What are your views on the AETA (animal enterprise terrorism act)?

Question

Well, it's not really about that Al. I can understand what you're saying though.

However people are being put in prison for things that they've said because of this act.

Answer 1

Excuse my unknowingness here vicious but could you give me a little more info. (Other side of the Pond etc...)

I've heard about the crowd in England who threatened to dig up yer mans mother, that was dreadful. Is this the same case that panorama did a documentary about Al?

As for freeing all political prisoners, do you really want that on your conscience/ I'm not talking about prisoners of war here, but terrorist prisoners also consider themselves political.

EDIT: Thanks Al, you're a star.

Answer 2

The first answerer gave an unfortunately biased answer.

He stated that "Any act of violence is wrong in my book." However, arguably many forms of animal testing qualify as "violent." By limiting his concerns about violence to violence against institutions rather than including violence by institutions, I think a very distorted case is presented.

"no-one should have the right to deem what someone else is doing (whilst within the law) wrong" - We actually do have this right. Interestingly, since we do have that right, the statement is a bit contradictory, since it deems wrong people who deem others wrong.

"and to then proceed to be judge and jurer and to persecute them." - What is meant by "persecuate" can be so vague that it can be dangerous. Are boycotts persecution? Protests? With such a vague criteria, the risk is run of muzzling animal rights protestors. Interestingly, this is exactly what AETA and similar proposals do.

My reasons of why his answer is biased are roughly my reasons against AETA - it serves to protect institutionalized violence (while decrying the use of violence) by using vague criteria which can be used to prevent legitimate protests.

Answer 3

The act is ridiculous.  

The animals shouldn't be "owned as property" to someone.

People who take an animal to a sanctuary should be applauded not arrested.

Answer 4

It is illegal, immoral, wrong in all forms, unconstitutional, unethical. It makes people who have not committed an act of terrorism, terrorists. It criminalizes those who are fighting the real criminals, those who enslave animals and the earth. It is criminal legislation by a criminal system bought and paid for by criminals. Nobody has been killed as a result of animal rights protests though that criminal government is killing Iraqis and still never captured Osama Bin Laden who likely masterminded the attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon, if you wanted to talk about terrorism.

FREE ALL POLITICAL PRISONERS AND OPEN UP THE CAGE DOORS!

Answer 5

I think they are trying to take away our voice, even in peaceful protest.  There are eco-terrorists and there are regular animal rights activists.  I myself am a regular animal rights activist.

We have freedom of speech and as long as we don't hurt anyone they need to leave us alone.

Answer 6

Non violent protesters or those who do not incite seditious or violent acts have nothing to fear.

You will  notice that the most vocal are those most likely to be radical (and ridiculous) in their actions.  

Wear a shirt that says "Meat is Murder", not a problem

Wear the same shirt while breaking into a private property and removing property from the premises, against the law.

It's that simple..

Answer 7

It's just an attempt made by corporations to protect their property that they acquired through destroying hard-working, honest individuals.

It's definitely not in the interest of anyone that actually maintains integrity in what they do for a living.

Their simple aim is to instill fear in those that take action against corruption.

Answer 8

So much for the First Amendment.

Answer 9

It is a good thing (he says nervously noting the askers screen name).

This does not meen that I am pro testing or anything like that, it simply means I am anti violence.

We have animal rights protestors here in the UK who have dug up the remains of the mother of someone involved in animal testing, injured people, threatened death.

None of this is right.

[Edit] In light of what has been said below.

AETA is an American ACT that has been brought through congress with very little opposition. It is not something designed to stop anyone being an animal rights activist. It is simply their to ensure that those who have been violent in their approach the protest are more easily prosecuted.

Any act of violence is wrong in my book. no-one should have the right to deem what someone else is doing (whilst within the law) wrong and to then proceed to be judge and jurer and to persecute them.

Animal rights protesting does not need this sort of activity. It will only cause us to be left in the cold!