Opinion

Stop America’s ‘green scare’

Sharing Tools:

E-mail this article:




Share on:

by Guest Columnist
Monday, December 10, 2007 21:04

This time of year — while most people are out shopping, buying gifts for loved ones, planning their holiday festivities and simply counting down the days until winter break — marks the anniversary of two animal rights cases: the Operation Backfire arrests two years ago and the incarceration of most of the SHAC 7 one year ago. These were cases that primarily went under the radar in comparison to cases like the Jena 6, which rightfully gained much public attention this past year.

For the animal rights and environmental activists sitting in prison this year, holiday shopping is the last thing on their mind. To understand these cases, you must first have an understanding of the government ruling us. While corporations are gaining more and more protection under our laws, our freedom to speak out on what we feel is unjust is being crushed. While one can point out numerous examples during our present Bush area of fear-mongering, the Operation Backfire and SHAC 7 cases represent perfect examples.

Ending a 10-year investigation by the FBI known as Operation Backfire, 11 people, many of the them self-proclaimed Earth Liberation Front members, were indicted in December 2005 and January 2006 on charges including arson, conspiracy and destruction of an energy facility. Despite all their crimes being nonviolent, there is no use labeling these activists as terrorists with such bills as the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act passed last year, a bill which included a much heavier sentence than the previous Animal Enterprise Protection Act. If some of the defendants had been found guilty of all their charges, they faced a minimum life sentence. However, all received between three and 13 years.

No doubt, many of you are saying to yourselves that their actions were completely unlawful and that they must be punished. However, labeling these nonviolent actions as terrorism brings into effect a factor activists can only begin to comprehend. Being an animal rights activist for a few years now, the realization that our government and FBI labels earth and animal activists as their number one terrorist threat is a chilling point to consider. Nevermind going after al-Qaida, remember: profit before people.

The implementation of bills such as the AETA — which was backed by animal research labs, corporations and politicians — was not something our government decided to vote on one morning after a cup of coffee. This was another approach in their strategy to silence activists from speaking out on the unimaginable cruelty that goes on inside fur farms, animal testing labs and behind factory farm walls. It was a strategy to protect corporate profit. But it's the animals that have to live through it every day. It's the earth that is being destroyed by corporations that our government supports and funds. It's our "beloved researcher" who is being protected.

The SHAC 7 can be seen as even going a step further in an attack on the First Amendment. The SHAC 7 are six animal rights activists and the organization, Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty USA. Charged under the Animal Enterprise Protection Act, these six activists were linked in their participation to shut down Huntingdon Life Science, an animal product testing company that has been charged with numerous animal welfare violations and gruesome violations such as punching beagle puppies in the face. Now they're in prison for three to six years. And for what? For running a website and charges including conspiracy to violate the AEPA, conspiracy to harass and conspiracy to commit interstate stalking via the Internet. Now as six activists sit in prison for committing acts that harmed no human being whatsoever, truly violent and cruel acts continue in primate labs such as the one right here on campus.

We are truly living in a green scare era, in which anyone can look around and feel the effects of government control in all aspects of our lives. These are not isolated incidents if one simply looks back through history. Beginning with the Salem witch trials to the Red Scare era of the '50s to our present day post-Sept. 11 oppression that is all too common, we simply must refuse to live in a world where we are afraid to speak out on what we feel to be unjust simply because our government or any "higher power" supports it. If you don't agree with unlawful, more direct approaches, then get up, get active and implement whatever strategy you feel is right.

But we cannot continue to be silenced. From the Jena 6 to the SHAC 7 our strategies may not always be the same, but our goals of living in a truly free and democratic world are. We cannot forget about the Operation Backfire defendant, the SHAC 7 defendants or any political prisoner who has put his or her own freedoms at risk to expose the truth. Perhaps most importantly, we cannot continue to look past the environmental injustice, the animal cruelty and human injustice that continue every single day. Gandhi may have put it best when he said "no one is free when others are oppressed."

Kevin Carey (kcarey@wisc.edu) is a senior majoring in wildlife ecology.


Feedback
Anonymous (December 10, 2007 @ 9:23am):

Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.

Anonymous (December 10, 2007 @ 10:50am):

PETA and SHAC can suck it.

There are some instances, such as research by Covance, the Pit of Despair experiment, and the monkeys exposed to Ebola Reston which are clearly instances of cruelty.

However, animal models are necessary in order to observe the effects of some treatments on others. You cannot accurately predict what a treatment will do to an organism with a computer program or even a few cells - most treatments involve the interaction of many cells. Cancer treatments, for example, need to be targeted to destroy only the cells that are reproducing abnormally.

Have you ever taken medicine, Mr. Carey? That medicine was likely tested on another animal so it could be safe for you and another human being.

