As a result of this post, Rep. Kucinich’s office asked to have the following posted here:
I stand with every Member of the House in defense of the rights of individuals to be free of bodily harm or injury under all and any circumstances. But, the fact of the matter is, existing Federal law already includes any place which does Federal research.
So the question is, why create a new and specific classification here?
We, of course, need to protect peoples’ right to conduct their work without fear of assault. But, a larger question remains yet unanswered by this Congress: How should animals be treated humanely?
There are some specific principles with respect to humane treatment of animals but, these do not go far enough. My concern about this bill is that it does nothing to address the real issue of animal protection but, instead targets those advocating animal rights. This legislation will have a real and chilling effect on people’s Constitutionally protected First Amendment rights.
I am not talking about people who would threaten anyone with death because they don’t agree with them, but there are individuals who love animals, who don’t want to see animals hurt, who have a point and a right to speak out. I think for that reason, this bill has not yet reached its maturity.
I understand what the sponsors of this bill are trying to do, but I don’t think that they will reach the end they are hoping to achieve unless this Congress makes a clear statement about ethical principles with respect to animals and how we treat animals in research and other enterprise.
These are very serious questions that millions of Americans care about. I understand the intent here, but I think that you must be very careful about painting everyone with the broad brush of terrorism who might have a legitimate objection to research with or treatment of animals that is inhumane.
Bringing up a bill like this under procedures that only allow limited debate, and no amendments, no matter how well intentioned, is problematic.
I am not and never have been in favor of anyone using a cloak of free speech to commit violence. The Supreme Court Justice said, your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose. No one has the right to yell “fire” in a crowded theater. We have heard those kinds of admonitions.
I am not for anyone abusing their rights by damaging another person’s property or person, but I am for protecting the First Amendment and not creating a special class of violations for a specific type of protest.
Balancing Constitutional concerns against the protection of people and property is never easy. Unfortunately, the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act goes too far in the wrong direction.
I have never, as far as I can recall, had the opportunity to vote for (or against) Dennis Kucinich and as far as I can remember, have never given him any money. He has most assuredly never given me any. I post this because I agree with his position on this law, and because I agree with Catharine MacKinnon that the treatment of animals is a feminist issue.
–Ann Bartow
Prof., the link at the end of the post seems to be busted. It’s supposed to go to your post on “Those Manly Meat Commercials,” which seems to have disappeared. (It’s the 522 post). I did find it cached on Google if you need to reconstruct it. (I’ve had WordPress consume a post or two as well).
Weird, it works when I click it. Which browser are you using?
IE (I know, please don’t laugh, it’s office mandated), and I also couldn’t seem to find it when scrolling through the posts in that time period. May just be a weird WP glitch (again, I’ve had one very similar happen to me before).
Ann,
The link does not work for me either (I mean to write earlier, but was waiting to see if it would be fixed).
All good wishes,
Patrick
Hmm. If this doesn’t work: http://feministlawprofs.law.sc.edu/?p=522
Then go directly here and here.
Plan B would be to use the terms “manly meat” (without the quotation marks) in the FLP search function. Sorry for the inconvenience. Use Firefox whenever possible! :>)