G7 Welcoming Committee Records. Uncooperative since 1997.
You appear to be using a shitty web browser. Brent suggests getting a better one.
Why you should support the SHAC7
Posted by D-Rock on 03/06/06 (Shite)
Last Friday, March 3rd, six activists involved with the website shacamerica.net (now shut down by the authorities) became the first to be convicted under the Federal Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act. These activists were involved in a campaign against Huntington Life Sciences, a UK-based contract animal-research company (with a lab in New Jersey) which kills an approximated 180,000 animals every year in the name of research, mainly for pharmaceutical companies (nearly every major one), but also including Dow Chemical and Monsanto.
During the three-week trial before U.S. District Judge Anne Thompson, jurors heard that defendants urged sympathizers to harass Huntingdon employees, vandalize their cars and publish the names, addresses and phone numbers of their families on a Web site.
SHAC members also used their Web site in an attempt to stop other companies from doing business with Huntingdon in the hope that if they succeeded, Huntingdon itself would be unable to operate.
Their tactics included sending thousands of e-mails to the targeted companies to disrupt their computers, and sending “black faxes” to prevent fax machines from operating.
Some may not care for these tactics (though I would not count myself in that camp), but the fact is that these activists are not accused of performing any of these acts – merely suggesting them. And this is now terrorism. The fact is, the SHAC activists were getting a little too effective for the comfort of the animal industries, so the state intervened. Make no mistake, this is the leak before the flood. If the authorities can get away with this, it’s one more blow against the inherent right of citizens to speak, write, and act against injustice. This case should truly be of concern to all activists.
This also takes place in a larger context of animal rights and environmental activism coming to the forefront of the FBI’s domestic terrorist threats list, despite the fact that there are no reported cases of human deaths resulting from animal or environmental activism in North America. (See last month’s story in the NewStandard for more context.)
More reading: Free the SHAC7 website, Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty website, Inside HLS website (includes articles discussing the scientific value of the experiments conducted at HLS). Also suggested is the Physician’s Committee for Responsible Medicine site.
13 fragments of dialogue thus far ...
(Subscribe to discussion about this post via RSS)
Comment by mikea on March 6th, 2006 at 3:01 pm:
“Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison.”
Comment by tom on March 6th, 2006 at 4:19 pm:
not only does this law and others like it ensure that we dont (according to the state)have an inherent right to free speech, nor justice, it also guarantees the rights of corporations OVER those of people.
personally i think that if people are really unhappy with the way a corporation (which should be subservient to the people it affects)is doing things, then these people should have a right to stop what is going on.
since people do not have this power, whatever we do will be deemed criminal, or terrorism.
and SHAC is a supreme example of how public action can economically cripple a corporation. without economic security corporations crumple. so according to the state, corporations have a more than equal right to economic security than say, an impoverished family. true justice oh yes. and enforcement to follow, no doubt.
this case should truly be of concern to all people.
i dont know what exactly you meant by “that kills an approxiamted 180,00 animals every year” but one is too many.
ive recently gone vegan, this case really shows how interconnected state oppressions are. so i think that should also be true in terms of forms of resistance.
i took the day off work, im going to go outside while it lasts……
potado, you are ever-autonomous! smile.
Comment by Josh on March 7th, 2006 at 4:06 pm:
Isn’t the U.S. getting into an uproar over China imprisoning people over using their freedom of speech? I guess it’s ANOTHER double standard.
Comment by marc on March 7th, 2006 at 5:25 pm:
I’m working straight off of what I’ve read about this, but this Shac group kinda seems a little nutty to me. I read that the website Shac hosted would give information about the children of HLS employees (like what school they attended)..etc.
“According to law enforcement officials, one female employee was sent an e-mail from SHAC threatening to “cut open her seven-year-old son and fill him with poison.” In another incident a man was cut by glass fragments when the windows of his home were smashed by these activists. He told responding police officers that they also overturned his wife’s automobile.” – http://www.americanc...e.asp?articleID=6534
I can’t take sides because I don’t know what percentage of what’s being reported is bullshit. Some of the more serious stuff like violent physical encounters andstalking were reported..but I’m not going to cite Christian Science Monitor here. :P
… But 5 years does seem a bit harsh.
Whatever.
Comment by tom on March 7th, 2006 at 5:41 pm:
well i wouldnt doubt that there are people out there who would do something horrible like you described above.
SHAC did however manage to destroy the HLSs’ credit with most banks, and send their stock price plummeting. i think that is a more effective tactic than threatening the children of employees, or employees themselves.
is there such a term as economic terrorism?
Comment by April on March 7th, 2006 at 8:22 pm:
“…But 5 years does seem a bit harsh.”