There is no other reliable way to as accurately as possible predict the effects of medicine. Have you ever seen the inside of a research lab or read the protocols for animal handling by the National Institutes of Health? They provide for safe and humane handling of research animals - the primates at the research center are in environments which provide mental enrichment between testings - and, while there are still problems which are addressed, treatment of experimental animals is at the best it can be.

I'm a neuroscience major and we use a lot of cats, mice, and flies. In every laboratory I've seen - and I've seen many here - each animal has been treated exceedingly well (one example is Dr. Tom Yin's lab; the cats looked quite pleased with their environment)

Since you do not seem to be in a major where laboratory work is particularly important, I do not think you are adequately qualified to pass judgment on the quality of what goes on within a lab, especially because you seem to be ill-informed about how most lab animals are actually treated.

'Sifting and winnowing' does not seem to be your first priority .

- Katharine Dickson

Anonymous (December 11, 2007 @ 12:27am):

Excellent article, glad you're spreading the word!! Keep it up! We'll keep fighting against all of this.

Patrick McEwen (December 11, 2007 @ 1:06am):

"Being an animal rights activist for a few years now, the realization that our government and FBI labels earth and animal activists as their number one terrorist threat is a chilling point to consider. Nevermind going after al-Qaida, remember: profit before people."

Whichever threat is actually greater, I think this is more of a reflection of how overhyped the threat of Islamic terrorism is by Bush and the media rather than an overstatement of the threat of environmental activists.

Anonymous (December 11, 2007 @ 8:38am):

"However, animal models are necessary in order to observe the effects of some treatments on others. You cannot accurately predict what a treatment will do to an organism with a computer program or even a few cells -"

Yeah, because using an entirely other species so accurately predicts results. What about forcing bleach into dog's eyes so that we can see what "the results" will be for detergent companies? Guess what, that's not science, that's cruelty.

The greater issue here, regardless of whether you agree with the politics is state repression and the way that the federal government clearly views these acts as greater threats because they're coming from dedicated activists, hence the greater time.
Additionally, the Shac7 weren't even actually accused of any acts-take a look at shac7.com. It's a free speech issue.

Anonymous (December 11, 2007 @ 9:43am):

This is a breakthrough!

Katharine Dickson says, "[R]esearch by Covance, the Pit of Despair experiment, and the monkeys exposed to Ebola Reston ... are clearly instances of cruelty."

Ms. Dickson is unlikely to find a warm welcome for her ideas among the vivisectors generally. They almost uniformily find their own research important and humane while secretly cringing at their colleagues', but they never admit this in public. Circle the wagons is the daily mantra.

Ms. Dickson is now confronted with the conclusion that the various and touted oversight mechanisms fail to block cruelty in the labs.

Anonymous (December 11, 2007 @ 11:44am):

How can the author of this article say that the criminal acts committed by the SHAC 7 were non-violent? Arson and planting explosive devices violent acts.

Threatening to dig up someone's grandmother's grave to scare them into stopping animal research, as was done in the series of Huntington incidents is terrorism. Rational people would not deny that.

Anonymous (December 11, 2007 @ 3:12pm):

Beatiful, warm, luxurious fur! Another abundantly renewable resource that reduces our dependence on oil-based synthetic fibers. It's the clean, 'green', and natural choice! Embrace it!



Anonymous (December 11, 2007 @ 4:16pm):

i apologize. i meant to say that the fbi labels earth and animal activists as their number one DOMESTIC terrorist threat. my mistake.

the fact that animal models are not predicitive for human diseases is no longer disputed. more and more researchers continue to state themselves that animal research is outdated and unreliable. there are numerous examples to back this up(read dr. ray greek) and just because the majority of people are still in the dark is a whole other issue revolving around greed, job security(publish or perish), and simply tradition. and i never said that the shac 7 were accused of any act such as vandalism or liberating animals; thats the injustice behind the whole case and thats why i said its a further attack on our first ammendmant.

yes arson is violence. sorry for the confusion; the non-violent act were pertaining to the shac 7. but not a single individual was harmed. no rational person, other than someone wanting to stifle free speech and protect corporate profits, would consider this terrorism. i urge you not to use the word so lightly. and the violence thats occuring inside our primate lab or inside fur farms(if you have any idea of the cruelty inflicted on these innocent creatures), surely you must consider this violence terrorism as well, or wait youre probably naive enough to believe thats its for the good of humanity or that we need fur coats in order to survive.

clean, green? have you seen the insides of a chinese fur farm?? you must be kidding me.

