Terrorists

The State is fighting back in an effort to protect the profit of Huntingdon and its associates and is attempting to use the misplaced hysteria around the so-called 'war on terror' to do so; and the stakes for all activists are frighteningly high.

The SHAC (Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty) group has been particularly successful in exposing, opposing and restricting the activities of HLS. SHAC was formed in late 1999 with the specific aim of closing HLS down. There are now over a dozen support and affiliate groups including ones in Germany, Italy, Portugal, Switzerland and the United States.

Numerous companies doing business with Huntingdon Life Sciences have cut ties, seeing association with overt animal cruelty as a liability; and support for the work of SHAC has also come from employees within these companies. In short, SHAC's campaign has been devastating for HLS and sooner or later was likely to come to the attention of the US corporatocracy - particularly since the work of SHAC has resulted in removal and withdrawal of funds and resources by HLS's insurance broker, auditor, bankers, janitors and waste disposal crews. This page contains a list of over 150 companies who have cut their ties. Something for the SHAC activists to be proud of.

Indicted at the end of May under the controversial Federal Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, the SHAC 7 are activists persecuted under the provision of the act which seeks to punish anyone who 'physically disrupts an animal enterprise'. It's not hard to see how and why such wording has come about. Specifically, the SHAC 7 are alleged to have operated a website reporting on and expressing ideological support for protest activity against HLS and its business affiliates. If convicted, they face a total of 23 years in prison and upwards of $1.25 million in fines.

Immediately after the indictment a series of rallies and protests began. Supporters have been following developments in legal proceedings in Trenton (New Jersey) and a defence fund was set up. Source after source, blogs, news reports, websites and print and online campaigns have covered the case and its implications for dissent, the Guerilla News Network (GNN) having been particularly supportive.

Precedent

Of course the attack on activists working to save lives is bad enough. But as Kevin Jonas, Jake Conroy, Lauren Gazzola, Josh Harper, Darius Fullmer, Andy Stepanian and John McGee, the SHAC 7, point out, what makes it worse is this: if their right to protest and organize merely by expressing a point of view is denied, freedom of speech, dissent and expression are potentially at an end in the US. Sources, movements and individuals with stances, lifestyles and (active) attitudes contrary to those of the State are becoming legally illegitimate.

The very fact that this right of theirs is questioned by the US State is deeply disturbing. If this attack prevails, there is every chance it will spread arbitrarily but forcefully to all and sundry activists as hysteria against 'terrorism' is fed and any view different from those of the Žlite is attacked. Again, in the words of the SHAC 7, "this is a frightening step in the Bush administration's path to 'War on Domestic Dissidence' - a path that will not end until we stop it!"

Example

This is the first trial to be brought under the Federal Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act and it's clear that Judge Mary Cooper (who said to expect the trial to last into August of this year) is acting to make an example of the SHAC group. Even though they are on record as opposing activities that harm people. 'Freedom' reported recently that 'eco-terrorism' is now identified by the FBI as the greatest threat to the United States.

It seems possible that, if the case receives any exposure at all from the corporate propaganda channels, it will be misrepresented as seeking the legitimate comeuppance for violent criminals. But as Andy Roth, a documentary filmmaker from New York who has followed the case since last year says, "It's a definitely a free speech issueÉ It's a human rights issue, and about what precedent this could set for other groups, like PETA or Greenpeace."

- Louis Further