BOGUS BILL EXPOSES PUPPET STRINGS

The ludicrous notion that businesses based on animal exploitation deserve some specific federal protection above and beyond existing laws covering vandalism, theft, racketeering, etc. - special protection not offered to any other type of business - merely shows how powerful the animal-abuse industry is in directing the activities of our elected officials.

UPDATE 11/15: With a completely non-biased headline, U.S. to Crack Down on Animal Terrorists, Science Magazine adds that "The bill is largely a response to the tactics of a group called Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC). Active in both the U.K. and the U.S., SHAC has for years targeted U.K.-based Huntingdon Life Sciences, which uses animals to test drugs, food additives, and pesticides. Last year, SHAC reportedly intimidated the New York Stock Exchange into declining to list Huntingdon's parent company, New Jersey-based Life Sciences Research."

Let me make one thing clear once again: I have denounced SHAC's tactics for years and continue to argue against intimidation - whether it takes the form of phyiscal threats, harassing phone calls, bullhorns outside the house, or incendiary devices under cars - as an appropriate methodology for winning hearts and minds to the vegetarian, or pro-animal, cause. But if SHAC members do anything illegal - anything that would be illegal no matter whom they were targeting - they should be punished accordingly. If not, they should not. Just as I don't give them a free pass because I agree with their aims, so I find it offensive and ominous for the government to single them out and delineate new crimes because it disagrees with their aims.