Peta antics now Terrorism


PDA






Bigjake
January 5, 2004, 04:51 PM
Tri-Valley Herald


Trespass laws for farms get tougher
Farmers push through law barring animal rights activists in name of homeland security
By MODESTO BEE


Monday, January 05, 2004 - SACRAMENTO -- Animal-rights activists are sneaking into barns to snap photos of penned-up pigs, freeing chickens from cages and vandalizing farm equipment.

In response, farm groups and rural law enforcement agencies launched a massive lobbyingeffort this year to push a bill through the Legislature to strengthen trespassing laws on farms and ranches. They did it in the name of homeland security.

Led by state Sen. Chuck Poochigian, a Fresno Republican who represents a giant swathof San Joaquin Valley farm country, supporters argued that animal rights groups could be infiltrated by terrorists trying to contaminate the nation's food supply.

Effective immediately, a trespasser on land or buildings where "cattle, goats, pigs, fowl or any other animal is being raised, bred, fed or held for the purpose of food for human consumption" can be fined $100 for a first offense and, for a second offense, up to $1,000 and sentenced to six months in jail.

Under the old law, "our officers can do nothing more than cite such trespassers with a $10 fine and ask them to leave the property," said Stanislaus County Sheriff Les Weidman in a letter to lawmakers, echoing the main argument to strengthen the penalty.

There are alternatives, however. There are about 20 trespassing laws on the books. Only one carries the meager $10 fine -- the others already are linked to the higher $100 penalty. Prosecutors have the flexibility -- and they use it to charge a trespasser on a farm or ranch with the higher fine.

Poochigian said his bill removes any ambiguity about the various trespassing laws and gives law enforcement another "arrow in the quiver" to protect farmers, their animals and, ultimately, consumers. But animal rights activists claim the new law is part of a state-by-state effort to clamp down on protesters who are critical of giant animal operations.

While many activist groups that opposed Poochigian's law don't condone violence, they generally shrug off sneaking onto a farm to take photos as an act of civil disobedience -- an effort to document what they perceive as animal abuse.

But farmers and ranchers have been growing weary ofharassment and mischief from activists, and they're nervous about strangers tracking in diseases to vulnerable animals. After the Sept. 11 attacks, the anti-terrorism rallying cry became a popular and effective tool to take aim at the animal rights movement.

"There's growing concern about terrorism, and people can hit that hot button to justify severe laws to punish those who may be viewed as a threat to certain industries," said Wayne Pacelle, senior vice president of the Humane Society of the United States.


Poochigian disagrees. He said the law is about terrorists -- and trespassing is still trespassing. "I don't understand what the problem is," Poochigian said. "The law will not affect any law-abiding citizen. It will not affect the rights of protesters or First Amendment rights."

So is "food terrorism" real? The U.S. Food and Drug Administration drew attention to the issue in an October report. "The threat to the U.S. food supply is more than theoretical," the report said.

"When U.S. troops entered the caves and safe houses of members of the al-Qaida terrorist network in Afghanistan in the months following the Sept. 11 attacks, they found hundreds of pages of U.S. agricultural documents that had been translated into Arabic."

"A significant part of the group's training manual is reportedly devoted to agricultural terrorism -- specifically, the destruction of crops, livestock and food-processing operations."

Jerry Gillespie, director of the Western Institute for Food Safety and Security at the University of California, Davis, said the agriculture industry needs to take the concerns seriously with more vigilance and increased security.

"It's going to be major cultural change for us to patrol the borders of our farms and ranches," Gillespie said. "I think if we're serious about protecting our food supply, that's something we have to weigh. We have to know who's coming and going on our ranches and processing plants."

In February, two women sneaked into a Corcpork Co. pig shed in Tulare County through a ventilation-access panel. The company, which markets pork products under the Farmer John label, says it has 90,000 animals at its disease-controlled facility. No one can enter without showering and wearing sanitary protective clothing. The women managed to flash off a few shots from a digital camera before employees caught them and called the police.

Days before, California State University, Fresno, had held a conference of eco-radicals and animal rights activists that had police in town on edge.

The women told Tulare deputies they were just passing through and wanted to take photos of the hogs. One woman said she was an artist who paints pictures of animals. Prosecutors weren't impressed with their story.

"You want to take pictures of pigs, you go to the fair," said John Gomez, deputy district attorney in Tulare County. "We believed they were there to interfere with the business in one way or another."

The women were cited with misdemeanor trespassing and later pleaded guilty to trespassing with intent to interfere with a lawful business. They were placed on two years' probation, ordered to perform community service, and fined $100 -- the exact punishment in Poochigian's new law.

Assemblywoman Loni Hancock, D-Berkeley, one of only five legislators to vote against the bill, said many lawmakers are scared to offend the powerful agriculture industry. She said she doubts a $100 fine will deter terrorists.

