In an effort to stop violent activism by animal rights protestors, the U.S. Senate passed the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act Sept. 30.
The act, now awaiting the House's vote, will allow individuals to be apprehended, prosecuted and convicted in the instance that they cause physical disruption, economic damage and loss, or serious injury or death to anyone associated with ""animal enterprise.""
These persons might include company stock holders, tradesmen and construction companies that build and renovate research facilities, and more commonly in UW-Madison's case, the animal care staff and researchers who work within those facilities.
Already, professors and researchers at UW-Madison and elsewhere endure harassment in the form of phone calls, a surplus of unwanted mail-order paraphernalia, demonstrations at their homes and criminal damage to property. Still, animal activists are fighting the legislation, arguing that it impinges on their First Amendment rights.
U.S. Rep. Tom Petri, R-Oshkosh, who introduced the act, defended it, and said: ""People have the opportunity to speak out and demonstrate against things they don't like. But there's a line between expressing your opinions and trying to persuade others, and intimidating them against their own good judgment.""
Activists must take into consideration the medical benefits that exist due to responsible animal research and the consciousness displayed by researchers who consider their work with animals a privilege.
The experimentation that so many activists fight against is the same scientific research that will likely benefit activists at some point in the future. Yet, their violent demonstrations cause scientists to consider leaving the field or shying away from animal research.
Most recently, AETA found six animal rights activists and the organization Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (dubbed the ""SHAC 7"") guilty of using their extremist views to embark on an international campaign to close the product-testing lab Huntingdon Life Sciences.
Defending their menacing demonstrations as a fight against corporate America, these activists have complete disregard for the fear they instill in those who practice animal research.
As the SHAC 7 case evolved, activists claimed the government violated the civil liberties of defendants but, in fact, implementing AETA was intended only to encourage peaceful and respectful activism.
Some organizations, such as ""Friends of Animals"" have acknowledged that methods of violence and intimidation should not be employed by animal activists. However, most maintain the uneducated belief that acts of vandalism and criminal trespassing are the only way to petition for change.
Apparently, the activists who believe researchers cause deliberate harm to animals are ignorant enough to advocate an eye for an eye in their search for justice.
What animal activists fail to realize is the implementations outlined by the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act are merely an extension of federal and state laws already set in place.
It should be expected and understood that the protection of animal researchers is just as valid as the protection of the First Amendment and that through this act, they can be shared justly and impartially to consider both sides of this ongoing debate.
