Andrew Kohn

December 14, 2006

On November 21, 2006 the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (S. 3880.ENR) was presented to the President of the United States, after being passed by both chambers of the United States Congress.[1] This bill has the intended purpose "to provide the Department of Justice the necessary authority to apprehend, prosecute, and convict individuals committing animal enterprise terror."[2] The definition of "animal enterprise" has been modified from previous legislation to include any activity that "uses or sells animals or animal products for profit for educational purposes," and "any animal shelter, pet store, breeder, or furrier."[3] Members of the animal rights community have viewed the passing of this bill with shock and horror, believing it will infringe on their ability to protest, and ultimately protect, animals against inhumane abuse. This, however, is simply not the case.

Like many powerful political and social movements, the animal rights community is comprised of a wide spectrum of beliefs. These range from the conservative to the ultra-liberal, and manifest themselves in such varied organizations as the Doris Day Animal League, The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), and the Animal Liberation Front (ALF). While sharing the common purpose of ending animal cruelty and suffering, these organizations are radically different in their approach. The most vocal often comprising the most radical. And the most radical often alienating those without a specific interest in the movement. For the animal rights agenda to succeed, hard-line animal rights organizations must not fight the after-the-fact Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, but use their energy to change politician's minds about the need for such a bill.

Congress is able to enforce the Act through its commerce clause powers.[4] It is easy to imagine that precious little will be able to escape the reach of this bill as "animal enterprises" can almost always make a plausible argument for influence on interstate and foreign commerce. Even before this Act, however, animal terrorism crimes have been prosecuted because of their intense, and often misguided, criminal activities. The Animal Liberation Front has been accused of committing over 700 criminal acts including breaking into a pharmaceutical executive's wife's car, stealing her credit cards, and then charging over ,000 in charitable gifts to the cards.[5] PETA has recently been entering the animal terror game, accosting Kentucky Fried Chicken executives and intimidating employees.[6] These behaviors change nothing but the minds of those who have no invested interest in the movement. To them, these behaviors do nothing but raise animosity towards the organization, eclipsing the cause. In what can be seen as a selfish act for publicity, the issue becomes the people and not the inhumane treatment of the animals.

The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act declares that any acts which are intentional, either by "damaging or causing the loss of any real or personal property," or placing "a person in reasonable fear of death of, or serious bodily injury to that person" are punishable.[7] The most important word contained in the entire Act is "intentional." It seems rather outrageous that animal terrorists believed that intentionally harassing a fast-food executive and/or his family is consistent with ethical behavior (when they themselves are attempting to get these same people to implement ethical, moral actions on animals under their control). Punishment under the Act is incremental, with imprisonment and fines increasing proportionally with the amount of damage inflicted by the terrorist.[8] Is this such an outrageous, unusual, and unconventional penalty scheme?!

In 2005, the FBI listed the number one domestic terrorist threat as the "eco-terrorism, animal rights movement."[9] It seems obvious that if in 2005 the FBI made such a determination, extreme animal rights groups have been breaking the law for years. Why then all the complaints about the Act? Is it another excuse for these groups to put their name back in the main stream, unable to effectively fight for animal rights because of their already marginalized status? These groups would invariably point to the definition of "economic damage" within the Act as a reason for their aggressive denial of the legislation. The Act defines "economic damage" as:

(T)he replacement costs of lost or damaged property or records, the costs of repeating an interrupted or invalidated experiment, the loss of profits, or increased costs, including losses and increased costs resulting from threats, acts or vandalism, property damage, trespass, harassment, or intimidation taken against a person or entity on account of that person's or entity's connection to, relationship with, or transactions with the animal enterprise. (Italics added.)[10]

"Loss of profits" is a blanket term that could apply to any number of activities undertaken by animal rights groups. One would think, however, that there would be a level of reasonableness involved in this form of economic damage as it must be defined under a cloud of intentional behavior. And the Act does make an exception for "lawful economic disruption (including a lawful boycott)."[11] The distinction between lawful loss of profits and those that create an economic damage seem readily apparent and contestable in a court of law.

As the largest animal rights organization in the country, the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) is a good gauge to determine the reasonableness of the Act. In fact, two co-sponsors of the Senate bill, Diane Feinstein and Rick Santorum, have been recognized as a Human Champion and Legislative Leader respectively by the Humane Society Legislative Fund.[12] The Human Society says of animal terrorism that "The Humane Society of the United States has no tolerance for individuals and groups who resort to intimidation, vandalism, or violence supposedly in the name of animal advocacy."[13] HSUS is, however, troubled by the "criminalizing as ‘terrorism' or otherwise chilling [of] a broad range of lawful, constitutionally protected, and valuable activit[ies] undertaken by citizens and organizations seeking change."[14] A chilling, however, is not an end. It is a cautionary flag that asks groups to carefully think about their decisions before they act. Rationalized, thoughtful groups should not have difficulty in either working around these new limitations or successfully litigating unconstitutional provisions of the Act.

