Charlotte's Web Blog

Are You the Terrorist Next Door?

I was an ordinary American until November 27, 2006 when I became a terrorist or more accurately what I call a “stand-by terrorist.” Perhaps I cannot truly own this newfound nickname until the government decides to prosecute me for word crimes, if that day ever arrives. Until then, I just think of myself as being on stand-by, just as are most--if not all--Americans, whether they realize it or not.

You may wonder how words can amount to a terrorist act in the land of the free and home of the outspoken. It is not widely known, but Congress recently passed legislation called the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA), which can be used to prosecute civil disobedience and speech as “domestic terrorism” when an animal-related business loses profits and property. The Act also protects corporations that pollute and destroy the environment.

You may ask, what does this have to do with me because I’m no nature fan or animal lover? Well, it could eventually have very much to do with you because the AETA--a natural child of the Patriot Act--is likely to be the first of many assaults on the social justice movement in favor of corporations and other moneyed interests. If you think you may want to use your free speech someday to criticize something, anything, then you had better be very concerned.

You should also be concerned about whether law enforcement protects you from the Bin Ladens of the world or fritters away your hard-earned tax dollars investigating pacifists. The American Civil Liberties Union says the FBI uses “counterterrorism resources to monitor and infiltrate (nonviolent) domestic political organizations that criticize business interests and government policies.” An FBI special agent recently told me that planting undercover agents at legal, peaceful events--with hopes that they will somehow learn about illegal activities--is a favored tactic of the bureau.

What are the parameters of the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act and who could be tangled in its web, slapped with prison time and branded a terrorist? Could Oprah Winfrey--the beloved and successful talk show host--and her former vegetarian guest, Howard Lyman, be prosecuted as terrorists if they were to repeat anti-beef comments made to Winfrey’s 15 million viewers in 1996?

It is indeed possible because the AETA is overbroad, vague and subject to the whims of law enforcement, as evidenced last year when six young, New Jersey website operators became the first individuals convicted on “animal enterprise terrorism” charges. The young people were part of the Stop Huntington Cruelty (SHAC) campaign, which targeted the Huntington Life Sciences (HLS) animal research labs. The website operators did nothing more than assert their First Amendment rights: they posted videotape of tortured dogs inside HLS and reported the legal and illegal handiwork of activists, which eventually caused the corporation to lose profits and to be dropped from the New York Stock Exchange. The FBI were unable to catch the underground activists, so they targeted the website operators, who are serving up to six years in prison for their speech.

If the government fails to catch a thief or saboteur, should it be allowed to pursue the CNN reporter who delivers the news? Or an outspoken op-ed columnist? Or six kids from New Jersey with a website? The AETA ignores Shakespeare’s recommendation, “Don’t shoot the messenger,” potentially stigmatizing a “speaker” with the most heinous, post-9/11 label in America: terrorist.

In 1996, Oprah Winfrey invited ex-cattle rancher Howard Lyman to talk about Mad Cow disease on her television show. Lyman knew first-hand how cows--even diseased ones--were fed being to other cows and how their diets were supplemented with ground-up dogs, cats and road kill. He explained the meat production process, and Winfrey offered that she would never eat another burger. The audience cheered. On the following day, cattle futures plummeted, and the financial disaster was labeled the “Oprah Crash.”

Estimated losses to the beef industry were $10 - $12 million, and a group of cattlemen filed a lawsuit against Winfrey and Lyman under a Texas food disparagement law. They wanted compensation for loss of profits. Winfrey and Lyman won, but only after spending over a million dollars on legal fees. In his book, Mad Cowboy, Lyman says that those who sued “apparently believe that the First Amendment… was not meant to be interpreted so broadly as to allow people to say unpleasant things about beef.”

If Winfrey and Lyman were to make these comments today, and viewers hit the streets, embarking upon civil disobedience, vandalism, even breaking into factory farms and rescuing frightened death row cows from slaughter, could the pair be held liable as AETA conspirators? It is entirely possible.

