Rights" Just Another Excuse for Terrorism? Southeast Missouri State University UI319 Instructor: Dan Lauder Submitted by: Slob Bob Is "Animal Rights" Just Another Excuse for Terrorism? 2 In regards to Issue 18 in the textbook, I strongly agree that animal rights has become a serious issue of terrorism. For starters, there is no denying the fact that violence over the issue has become a huge predicament. This article states that in 2005, 35 FBI offices were working on 150 incidents having to do with "animal rights/ecoterrorist activities". Another statistic that clearly proves a point and was given in the textbook states that while there were only 220 incidents in this situation in the 1980s and 1990s combined, this number jumped to 363 cases between 2000 and 2005, proving that the issue is on the rise. Examples of such terrorist acts include two bombs going off at a California biotech company and workers at a pharmaceutical company, GlaxoSmithKline, having their windows smashed and mail stolen. Furthermore, this form of terrorism has also caused significant financial damage, estimated around $100 million in damage at the point when this was written in 2006. Another huge part of this issue of domestic violence is known as "tertiary targeting", meaning that the terrorists were also acting violently towards other companies who associate with the animal research facilities. For example, one terrorist group known as SHAC, Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty, was attacking an insurance company that provided to an animal research agency known as HLS. They used methods such as harassing employees with late night phone calls to their homes, threatening the lives of their family members, and even publishing personal information online including their children's names and after-school activities. Through further research, I found that in 2006, President Bush signed the Animal Enterprise Terrorist Act, which heightened federal law enforcement for any crimes involving animal testing facilities, also including people and institutions that facilitate with but are not directly involved with the research. Is "Animal Rights" Just Another Excuse for Terrorism? 3 A final point to be made in this argument is that animal rights terrorists are causing more damage than just the buildings they are bombing or the people they are threatening. The real damage is that because of their actions, we are losing valuable research. Every time an act of terrorism occurs in the name of animal rights, we are being delayed in medical advances that could potentially change medicine forever. Scientists that are working legally should never be forced by the threats and the actions of terrorists to choose between their lives and their work. Supporters of the opposing side of the argument do not believe that animal rights extremists act as terrorists. One point that they bring up is that laws, such as the Animal Enterprise Protection Act (AEPA) passed in 1992, were actually only passed in order to defend against an economic threat. They believe that since money often is embedded into scientific research, lawmakers fear animal rights supporters because their actions could result in a loss of capital. The AEPA does in fact apply to anyone who "intentionally damages or causes the loss of any property of an animal enterprise, or who causes an economic loss of any kind". In their opinion, the government is only concerned with the financial loss that could result due to animal rights extremists' actions, and because of this are trying to categorize all of the extremists' actions into being a "terrorist act". Another point made by the opposition is that the government provides for the corporate big shots who can afford to give them large amounts of money. They feel as if corporations and the state are working to shut down those fighting for animal and earth liberation. The opposition claim that the animal rights terrorist group known as SHAC, mentioned above, actually acted completely legally, using tactics such as email and phone blockades and home demonstrations to support their views. When seven of their most prominent members were arrested in 2004, in Is "Animal Rights" Just Another Excuse for Terrorism? 4 their opinion it was only because HLS and lobbyists demanded special sessions with Congress to order to get Congress to ban SHAC's actions. A final point made in the opposition's argument, is that animal liberation is a postmodern movement. They feel as if their cause is not universally understood yet. Animal liberation is about an end to violence and does not focus on physical materials, such as knowledge and research. To them animal liberation is an abolitionist movement, and its effects could one day be just as immense as the human anti-slavery movement. Because of the economic threat it causes and because this movement is so revolutionary, supporters believe that until a substantial change in human ethics develops, their cause will continue to be attacked and shut down by the corporate world. Is "Animal Rights" Just Another Excuse for Terrorism? 5 References Animal Rights Terrorism on the Rise in U.S. (2009, June 3). Fox News. Retrieved from http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,525039,00.html#ixzz27UzhmycC. Easton, T. (2010). Taking sides: Clashing views in science, technology, and society. (10th ed.). New York: McGraw Hill. Greenwood, M.R.C. (2008,August 14). Senate public safety committee. Retrieved from http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/animalresearch/greenwood081408.pdf. Singer, Peter. (1985). Ethics and the new animal liberation movement. Retrieved