As an opposite of HSUS, there is the Animal Liberation Front (ALF). The following posting comes from their website:

On the night of June 30, we paid a visit to Lynn Fairbanks home at 2438 Roscomare Road in Belaire. Since she is rumored to have a cocktail every evening after a hard days work of breeding monkeys for painful addiction experiments at UCLA we thought we would give her a cocktail of our own a moletov cocktail. We left it on her doorstep but didnt hang around to see if it went off.[15]

For more stories of blowing up trucks and harassing employees visit their website. Some of the stories are shocking in what should be a mediated, thoughtful movement. Animal rights groups become no better than those inflicting the pain when they resort to violence and intimidation. The mission of ALF is "to effectively allocate resources (time and money) to end the ‘property' status of nonhuman animals."[16] Does leaving a bomb on someone's front step where their child could possibly be exposed reach this goal? I would suggest it does not. Property as a legal concept is something defined by the legislature and by the courts of this country; not by the researcher or the rancher.

Just as the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act came into existence, so can other bills with the power to counter such legislation. These successes and set-backs, however, come from the political process and not from the subversive fringe that look to disrupt society in the ill-fated hope of raising awareness and succeeding in their mission. While it is my firm belief that all great social movements require the outsider to raise issues not considered in the mainstream, these issues should consist of ideas and actions that don't risk the lives of others. It is unfortunate that this country requires the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act. The animal rights movement should be past trying to raising awareness through scaring others and instead attempt to embrace those that are not informed of the inhumane abuses animals encounter on a daily basis. Change does not come quickly. It does, however, come. But it does not mature until we recognize why those fighting the change believe and act as they do. Anger generated from harassing and intimidating actions are as good a reason as any to close one's ears (and minds) to a group's message.

Those of us in the animal rights movement should not deny the existence of the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, but instead ask why we have it and what can be done to overcome it. Perhaps this is the perfect opportunity for many organizations to re-think their current tactics and steer closer towards a path of practical, effective lobbying and political organizing. There is no silver bullet to bringing down the beast of inhumane animal treatment. But fighting cruelty with violence will only create animosity; fueling a war between people, while animal suffering continues as an ugly by-product. This is an unfortunate, yet very real, consequence of the animal rights movement as it currently exists. A consequence that must change if animals are to become the focal point of the animal rights movement.

[1] S. 3880.ENR, 109th Cong. (2006).

[2] S. 3880.ENR, 109th Cong. (2006).

[3] S. 3880.ENR, 109th Cong. § 2(d)(1)(A)-(B) (2006).

[4] U.S. Const. art. 1, § 8.

[5] Doug Bandow, Animal Terrorism, The Washington Times, Aug. 22, 2005, available at http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20050821-103902-4686r.htm.

[6] Id.

[7] S. 3880.ENR, 109th Cong. § 2(a)(2)(A)-(B) (2006). It should also be pointed out that both provisions apply to members of an employee's immediate family, spouse, or intimate partner.

[8] S. 3880.ENR, 109th Cong. § 2(b) (2006).

[9] Henry Schuster, Domestic Terror: Who's most dangerous? Aug. 24, 2005, at http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/08/24/schuster.column/.

[10] S. 3880.ENR, 109th Cong. § 2(d)(3)(A) (2006).

[11] S. 3880.ENR, 109th Cong. § 2(d)(3)(B) (2006).

[12] Humane Society Legislative Fund, 109th Congress Final Scorecard Leaders, Nov. 7, 2006, available at http://www.fund.org/pdfs/Leaders-11-7-06-1.pdf.

[13]The Humane Society of the United States, Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, at http://www.hsus.org/legislation_laws/federal_legislation/animals_in_research/animal_enterprise_terrorism.html (last visited Nov. 30, 2006).

[14]Id.

[15] North American Animal Liberation Press Office, Institution Targeted: UCLA Vivisector Lynn Fairbanks, July 11, 2006, at http://www.animalliberationpressoffice.org/communiques/2006-07-12_fairbanksucla.htm (last visited Nov. 30, 2006).

[16] Animal Liberation Front, http://www.animalliberationfront.com/ALFront/mission_statement.htm (last visited Nov. 30, 2006).