Home > Insight

Where animal rights end and terrorism begins
By Emile Hallez
ehallez@mscd.edu

Two animal-rights terrorists were sentenced to prison on Sept. 19 for crimes against a New Jersey animal-testing company. The government threat level, as on most days, was at Elevated status.

Fourteen years after the birth of the Animal Enterprise Protection Act, the United States is finally using this invaluable tool to prosecute those who stand in the way of animal research and product testing.

Since the act was passed, nonviolent objectors to animal cruelty have still been allowed to affect the bottom lines of businesses whose only crimes are gross violations of animal welfare.

For the first time, the act has been used to convict six activists from the group Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty. Now, ideological animal-welfare supporters might think twice before crusading for a cause at the cost of big business.

The prison terms range from 366 days to six years. The activists were ordered to cumulatively pay $1 million restitution to Huntingdon Life Sciences, a British animal-testing company, which has a lab in New Jersey.

Huntingdon, which has lost a significant chunk of business through SHAC’s campaign, “was grateful that justice was served,” according to general manager Mike Caulfield. The company’s complaints against SHAC include threats and harassment in the form of black faxes (sheets of black paper sent to congest a fax machine and deplete its toner) and vandalism of company and employee property.

What is disturbing is that none of the people convicted so much as dialed a number or threw a rock. They were all found guilty based on the fine print of the Animal Enterprise Protection Act of 1992, which includes conspiracy to disrupt or otherwise harm an animal enterprise.

It is alarming enough the government equates animal liberation with terrorism. Even more so is a fine line that has been established between First Amendment rights and criminal fanaticism. A fine line that is blurry, at best.

The six members of SHAC operated a website that provided, among other things, personal information about Huntingdon employees and affiliates, such as home addresses. Such information allowed homes to be vandalized or called with threats. In response, firms cut their associations with Huntingdon, which affected the company’s bottom line.

I will not discuss the ethics behind SHAC’s methods here. I will, however, attempt to make a case for its cause.

Large companies like Huntingdon get away with appalling violations of animal welfare. Whether in the name of science or product testing, they hide behind the fallacies that animal experimentation is necessary and in the best interest of the public.

The experimentation associated with Sucralose (Splenda) provides a charming example. Between companies testing Splenda, including Huntingdon, an estimated 13,000 animals, including rodents, beagles and monkeys, were killed testing a substance roughly 600 times sweeter than ordinary sugar.

With a surfeit of artificial sweetners already available to the public, Splenda is nothing but another link in a chain of questionably safe substitutes. After a slew of harsh and unnecessary killings, the world received another food additive it didn’t know it needed. Is a pile of blood-soaked paws and fur worth extra zip in your iced tea?

It is interesting that the case against SHAC hasn’t received much attention from mainstream media. Since it is the first of its kind, one would think there would be a drooling queue of major networks and papers.

It is also interesting that Splenda is owned by Johnson & Johnson, a massive company with a deep advertising budget. Indeed, such companies own many of the products tested by Huntingdon. Is it possible the media have been reluctant to report news that could expose the dealings of their clients? Concerning relationships with Huntingdon, any publicity is bad publicity.
Should we realize animals are sentient beings – ones unfortunate enough to be born outside humanity, denied the privileges of our species – we might look back on past practices with disgust.

Until then, factory-farmed animals will be considered economic units, laboratory animals will be bar-coded and vivisected, and the U.S. government will be sending its people a twisted message: Standing for animal rights is illegal if you upset the status quo. But don’t worry; you won’t be convicted for physical acts, you’ll just be convicted for talking about them.