Applied to the AR lobby? Wha--?
Here. Read this (excerpt):
ANIMAL rights activists who glorify militant acts against economic targets and laboratories are to face prosecution under terror laws aimed at al-Qaeda supporters.Um, that's chilling. While I speak out against doing these things, I also speak out against restriction of speech. Looks like the UK is getting more fascistic, too. Am I still allowed to say that?
The move, confirmed last night by Charles Clarke, the Home Secretary, means that extremists convicted under the new legislation could be jailed for seven years and suspects held without charge for up to three months.Excuse me? So if an animal rights activist says that old so-and-so had it coming to him, she can be held without charge for up to three months? Talk about terrorism. This is a terror tactic designed to suppress free speech. Unreal.
Mr Clarke was known to be concerned that previous legislation to combat animal rights extremists has so far resulted in only one prosecution.Well, that would be one thing, but what he's saying and what this article is covering are two different things.
In July, a new offence of economic sabotage was introduced under the Serious and Organised Crime Act, after pressure from companies involved in Britain’s £3 billion-a-year life sciences industry. However, lawyers had questioned how easy the offence would be to prove and Mr Clarke was thought to have had doubts about its effectiveness.
The new terrorism laws were designed primarily to target the so-called preachers of hate who glorify terrorist attacks. However, the Home Secretary told MPs and peers that animal rights supporters who celebrated militant attacks should also face prosecution.
Speaking to the joint Lords and Commons human rights committee, he said: “I certainly think that animal rights terrorism is something that has to be attacked. Those who argue that committing violent acts of terror to promote the cause of animal rights and who justify it by referring to it would be covered by this legislation.”
Mr Clarke made reference to an attack in July on an Oxford University boathouse which caused an estimated £500,000 worth of damage. The university was targeted because animal rights activists want to stop it from building a new animal research laboratory. Work was halted last year when the main contractor, Montpellier, pulled out after being threatened. It has yet to restart.
Brian Cass, the managing director of Huntingdon Life Sciences — Britain’s largest animal research facility, which has suffered a relentless campaign of vandalism and harassment — welcomed the Government’s decision.
Mr Cass, who suffered head injuries when he was attacked by masked animal rights extremists armed with pickaxe handles in 2001, said: “Anything that provides greater opportunities for the police to track down and prosecute people who are carrying out the kind of harassment and intimidation and occasionally violent acts that we’ve seen is very welcome.”
...industry sources last night expressed surprise at the move.I actually like how this guy frames the issue, using the phrase, "in the name of animal rights activism" (allowing for a distinction between militants and non-militants that these terror laws do not allow), and how his last quote suggests that a free-speaking AR campaigner could be hurt by this law, when clearly she is nothing like someone hiding a pipebomb under his coat.
One senior official who was involved in formulating new laws to prevent activists from targeting drug developers and their suppliers, suggested that the proposals would be distracting.
“This is completely at odds with what we were expecting. There is a genuine concern from within the industry that labelling animal extremists as terrorists could get in the way of enforcement. I suspect that the police don’t really want this. We already have appropriate measures to deal with some of the more serious offences that are now being committed in the name of animal rights activism.”
The source added: “Let’s keep this in perspective — I would still rather meet an animal rights campaigner in Oxford Street than a suicide bomber. That is the difference between extremism and terrorism.”
This is a serious civil rights issue for the people of England, and it fires a warning shot across the bow of animal activism in this country, where we're not too far from seeing a similar approach taken here in the U.S.