But nothing this extreme needs to occur because the penalty section of the AETA explicitly states that a person can violate the law and go to prison even if there is no property damage, no loss of profits, no fear to any persons, and no injuries. In other words, if Lyman were to say to Winfrey, “Gee, I hope someone rescues those poor tortured, cows before slaughter,” his comment could be interpreted as a violation of the AETA, more specifically as a “conspiracy to interfere with the operations of an animal enterprise.” Without a transcript from the show, one cannot know what casual exchanges floated between Winfrey and Lyman that day. It may seem far-fetched to envision the pair in prison, branded terrorists--especially since Winfrey is affluent and popular--but it is not far-fetched within the parameters of this poorly drafted legislation, which leaves much open to interpretation by law enforcement and the court system.

Just as the AETA chills speech, it has disturbing ramifications for those who commit slightly illegal misdeeds. The Act can transform misdemeanors into federal crimes, and it can turn ordinary Americans--who, for example, post illegal signs or engage in graffiti--into domestic terrorists.

Let’s assume a high school senior enters a national science fair, and his project involves decapitating live mice. His mother objects to the experiment as cruel and immoral, but the son ignores her. She takes matters into her own hands by stealing the mice and placing them in a loving home, then smashing the remainder of the project and shoving it in the trash. Science fair projects are specifically protected under the AETA, as are vivisection labs, factory farms, slaughterhouses, zoos, furriers and rodeos. The mother has intentionally damaged her son’s animal-related property, which means the U.S. government may arrest her as a terrorist and throw her in jail.

Let’s take another case. A small boy is murdered, and his older sister is devastated. Because law enforcement officers fail to read the killer his rights and bungle other aspects of the case, he goes free. A year later, the sister discovers the killer owns a horse boarding facility in a neighboring state. She drives to the location and paints his fence with the words, “He murdered my little brother. Don’t board your horses here” in attempt to ruin his business and warn customers about the danger. The girl has intentionally caused damage to an animal enterprise. Under the AETA, her graffiti can be prosecuted as a terrorist act.

As a final example, a journalist writes an article about combating the AETA. He suggests peppering the country with signs that read “ALF.” “ALF” is an acronym for the Animal Liberation Front, a group that has vandalized companies that use and kill animals. When “ALF” is scribbled on a fence, building or sign, the FBI is automatically called to investigate. This is routine because the bureau considers the group the number one domestic terrorist threat, even though the ALF has never injured a human or animal.

Investigating the acronym “ALF” would be a laborious task if thousands of signs throughout the country had to be checked. The sign placement strategy would run law enforcement ragged, educate the public about the absurdity of the AETA, and further water down the word “terrorist” so that all Americans could come to realize how they themselves qualify as “terrorists on stand-by.”

At some point, it is likely an animal enterprise owner or employee would play “the fear card.” A butcher, for example, could claim to be frightened by an “ALF” placard adjacent to his shop, alleging an impending attack by angry animal rights activists.

It is a violation of the AETA to intentionally induce fear (of bodily harm) in those associated with an animal enterprise, even when no property is damaged. The “victim”--or the butcher, in this case--would determine what constitutes fear, and it would be easy for him to prove nefarious intentions since everyone knows animal advocates would like to see butchers out of business. Posting illegal signs is common in most neighborhoods, such as when advertising garage sales and political candidates, yet fines are rarely imposed. In the case of “ALF” placards, the “graphic artists” could be arrested as terrorists; the journalist who originated the idea could also be at risk.

It is important to know that AETA terrorism charges cannot be brought against someone when the “target” is unaffiliated with an animal enterprise. If the son’s science project had involved no animals, if the murderer had owned a bicycle shop instead of a horse ranch, and if the illegally posted signs had advertised an estate sale, the FBI would not be called. This demonstrates how the AETA violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution, which states that all people must have equal protection under the law.

