Vandalism = Terrorism, But Only If You Support Animal Rights

by Stephanie Ernst · 2009-11-27 07:58:00 UTC
Topics:

Once again, if you're an activist for anything or anyone in an area that challenges the status quo, it's time to be nervous, angry, and loud about what's happening in this country. A little over a week ago, I briefly told you about the two Minneapolis animal rights activists who were jailed in Iowa ("Activists Jailed for Refusing to Testify Before Grand Jury"). A few days later, Will Potter of Green Is the New Red wrote in detail about what came next. If you did not follow the link in the latest roundup, read that post now: "Minneapolis Activist Indicted for Conspiracy to Violate Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act."

As Will noted, the indictment of Scott DeMuth under the AETA "marks a continued expansion of the scope of the new terrorism law," using "terrorism" to describe an alleged conspiracy not to kill or cause physical harm, but to cause economic damage.

This week, we've been reminded yet again of just how outrageous this all is.

On Tuesday, DeMuth was ordered released while the case is pending. The order called for detention and GPS monitoring, so it's not as if he was just going to walk off into the sunset. But federal prosecutors won an emergency stay of release because DeMuth's writings and behaviors "suggest that he is an anarchist and associated with the ALF movement. Therefore, he is a domestic terrorist."

Wow. WOW. He's suspected of being involved in a raid that involved vandalism and rescue, and he's an anarchist, so "therefore, he is a domestic terrorist." Forget the trial, folks! Verdict is in! How many people would be "domestic terrorists" if these were the criteria? And the judge apparently took this farce of an argument seriously. So DeMuth is still jailed while the prosecutors prepare to appeal the original release order.

How many other cases of vandalism have you heard of in which the defendants were labeled terrorists? In which a defendant's release pending trial was denied because he poses "risk of danger to those he opposes and to law enforcement"? Yes, he must be kept in jail because if he were released, he might, you know, rescue a chained dog who's being abused or spray-paint some graffiti. So dangerous.

For the love of justice and animals, this unconstitutional, offensive, and illogical law needs to go, now.

---

Photo of message spray-painted at the University of Iowa retrieved from Wikimedia Commons

Stephanie Ernst wrote the original Animal Rights blog at Change.org until December 2009. She can now be found at Animal Rights & AntiOppression.

RELATED PETITION

Act Now to Protect the Rights of Animal Activists
SIGN PETITION
2,370 People
PREVIOUS STORY:
Humane Holiday Gift Ideas
NEXT STORY:
Super Bowl Countdown: 5 Actions in 5 Days to Protest Skechers' Dog Racing Ad

COMMENTS (13)

    [X]

    Comments on Change.org are meant for further exploration and evaluation of the campaign on Change.org. To that end, we welcome constructive comments. However, we reserve the right to delete comments which, as determined solely in our discretion: (1) are offensive, abusive, or off-topic; (2) include content solely intended to personally attack the campaign creator, (3) are designed to subvert or hijack comment threads rather than contribute to them; and/or (4) violate our terms of service and/or privacy policy. Repeat offenders may be permanently removed from the site at our discretion. Please also be advised that: (A) we do not actively curate and/or monitor in any manner whatsoever the comments made on the Change.org platform, and (B) the creator of each campaign on Change.org may remove any comment at her/his/its discretion.