A bit harsh?
I think that’s extremely harsh for the accused.
Child molesters get away with less time than that.
Comment by Jordan on March 8th, 2006 at 2:42 am:
“is there such a term as economic terrorism?”
I think the correct term is capitalism.
Comment by mikea on March 8th, 2006 at 8:18 am:
as about physical threats by claimed SHAC activist, i think one should bear in mind that, a bit like within the ALF, i believe there’s no rigid organisation,no real hierarchy within SHAC: i believe independent groups of individuals can “do things” and claim them in the name of SHAC.
what’s said on the ALF’s website illustrates this perfectly : if i remember, it says that if one perpetrates an “illegal action” in favour of the animals, during which not any living creature is harmed -please,forget about that insect/bactery joke,idiot!-, then one can claim it as done by the ALF; they even provide lawyers if you get caught! (what are you waiting for, then!)
So, as about those threats (stupid and, above all, crazy!) and injuries caused to people, the problem is not to whether or not believe what’s reported by those asswipe journalists, but to know what does SHAC’s spokepersons have to say about it. And i don’t believe that’s what they want people to do.
Nevertheless, in the end, SHAC’s waging a war: so if they’re good observers of the current/constant international affairs, they might just call the injured people “collateral damage”, as our brave kings would do in such situation, wouldn’t they?
Comment by Yaniv on March 8th, 2006 at 10:10 am:
“When you see the pictures of a masked liberator, stop asking who’s behind the mask and look in the mirror.”
– From a convicted A.L.F.
activist.
Comment by Lazypete on March 10th, 2006 at 3:59 pm:
I really don’t like that kind of action.
One of the real problem in my point of view is:
As expressed in a song of NoFX:
Guilty people don’t feel guilty, they learn not to.
( Song: “The Irrationality Of Rationality”
Album: The war on errorism )
Or said differently.. the problem is that people working for these compagny shouldn’t allow themself to do this kind of work. Just as building bomb… if you get paid to build bomb, you are as responsible as the one dropping them.
On the other hand I really don’t like the way these activists do their action.. but thats a personal point of view, which I invite anyone to discust with me if they feel like it.
Hey it would be nice to have a forum somewhere to speak about that.
I know you guys closed your board because you didn’t had time to moderate it.. but i’m sure you can find some people who would love to be moderator around here somewhere.
btw: Jordan.. I like this one!
“is there such a term as economic terrorism?”
I think the correct term is capitalism.
Anyway people we gotta keep on fighting..
This is terrorism on the people of their own country to imprisson people over their right to speak.
Power to the people! Not to the corps!
Comment by LJ on March 16th, 2006 at 6:02 am:
Just found out about 6 men who are critically ill after testing a drug, previously tested on animals
http://news.bbc.co.u...d/london/4807042.stm
Comment by Girl Jordan on March 26th, 2006 at 4:53 pm:
As a vegan and a believer in animal liberation, I just want to weigh in and say that while I believe in the work SHAC is doing, I STRONGLY disagree with tactics such as threatening family members of Huntingdon employees.
Children of Huntingdon employees have no more choice in the matter than do any of the animals in the HLS labs, and for animal rights activists, supposedly motivated by compassion, to target them in their campaigns seems stupid and hypocritical.
As for the legal ramifications of the conviction of the SHAC activists, I haven’t been able to find and read the judgement, so I’m not sure what the reasons were for the judgement, but I know that in Canada, the judge would probably be considering whether or not suggesting tactics like those posted on the SHAC constituted hate speech. I’m not sure whether or not it would.
In Canada, hate speech is not protected under section 2(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. If an expression is found to not be protected under the Charter, the person/group making the expression can be prosecuted. However, if the expression is found to be a legitimate and non-hatefull expression, in Canada, the person or group’s right to make it will be protected. The test for what is and what isn’t hate speech is quite strict. Generally, I think the Canadian approach strikes a fairly good balance in considering the objectives of the person or group accused of making a non-protected expression and the actual effect that expression has on society. The Supreme Court is unlikely (I think, anyway) to convict someone of hate speech where there is a legitimate and sincerely held goal behind their expressions and where nobody was harmed as a result.
Anyway, five years is harsh, and hopefully the SHAC members will appeal and at the very least get the sentence reduced.
As an aside, I didn’t know that the ALF had that policy of helping out with legal fees/lawyers etc. for people accused of crimes in the course of their animal liberation actions so long as no living creature was harmed. That seems like a great idea.
Comment by Subber on April 2nd, 2006 at 11:32 pm:
I think urging people to harrass family members does more harm than good. However, to legislate against some of these things is beyond overboard.