Why should biomedical corporations and their executives--as well as other animal industries that bestow hefty campaign donations upon Washington politicos--be provided with a special law? Aren’t there more (or equally) deserving “targets” in need of activist protection, such as abortion clinics, anti-union employers, gay-run businesses and houses of worship? Should there be an Abortion Clinic Terrorism Act, a Union Employer Terrorism Act, and a Gay Community Terrorism Act, among others? Or would these niche laws further impede efforts to identify real terrorism, as the AETA does?

There have been over 13,000 incidents against abortion clinics and doctors since 1977, including seven murders. There have been over 2,100 acts of union violence between 1991 and 2001, including bombings, shootings and near fatal injuries.

In 2004 alone, there were over 4,500 racially motivated incidents in America, while there were another 1,480 based on religious bias and another 1,460 based on sexual orientation. Animal and environmental groups have committed far fewer acts, yet they are pinned with the “terrorist” tag, while those who shoot abortion doctors or burn down synagogues are perceived only as felons.

By the same token, it is unfair to drag a mother off to prison as a terrorist due to bad luck, in that her son decides to embark upon an animal project. If she had destroyed his chemistry vials, she would not be facing terrorism charges. Her compassionate response to animal abuse should make her a hero, not an Al-Qaeda operative. It is dangerous to dilute the word “terrorism” so it loses all meaning, so it describes the most caring and justice-loving members of our society, and so it theoretically applies to the entire citizenry, many who sweat nervously in “standby” waiting rooms.

The AETA may lead to consequences its originators did not foresee. It may embolden aboveground activists who no longer need to limit their activities to that which is legal. After all, they are viewed as terrorists either way. Why should they cheer from the sidelines when they can run with the ball?

Inequitable and oppressive laws can propel pacifists into action, as depicted in the movie, Catch A Fire. The film relates a true story about an apolitical black man who is wrongly accused of being a terrorist by South African authorities in 1980. After enduring arrest and interrogation, he comes to the realization that it is only right to be a “terrorist,” so as to combat the entrenched apartheid of the day. He becomes a rebel fighter, planting an incendiary device at an oil refinery. Ironically, the government--convinced it is keeping him under control by choking him with the heavy hand of the law--wakes him up to injustice and ignites him into action. Animal liberation is no less a noble cause, and a similar result could be expected. Who could be next to catch a fire?

America is about nothing if it is not about fairness and free speech. The AETA does not comport with this image. It is unjust and unconstitutional, and it interferes with the prosecution of real terrorism against the American people.

Once we faced a “red scare”; now we are bombarded with a “green scare.” The time has come to ask yourself: Do you really want to be on stand-by or do you want to take a stand?

And are you now, or could you someday be, the terrorist next door?

Another Doomsday, Another Dollar: Shifting Science towards Peace and Ecology

In his book, Our Final Hour, Cambridge professor and Britain’s “Astronomer Royal” Martin Rees predicts humanity has no more than a 50/50 chance of survival into the next century and that by 2020 a million people will perish due to scientific error or terror. Some would call him prescient, while others would interpret his words as alarmist, resembling a layer cake with environmental fears on top of nuclear fears on top of chemical and biological threats, ad infinitum. With a sci-fi flare, he warns of runaway technology, human clones and an ability to insert memory chips into the brain.

Doomsday predictors get much the same respect as the “toxic fumes” sign at the local service station; they impart their wisdom, yet we yawn. Situations which seem grim and overwhelming, even potentially lethal, tend to be ignored. Attention on more immediate and “American” concerns, such as consumer goods and personal advancement, monopolize our daily thoughts. This is arguably foolhardy and indicative of the “another doomsday, another dollar” mentality.

Rees is not a lone voice on the scientific stage. The “Bulletin of Atomic Scientists” reports we have seven minutes until our final bow at midnight. Other reputable experts surmise that a “gray goo” or nanotechnological catastrophe poses the greatest threat. This involves the invention of miniature, self-replicating machines that gnaw away at the environment until it is devoid of life. It need not be deliberate sabotage—as in technological warfare by one nation against another--but could result from a laboratory mishap.

Astronomers speak of fugitive asteroids that could destroy major sections of our planet within the next 30 years. Others point to atom-crashing tests and their potential for a lethal strangelet scenario. Strangelets are malformed subatomic matter, which could distort all normal matter and dissolve the earth in seconds.