Anonymous (December 11, 2007 @ 4:29pm):

our "beloved researcher" simply because you put a white lab coat on and hang a degree on your wall means nothing to me. ive read numerous protocols and done much research behind animal based models. why doesnt the primate lab or pharmaceutical companies come out and brag about the numerous examples of drugs that have had adverse side effects in humans and often lead to death. but well always b ring it back to that one experiment that was successful and now thanks to research in mice were on a breakthrough towards the cure for cancer! its a waste of money and time and truly predicitable HUMANE alternatives need to be invested in.

on your point regarding the proper treatment of lab animals is something to laugh at. these animals should not be in these cages in the first place. plain and simple. they are not ours to exploit! i want you to donate your cat or dog to the medical labs while youre at it if you feel theyre so humane. mental enrichment??? i hope youre joking. have you ever studied primates in the wild...well i have so ill assume(as you assumed i knew little about medical research) that you know nothing about the complexity of their minds, their social behavior and family structure which is so similar to our. they deserve better.

until every cage is empty.

Anonymous (December 11, 2007 @ 6:05pm):

"How can the author of this article say that the criminal acts committed by the SHAC 7 were non-violent? Arson and planting explosive devices violent acts."

1. the shac7 have never committed arson or planted explosive devices. some were convicted only of conspiracy, and other were convicted of conspiracy and harassment. the actions the government put forth as evidence against the shac7 were: maintaining a web site that encouraged people to protest at people's homes, sending "black faxes" (all-black faxes that deplete toner cartridges fast), and phone calls. no one can construe this as "violence" or "terrorism" in a sane world.

2. what is or isn't construed as "violent" is debatable. but what isn't is that of the thousands of actions claimed by the ELF and ALF (some involving arson), not a single one has harmed a human (or non-human) life. just because you reject a tactic, does not make said tactic terrorism.

Anonymous (December 12, 2007 @ 1:46pm):

OK! I get the message! If anyone personally doesn't agree with the way you treat animals, the way you earn your living, or the way you cruelly kill your garden plants for personal consumption, they can exercise their personal 'moral outrage' by covertly and illegaly destroying any of your possessions, your means of earning a living, dispoilation of family graves, etc., as long as no living person is physically harmed directly by those terrorist acts!

As all civilized beings must, I reject your cowardly anarchist and terrorist philosophies. We are ruled by consensus law, not individual acts of aggression.

Until all cages are full... of those who would impose their flawed philosophies on others through acts of terrorism, be the ELF, AlF, or Al Queda!

Anonymous (December 12, 2007 @ 3:07pm):

Katharine Dickson wrote:
"However, animal models are necessary in order to observe the effects of some treatments on others."

There are well documented cases where drugs that were thought to be safe from being tested on animals were given to humans which killed them.
So animal models are not necesary or even safe.


Dickson also writes: "You cannot accurately predict what a treatment will do to an organism with a computer program or even a few cells..."
You can make SAFER predictions using computers, cells. It is unsafe and idiotic to insist to continue using non-human animals.

Dicson continues "Cancer treatments, for example, need to be targeted to destroy only the cells that are reproducing abnormally."

On the subject of cancer. They can cure cancer for mice but not humans.
Oh yeah! Mice are a perfect species model for humans-not!

Dickson again: "Have you ever taken medicine, Mr. Carey? That medicine was likely tested on another animal so it could be safe for you and another human being."

Then again maybe not. It's a crap shoot whenever you take a tylonal.

Dickson wrote "Have you ever seen the inside of a research lab..."

Well they don't welcome animal rights people in with open arms. Is this a personal invitation from you? If it is, I accept!

Dickson again" "...read the protocols for animal handling by the National Institutes of Health? They provide for safe and humane handling of research animals - the primates at the research center are in environments which provide mental enrichment between testings - and, while there are still problems which are addressed, treatment of experimental animals is at the best it can be."

Then how can there be so called accidental deaths that happen to these primates. A number where scalded to death. Another one was killed while a worker took a lunch break. The list goes on and on.
A primate lab is the most unsafe place for a primate. Each and every one has a life of imprisonment, torture and the majority are murdered.

Dickson again: "In every laboratory I've seen - and I've seen many here - each animal has been treated exceedingly well (one example is Dr. Tom Yin's lab; the cats looked quite pleased with their environment)"

You ovbviously haven't seen enough labs.
Or else you refuse to write about any of the horrors that you have seen.
And those cast look pleased? Your very fortunate that they can't speak the english language. If they, as well as other lab animals could, what do you honestly think they would say? Do you honestly think that they would rather be in a cold cruel lab or in a loving home well taken care of?
If lab animals could speak the english language, they would be closed down immedietly.

Dickson wrote: "Since you do not seem to be in a major where laboratory work is particularly important, I do not think you are adequately qualified to pass judgment on the quality of what goes on within a lab, especially because you seem to be ill-informed about how most lab animals are actually treated."

