute and street-wise than I, who know what needs to be done.

Chickens are our cousins! So are other sensitive animals! Enough is enough! No more factory farms!

See, this is where PETA, as much as I often can't stand them, comes in.  They do know their way around this stuff.