There are streams of alerts from environmental experts who tell us natural disasters are on the rise. They warn of climatic change and tell us the world's species die at a rate 1000 times greater than they did prior to human existence due to habitat destruction and the introduction of non-indigenous species into the ecosystem. Their conclusion? If we do not reverse the damaging trend, Earth itself will be extinct.

Should we open our minds to doomsday predictions? And if we accept them, what is the next step to insure or increase our chance of planetary survival?

In his book, Science, Money and Politics, Daniel Greenberg follows a trail of suspicion. He condemns what he believes to be the self-serving, greedy scientific community with its bungled research, conflicts of interest and findings that never see the light of day due to suppression by corporate sponsors. But this seems to be an overly cynical, embellished perspective; there are surely many scientists dedicated to discovery and social responsibility, apart from any personal gain. And we should not forget that offering controversial insights can be at a cost; proponents of “radical” theories often expose themselves to public and professional ridicule.

Regardless of skepticism, the “Pascal’s Wager” game plan seems a good bet. This essentially means we should not gamble with eternity, but instead urge the scientific community to take precautions since Armageddon allows no second chance. Better to err on the side of life, even if it means some black holes will go unexplored and some research grants will be pulled.

Precaution means building contingency plans--such as shields and containment measures--into emerging technologies so that if an experiment goes awry, a safety net will kick into place. It means the scientific community should better police itself. It means committees or boards—both local and international—should be established for oversight and regulations, much like Albert Einstein proposed in 1947 to maintain worldwide peace. Many nation-states and multinational corporations are known for fighting even minimal efforts to regulate dangerous technology, and they must be countered.

There are pragmatic hurdles to be negotiated when trying to impose rules on private parties or on authorities in renegade lands, but the ozone hole “near disaster” demonstrates how the world can cooperate when it comes to life-and-death matters. As cultures dovetail, as communications rise, as borders become more porous, and as the world figuratively shrinks, it will be easier to impose structure and scientific parameters on nations that seem combative today

Science must shift its course and find new mountains to climb. It looks to us for cues. Due to our materialistic bent as a culture, our cursory endorsement of “progress” and our captivation with the Prometheus-like aura of technology, we subtly ask the scientific community to scale those mountains that are the highest (great accolades can be received), the easiest (the path of least resistance) or the most profit-oriented (grant money from special interests or an emphasis on reducing labor so companies can realize greater proceeds) rather than those that are the most ecological and peace-enhancing.

The research community has rivers of creativity and forests of energy that could instead be directed towards rivers and forests. It could move towards ecological preservation and restoration, peaceful alternatives to conflict and a furthering of life on this planet.

We will know a cultural transition is underway when news reports following fires, earthquakes and other disasters address the impact on natural systems and nonhuman species, rather than just the human and economical consequences, such as the number of homes lost. Our capitalstic culture thrives on fact that nature is cost-free, which in turn, reinforces the notion that it is expendable and devoid of value. This reality must change. Our reality must change. And science must change. It must shift towards peace and ecology. It's as plain as doomsday.

From Democracy to Omniocracy

Clint Eastwood recently plunged into the murky political pond with his statement, "Extremism is so easy. You've got your position, and that's it. It doesn't take much thought. And when you go far enough to the right, you meet the same idiots coming around from the left."

What is extremism, and is it easy to hold such a stance? Is the political scale truly circular, so that the "far right" clasps hands with the "far left"? Finally, does the left-right continuum serve as a constructive paradigm upon which society can be structured?

If someone screams, "I am a moderate; we should all be moderates" at the top of his lungs and flails around like a lunatic, would he be considered an extremist? An "inappropriate" display of emotion could be "extreme," even when devoid of "extreme" content.

Today's "extremists" are in good company: Jesus, Martin Luther, Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson, and Baruch Spinoza all bore this label at one time. Jan De Witt and his brother Cornelius—seventeenth Century Dutch politicians—were hacked to death by the populace, largely due to their "radical" and "unsavory" political perspective. Their crime? They were proponents of democracy. Their body parts were displayed in storefronts all over town.

