This interview is in the latest issue of The Abolitionist (Australia). I spoke with Claudette Vaughan, the chief editor, about the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, the “Green Scare,” and the politics of fear. Here it is below, and also be sure to check out the other articles on their site.
Abolitionist: What did you say at the NYC Bar Association Event on the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act?
Will Potter: The biggest danger that AETA poses is not directly outlawing First Amendment activity like protests, or grassroots activism like non-violent civil disobedience, but making people afraid to use those rights. Supporters say this law is meant to go after illegal, underground groups, but we’ve seen time and again that they won’t be deterred by heavy-handed legislation. It’s the mainstream that’s at risk, here. This law is a calculated attempt to strike fear into the mainstream animal rights movement, by using “terrorism” rhetoric to chill dissent.
What aspects specifically of the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act do you find particularly disturbing?
In the broadest sense, I think the fact that Congressional lobbyists, attorneys, civil rights organizations and animal welfare groups are not sure exactly how this law could be used is a pretty clear indication that it’s vague and overly broad. If these people don’t know precisely how the law can be used, how is the average American activist supposed to know? I think lawmakers know very well that the law is too vague and too broad, and that’s why meaningless clauses were inserted into the law telling activists not to worry, that their First Amendment rights are not at risk.
Specifically, though, some of the problems include:
*The law spells out penalties for crimes that do not cause economic damage and do not instill a “reasonable fear” of bodily injury. This is in a terrorism bill. On the House floor, Representative Bobby Scott acknowledged that the law could be used to target non-violent civil disobedience.
* “Economic damage” is defined as including the loss of profits, which cuts to the heart of what this legislation is about. This “terrorism” law is not about suicide bombings or flying planes into buildings, because animal rights activists have done nothing like that. But they have threatened corporate profits.
*One clause of the law targets actions that instill a “reasonable fear” of bodily injury, through a course of conduct that involves trespass or harassment. In this post-9/11 “War on Terror,” when corporations place full-page ads labeling activists “eco-terrorists,” and the government uses the same phrase, it’s impossible to talk about “reasonable fear.” The unreasonable has become reasonable.
*The original law was already vague and broad, and now this expansion includes any corporation that even does business with an “animal enterprise.” You can’t get much more broad than that.
Was this Act legislated just to get SHAC activists in the US into prison?
Actually the original version of the law, the Animal Enterprise Protection Act, is what was used to convict the SHAC activists. That’s why this new legislation is especially hypocritical: the government said they needed more sweeping powers, yet the original law had already been used successfully (in their mind, at least).
What are your thoughts on activism today?
It’s becoming more and more clear that not just activism, but dissent in general, is under direct attack. We are approaching a critical point, here, and it’s imperative that everyday people recognize assaults on their basic civil liberties, and work together across party lines and social movements to protect them.
Does free speech in the United States of America exist and if so, is it effective against government?
Legislation, court cases and “terrorism” rhetoric may chill free speech, or even imprison people for speech, but that freedom will always exist. Governments can protect or threaten free speech, but it is a basic, inalienable human right that exists independent of any government.
Do you think the average American knows what’s going on?
In terms of the “Green Scare,” no, not at all. In my travels for speaking engagements and interviews, I’ve met a lot of people that might not have known about AETA or “eco-terrorism” crackdowns, but there is an increasing sense of civil liberties at risk, and unchecked government powers.
Does the general public question more since 9/11?
Time has certainly created a buffer that has allowed some people to think more critically.
What is your analysis of “The Green Scare?”
In short, politicians and corporations are exploiting 9/11, and the “War on Terror,” to push a political agenda, silence dissent, and protect corporate profits. Environmental and animal rights activists may be among the first targets, but they certainly won’t be the last.
The US Government seems obsessed about keeping bad press on the Earth Liberation Front in the public’s eye yet “Bush has looted American money, helped its most notorious polluters and deceived the public. His cabinet boasts more CEO’s than in any other time in history, industry lobbyists wield unprecedented influence on policy; government has rolled back key environmental laws and suppressed reports on global warming while cover its true agenda with clever PR.”(quote taken from Robert F. Kennedy Jr’s “Crimes Against Nature”) What is your analysis of the situation Will?
I think it’s absolutely true that the “Green Scare,” and “eco-terrorist” rhetoric can’t be separated from the people behind it. This is clearly about political ideology. There’s a reason that the Bush administration isn’t using “terrorism” rhetoric to go after anti-abortion activists, who have actually murdered people, or right-wing militia groups that have created weapons of mass destruction.
On the subject of civil liberties how does the time of Martin Luther-King compare with today?
Politicians and corporations like to glorify MLK, and praise him and his work, but he wasn’t praised that way at the time. He was a radical, a national security threat, and he was relentlessly demonized, surveilled and harassed by the government. I think it’s really important for activists experiencing government repression to remember that, historically, they’re in very good company.
Isn’t Bush’s and John Howard’s (ex Australian Prime Minister) sudden conversion to solving the global warming “problem” really just a ploy to secure nuclear power and with no dissent, by-pass all the dangers that decision encompasses?
If there’s one thing I’ve seen time and time again through my reporting on these issues, it’s that money is paramount. I think people should ask critical questions of who in power, and which corporations, will benefit most from any government policy.
Any last thoughts Will?
I’ve interviewed countless activists around the country, and it’s clear that this legislation, the SHAC 7 case and the Operation Backfire arrests have created a lot of fear. But they have also created a lot of rage at such unchecked government power, and that’s a good thing. If there’s one positive aspect of all of this, it’s that it could bring together activists from various social movements together, in defence of shared civil liberties.