Pipp
Well-Known Member
PETA and similar Animal Rights organizationshave the worst reputations for terrorist acts, and IMO, they justdidn't know when to quit. They got the world's attention, butinstead of using it to launch well thought out lobbying, they continuedwithheavy-handed, violent activities that (along with thediscovery they were euthanizing most of the pets brought into theircenter) lost them support of peaceful animal lovers and greatly weakendthe movement.
Now THIS isa direct result of their actions. IMO,they have now officially done far more harm thangood.
:bigtears:
Federal: Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act Signed Into Law!
Bill No.: H.R. 4239
Primary Sponsors:Representative Thomas Petri (WI-6)
ASPCA Position:Oppose
Action Needed:None
Update,November 27, 2006: We regret to report that the AnimalEnterprise Terrorism Act has been signed into law by thePresident. Thank you to all who have supported our efforts todefeat this bill.
Update, November 13,2006: We are sorry to report that the Animal EnterpriseTerrorism Act has passed in the House of Representatives. Thebill will now be presented to the President for his signature prior tobeing passed into law.
[line]
H.R. 4239, the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA), is a bill thatcould make it a crime punishable by imprisonment to cause any businessclassified as an "animal enterprise" to suffer a loss of profiteven ifthe company's financial decline is the result of legal activities, suchas peaceful protests, consumer boycotts or media campaigns. The termanimal enterprise would include manufacturers, distributors andsellers of animals or animal products, research facilities, pet stores,breeders, zoos, rodeos, circuses, and animal shelters and the like.
While the ASPCA strongly opposes acts of violence, including vandalism,property damage and trespass, this bill threatens to criminalize asterrorism otherwise lawful, constitutionally protected acts oftenutilized by citizens and organizations to effect change. Lawful andpeaceful protests that, for example, urge a consumer boycott of acompany that does not use humane procedures, could be the target ofthis provision if the activity resulted in economic damage to thecompany.
The bill would also make it illegal to expose cruel conditions atfacilities such as puppy mills and research labs, if exposure of suchconditionseven if done lawfullywould result in economic damage to theanimal enterprise. There is no exemption in the bill to excludeeconomic damage that results from the disclosure of information abouta companys treatment of animals, which is disclosed through publicinformation.
Now THIS isa direct result of their actions. IMO,they have now officially done far more harm thangood.
:bigtears:
Federal: Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act Signed Into Law!
Bill No.: H.R. 4239
Primary Sponsors:Representative Thomas Petri (WI-6)
ASPCA Position:Oppose
Action Needed:None
Update,November 27, 2006: We regret to report that the AnimalEnterprise Terrorism Act has been signed into law by thePresident. Thank you to all who have supported our efforts todefeat this bill.
Update, November 13,2006: We are sorry to report that the Animal EnterpriseTerrorism Act has passed in the House of Representatives. Thebill will now be presented to the President for his signature prior tobeing passed into law.
[line]
H.R. 4239, the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA), is a bill thatcould make it a crime punishable by imprisonment to cause any businessclassified as an "animal enterprise" to suffer a loss of profiteven ifthe company's financial decline is the result of legal activities, suchas peaceful protests, consumer boycotts or media campaigns. The termanimal enterprise would include manufacturers, distributors andsellers of animals or animal products, research facilities, pet stores,breeders, zoos, rodeos, circuses, and animal shelters and the like.
While the ASPCA strongly opposes acts of violence, including vandalism,property damage and trespass, this bill threatens to criminalize asterrorism otherwise lawful, constitutionally protected acts oftenutilized by citizens and organizations to effect change. Lawful andpeaceful protests that, for example, urge a consumer boycott of acompany that does not use humane procedures, could be the target ofthis provision if the activity resulted in economic damage to thecompany.
The bill would also make it illegal to expose cruel conditions atfacilities such as puppy mills and research labs, if exposure of suchconditionseven if done lawfullywould result in economic damage to theanimal enterprise. There is no exemption in the bill to excludeeconomic damage that results from the disclosure of information abouta companys treatment of animals, which is disclosed through publicinformation.