There is one striking, but revealing, difference between the original
H.R.4239 and the more moderate S. 3880 (the latter of which became
law), and that striking difference reveals the true motivation for the
law.
The "Penalties" section of the original House bill H.R.4239 counted,
as an act of terrorism:
an offense involving exclusively a non-violent physical obstruction
of an animal enterprise or a business having a connection to, or
relationship with, an animal enterprise, that may result in loss of
profits but does not result in bodily injury or death or property
damage or loss (my emphasis).
This clause was entirely stricken from the version of the Act that was
eventually signed into law, but it uncovers the real motivation behind
the Act. The Act wasn't instituted to protect Americans from the
dreaded terrorist threat posed by rabid animal activists, it was
designed to protect the profits of those individuals and corporations
that profit from the exploitation and abuse of animals. That is why
75% of the co-sponsors of the House Bill and 90% of the co-sponsors of
the Senate Bill were Republicans. Make no mistake about it. These
Congresspersons didn't enact this legislation to make you safer. They
enacted it to make animal abusers and the corporations that profit
from that animal abuse richer.
Restricting the rights of citizens to freely protest against practices
that they sincerely believe to be unjust or immoral just to protect
the profits of people engaged in those very practices would normally
not be taken lightly in a country that values free speech and the open
exchange of ideas; but couch it in the rhetoric of terror, and people
will mindlessly submit to the rights-restrictions like lemmings being
led off a cliff.
We have the Bush administration to thank for that. The Bush
administration has deftly escalated the rhetoric of terror to such a
fevored pitch that virtually any unwanted conduct can now be dubbed an
act of "terror". You don't think so. Look again at the clause in
H.R.4239 that was finally removed from the Senate version of the Act.
How could anyone think that an exclusively nonviolent act of physical
obstruction is an act of terrorism? How could anyone think that an
exclusively nonviolent act of physical obstruction that does not
result in bodily injury or death or property damage or loss is an act
of terrorism? Think of the absurdity and semantic impropriety of
calling such acts "acts of terrorism." And then realize this: On
November 13, 2006, the lame duck House of Representatives passed
H.R.4239 by a voice vote under suspension of the rules, a procedure
usually reserved for non-controversial legislation. That's right. The
House of Representatives passed the version of the bill containing the
language that defines an exclusively nonviolent act of physical
obstruction that does not result in bodily injury or death or property
damage or loss as an act of terrorism. As I said above, the politics
and rhetoric of the "war on terror" allow virtually any unwanted
conduct to be deemed an act of terror, even exclusively nonviolent
acts of physical obstruction that don't result in bodily injury or
death or property damage or loss.
One of the biggest travesties and biggest costs of the "war on terror"
and the rhetoric that surrounds it is the stifling effect it has on
dialogue and the open discussion of ideas between competing factions.
If one's opponents are "terrorists," not only can they not be reasoned
with, they aren't worthy of the courtesy. As Eric Olive rightly notes
here: "[The word] `Terrorist' may be the most dangerous word in the
English language, because it vilifies the opposition."
The word `extremist' runs a close second. `Extremist' connotes a
fanatical whacko incapable of being reasoned with. If one's opponent
is irrational, it's pointless to try to engage her in a rational
dialogue. That conveniently frees one from the burden of finding out
whether the opposition has any legitimate concerns. Their concerns
can't be legitimate if they are "fanatical extremist terrorist
whackos." The politics of name-calling and vilification writ large.
The rhetoric of terror has been used to "justify" the wire-tapping of
America citizens' phone calls without probable cause. The rhetoric of
terror has been used to "justify" human rights abuses in Guantanamo.
And, now, with the successful passage of Animal Enterprise Terrorism
Act, the rhetoric of terror has been used to restrict the rights of
animal rights activists simply to protect the profits of those
industries and people who profit from the torture of animals.
The bottom line: It's time that all Americans start to question the
politics and rhetoric of terror. Cherished rights are being stripped
away in the name of protection from terrorism. When the rights of the
few are violated, everyone should be alarmed. Using the rhetoric of
terror to take away the rights of those one opposes is the first step
down that slippery slope to having one's own rights stripped away.
More to follow.
# Posted by Mylan Engel Jr. at 7:08 PM
(1) Comments
01 December 2006
Nimrod
Are hunters a vanishing breed? If so, is that a good thing? See here.
Addendum: "Nimrod" is both a name and (without capitalization) a noun.
Why do you suppose the latter is pejorative?
# Posted by Keith Burgess-Jackson at 7:57 PM
(0) Comments
Canine Companions
Here is a column about man's (and woman's) best friend.
# Posted by Keith Burgess-Jackson at 4:06 PM
(0) Comments
Statistics
This blog had 2,325 visitors during November, which is an average of
77.5 visitors per day--which projects to 28,287.5 visitors per year.
That is by far the most visitors during any month of the blog's
three-year existence. The previous best month (March 2006) had 1,730
visitors (55.8 per day). I attribute the increased interest to Mylan
Engel's presence. His posts--the first of which appeared on 15
October--are well-argued, well-written, interesting, and topical. I'm
delighted to have him aboard. I hope you come back on a regular basis
No comments:
Post a Comment