Who shall we call extreme? The vigilantes who did the lynching? The shopkeepers who showcased the body parts? The De Witts with their pro-democracy stance? Both? Neither?

Do "extreme" beliefs emanate from a mechanical thought process, as Eastwood suggests, rather than an intense philosophical journey? It arguably requires reflection and hypercritical analysis to defend ones theories against the cloned, echoed and mass produced opinion of the common folk; it requires conviction to risk social ostracism and other forms of retaliation. 

The "approved" or popular view is more likely to be perfunctory. Why think when one can plagiarize? Why go out on a limb when one can cling onto the tree or never climb in the first place?

And who are these "far right" and "far left" "idiots" to whom Eastwood refers when he makes his own arguably "extreme" comment? Perhaps he perceives those on the edge as moralistically shrill, as manifesting a tone level of fear and anger. Perhaps this is how the "right" and "left" overlap or come full circle in his mind. But this is a gross generalization, since the "extremes" are subjective and the political continuum fallacious.

The left-right distinction began in France to indicate nothing more than where the political parties sat during Parliament; soldiers were positioned in the center to prevent disagreements from resulting in bloodshed. It has morphed into a Democratic-Republican or liberal-conservative scale.

There is no objective definition for "Democratic," "Republican," "liberal" or "conservative." Real Democrats and Republicans, for example, do not necessarily reside on one particular side of the divide; they move in divergent directions on assorted issues.

In addition, political spectrums vary. One could say, for example, that all governments—democracy, fascism, communism—inhabit the "left" while anarchy or a lack of control rests on the "right." One could argue instead for an up-down continuum with free-market capitalism at the top and communism at the bottom. 

Suppose we accept the flawed, but commonly accepted paradigm of a left to right political continuum, as Eastwood offers. If we define the "left" as the group that protects the voiceless, the powerless, and the forgotten, then the natural progression would be to protect the truly voiceless – animals and nature.

Nonhumans are excluded from our political system, without representation. They have no standing in court; yet corporations do. In fact, nonhumans are virtually omitted from the conversation in our anthropocentric and speciesist society.

A move "left" arguably means to move away from Democracy – which is really just a rule by the elite (humans) – to an Omniocracy (which I describe as a government of, by and for all living beings). The European Union has added nonhumans to their Constitution, as have Switzerland and Germany. New Zealand, India and Reggio Emilio, Italy have outlawed using animals in ways we normally think acceptable in the U.S. (boiling lobsters alive, keeping fish in small bowls, vivisection, etc.).

We are trailing behind other nations, but it might be difficult to amend our Constitution in our What's the Matter With Kansas? country at this time. It might be easier to start with certain states. You may be wondering what would stuffing a few extra words in a state Constitution really do. Well, words are a powerful tool and an important start.

Lastly, does this move to the left spit us out on right? Probably. One could argue that traditional "right" politics/economics prompts a gap between the rich and poor, thus culminates in the rule by a few, such as corporations. To implement policies that foster the idea that nonhuman species have value "in and of themselves," a "top down" government or rule by a few (although not corporations) again seems required. 

People are self-interested (as are all species) thus cannot be expected to vote against their desires. Legislators, however, are different (or should be) because they attain self-worth from helping others, being fair and inclusive, and consulting the "big picture." Plato got this part of his Republic right in my estimate.

Omniocracy requires abolishing the left-right continuum and forming a new paradigm to balance pragmatic concerns with the needs of all. It would be similar in structure to the representative government upon which we now rely. There will naturally be conflicts of interest between species and individuals; but government's job will be to mediate and arbitrate these "disputes." 

We are taught democracy is the most inclusive, just and beneficent political system in the world. It is time to re-evaluate, without letting "extremist" labels scare us. Successful ideas advance through three stages: first ridicule, then discussion, finally adoption. I say we start the discussion to which Eastwood's words have provided a starting point.