Invisible Voices

a voice for the voiceless

Animal Rights Activists – Terrorists or Targeted?

The media controls the minds of the society, and the media (with a major amount of “help” from animal industries) has declared Animal Rights Activists to be “terrorists”. Naturally no one has come out to define what this term means. Or rather, there are hundreds of meanings associated with the term “terrorism” and no one is explaining exactly which one they are referring to with regards to the AR activists.

foggy washington monumentThe government has taken a stab at it – according to the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA), an animal rights activist who causes an animal enterprise to lose $10,000 is a terrorist.

Is that terrorism or targeting?

If an anti-abortion activist murders doctors who perform abortions, the law says is murder not terrorism. If an animal rights activist throws a brick and breaks a window, it is terrorism? Bullshit.

I say it is targeting. If we can’t have a consistent meaning of the term “terrorist” and apply it to all law-breakers blindly, the word becomes meaningless. The word itself is used to generate (ha) terror in the minds of those hearing or reading it, evoking imagines of planes crashing into the World Trade Center towers. This makes it a tool lawmakers and corporations can use to try to stifle dissent. Chilling effect anyone?

According to a UN definition of terrorism, it is the murdering anti-abortion activists that are committing terrorism, not the brick-throwing ALF members.

In November 2004, a UN panel described terrorism as any act: “intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act.”

ALF has a philosophy of no harm to any living creature. (human or not) Property destruction, which they don’t consider violence, a stance not agreed on by everyone, still wouldn’t be considered terrorism according to the UN. The U.S., however, seems to consider property destruction a bigger “terror threat” (their ill-defined use of the term, not the U.N.’s definition) than the targeted political murder of civilians, such as the murder of doctors by the anti-abortion activists. Then again, it is obvious that this government is more concerned with protecting corporations than citizens.

jefferson memorial


One response to “Animal Rights Activists – Terrorists or Targeted?

  1. cja January 17, 2007 at 10:46 am

    “Targeted” = my vote as well. Terrorists are people who care enough about non-human animals to want to stop the exploitation? Then what is the rest of society, the people who continue to exploit and kill? Are these the “good” people? RIIIIIIIIIIIGHHHTTT.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: