Thomas Walkom has a thoughtful piece in the Toronto Star on the recent conviction of the SHAC 6 and the government's targeting of animal rights advocates. (Hat tip: Dawnwatch; background here) Walkom does a superb job on background, noting humans' confused attitudes towards animals (eat 'em? pet 'em?) and linking together all of those industries which benefit by animal exploitation and by the Animal Enterprise Protection Act. Both Walkom and a post at An Animal-Friendly Life fault that law for focusing on property crimes against animal industries. It should be noted that the statute also criminalizes (further?) serious bodily injury or death resulting from disruption of animal enterprises or damage to them. 18 USC 43. If the tactics of AR activists so far are any indication, these provisions will not be used. As Walkom and others have pointed out, federal authorities are more concerned with nonviolent "special interest terrorism" than far right groups which have a record of hurting people.
Also, better late then never, check out wikiveg's great coverage of the trial, including its assessment of counsel, some inside information about what was excluded from trial, and an interesting post about whether to support SHAC (much more articulate than our "duh, yah").
Comments