We animal rights folks would love to get a look not just inside a lab but also videotapes and other documents.
A) We are refused entrance.
B) We requested videotapes but the UW, after keeping them from us destroyed them.
C) We have to pull teeth to get any information on anything.
If animal rights folks such as Kevin seems ill informed it is the fault of the UW for not giving us the information we seek.


Anonymous (December 12, 2007 @ 3:28pm):

"How can the author of this article say that the criminal acts committed by the SHAC 7 were non-violent? Arson and planting explosive devices violent acts."

The SHAC 7 were never convicted nor charged with such acts. Not even close.

Such ignorance is really inexcusable when all of the affidavits and appeals documents can be readily found online at www.shac7.com. They were charged with "interstate stalking" and conspiracy to violate the "Animal Enterprise Protection Act" because they were involved in a general campaign to cause loss of profits to an animal enterprise. Much of the federal government's case rested on content posted to a website.

That's terrorism in America for ya.

Anonymous (December 12, 2007 @ 11:31pm):

I dont think you do get the message. Yes unfortanately most of us are ruled by consensus law, laws which for the most part have no regard for the health of our environment, human rights, or compassion towards species beyond our own. of course with "mainstream" media ruling our lives and owned by private corporations, were still oblivious to this injustice. and im proud to say that i wont live under these BROKEN laws. each day more and more people one by one are boycotting factory farms, going vegan, choosing compassion towards all sentient beings. businesses are choosing to quit doing business with companies like HLS or covance. Im in no ways encouraging any illegal activities but these activists are not going anywhere. perhaps it would make things easier if researchers simply stopped researching on monkeys. stopped slaughtering billions of animals for fashion. have you ever truly stopped and thought about that option. what do we have to lose? why is it so difficult to imagine living in a world where animal and human explitation is not the norm, where animals are no longer seen as inferior.
and to call anarchism cowardly or to compare it to views of terrorism makes me believe you know very little about anarchism in the first place besides what your hear on fox news or from your wikipedia search.

Anonymous (December 12, 2007 @ 11:50pm):

i wish all of us who oppose these "terrorist" actions would stop and first think about the researcher whose car was damaged or the owner whose fur shops windows were broken, and the "intimidation" they felt. can you honestly say it even slightly compares to the fear that a species such as a monkey or chimp(with such an incredibly complex mind) feels when theyre isolated, singly caged in a 4 foot by 2 foot box their entire life?? species who live for decades in the wild now taken from their home or bred in captivity, painfuly tested on day after day until they become too sick or old that theyre destroyed and forgotten about. these are the truly disgraceful acts going on in our society. and yet we continue to turn a blind eye and blame animal rights activists for not following the almighty rule of law. its outrageous. and frankly were fed up.

Anonymous (December 14, 2007 @ 3:10pm):

RE: 12/12, 11:31
def. "Anarchist: A person who believes in, advocates, or promotes anarchism or anarchy; especially : one who uses violent means to overthrow the established order."

You are entitled to your own opinions but not your own definitions!

Anarchists are defined as 'especially those who use violent means...'. The violent acts of intimidation, burning/bombing or otherwise destroying personal property, physical threats, cyber attacks, theft of personal identities to cause financial or personal ruin are all violent acts of anarchist terrorist cowards. That fact is not changed because the anarchists are from terrorist subgroups of Animal Liberation Front, Earth Liberation Front, or People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.

Looks like 12/12, 1:46 was spot on.... and hit an ELF/ALF/PETA terrorist nerve, eh?

Anonymous (December 15, 2007 @ 10:42am):

well i applaud you now that youve educated yourself and realized that anarchism only has to do with bombings and arson. maybe you can now address the issue that really matters: given the fact that we dont need to test on animals, we dont need to wear fur coats or eat meat to survive, what would you call the violent intimidation and slaughter of species beyond our own. surely that must be a form of terrorism. or are humans the only species that are entitled to a life free from suffering? and please dont give me any more crap about mental enrichment inside the primate labs. a life in a cage is no life at all.

Sarah Hunt (December 19, 2007 @ 5:55pm):

I would like to thank you for reporting this story, I couldn't find any corporate newspapers/websites who did a story on this issue. Keep up the good work!

Add a comment

We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted.

Login...



   Remember me


Not registered? Sign up now.

It's quick, free, and the email address you provide will not be sold or solicited.

...or Post Your Comment Anonymously

Anonymous

Place a shout-out!
Top Classified Ads (view all)

Place your classified ad online and have it show up here. Your ad will hit thousands of viewers a day!

DON'T READ ME! Too late. If you're reading this, guess how many other people are reading it. See... advertising in The Badger Herald does work!

Place a classified ad

Advertising