"This was really just an attempt to continue to hide from public view the deliberate cruelty to living things that goes on in industrial agriculture," said Hancock, who has been pushing a bill to ban small cages used to raise calves for veal.

"To try to insinuate that this had anything to do with homeland security is just silly."

If you enjoyed reading about "Peta antics now Terrorism" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Bigjake
January 5, 2004, 04:54 PM
about friggin time, but its just another case of "got a problem, make ANOTHER law". I'm holding out for when these idiots get listed as varmit, to be taken with 00 Rock Salt :evil:

MicroBalrog
January 5, 2004, 05:13 PM
A better response would be making it legal to shoot tresspassers.

"Disturb my hogs and I feed you to them".

Spot77
January 5, 2004, 05:20 PM
Who was it here that said "Your right to protest ends at my wallet"??????


I hope they don'y make the cows MAD:neener:

LawDog
January 5, 2004, 05:58 PM
Hmph.

In Texas, Criminal Trespass is a Class 'B' misdemeanor, punishable by up to 180 days in County lockup, a fine not to exceed $2000, or both.

And it's been that way ever since I've been totin' a badge.

And we didn't need no stinkin' Homeland Security as an excuse, either.

LawDog

Jim Diver
January 5, 2004, 06:01 PM
Peta's activities have been terrorist in nature for a long time.


Handing out comics that show parents as murders.

PETA has given tens of thousands of dollars to convicted arsonists and other violent criminals.

PETA has used their contributors’ tax-exempt donations to fund the North American Earth Liberation front, an FBI-certified “domestic terrorist” group responsible for fire bombs and death threats

PETA is a domestic terrorist group and should be treated just the same as UBL or any other terrorist discovered on US soil.

I say give them a short drop with a sudden stop.

Jim Diver
January 5, 2004, 06:10 PM
On a related note, Cal State Fresno is gonna hold a eco terrorist how-to and recruitment series in June 2004.

http://consumerfreedom.com/headline_detail.cfm?HEADLINE_ID=2280

Militants Return To Fresno
Posted On December 23, 2003
Last year the Center for Consumer Freedom first broke the news that California State University at Fresno would host a conference on "Revolutionary Environmentalism," featuring violence promoters like high-seas pirate Paul Watson, convicted arsonist Rodney Coronado, former Earth Liberation Front (ELF) spokesman Craig Rosebraugh, and Animal Liberation Front (ALF) thug-turned-PETA-lecturer Gary Yourofsky. On Sunday the same breed of militants announced plans to "converge" on Fresno in June 2004.

"In this spirit of resistance" an anarchist website told readers, "we are launching 'Occupied Territory 2004', in Fresno CA. Centrally located in California, we are calling on all anarchist and anti-authoritarian anti-capitalist groups to converge." The listing lauds militant groups like ELF and ALF, celebrates "the shutting down, stopping, and destruction of capitalism's institutions and structures," and calls "every smashed window, every pied politician, every pig stripped of their dignity" great victories.

Whether related to the original Fresno symposium or not, in 2003 ordinary Californians suffered more than anyone else from animal-rights and environmental terrorism. Just a few weeks after the February conference, ALF thugs left two firebombs at a California restaurant. The next week ALF tried to burn down another nearby restaurant. Two months later firebombs were left under SUVs at a California dealership. At the beginning of August, ELF set its most damaging fire yet -- a $50 million arson that destroyed a nearly-completed apartment complex near San Diego. And worst of all, an animal-rights militant set off a series of bombs near San Francisco that were clearly intended to injure or kill human beings. The suspect, Daniel Andreas San Diego, was recently profiled by TV's "Americas Most Wanted."

In the midst of all this mayhem, one of the conference participants, Craig Rosebraugh, declared war on America. He called on anti-war protesters to carry out "direct actions" against the American government, military installations, multinational corporations, financial institutions, urban centers, and broadcast television networks. The anarchist website that announced Fresno's upcoming conference still features Rosebraugh's manifesto on its homepage.

7.62FullMetalJacket
January 5, 2004, 07:24 PM
Freedom of expression stops at tresspass. If there are already laws on the books, then why another? And this homeland security driver is frightening!:barf:

aroshi
January 5, 2004, 11:51 PM
Agreed. I think this "Homeland Security" bit is almost as scary as the Super-Patriotic kick everyone jumped on just after 9-11.

Patriotism and Security are good, when you're looking at it objectively.

nico
January 6, 2004, 01:59 AM
i don't like this being done under the guise of "homeland security" but, given that PETA has openly said that they'd welcome mad cow disease into this country, I don't think it's that much of a stretch. That said, if I were a farmer and found these thugs lurking on my property, they'd be looking at the business end of my shotgun until the police arrived to drag their sorry :cuss: to jail.

Moparmike
January 6, 2004, 04:49 AM
I say use a shotgun. If it wasnt such a tactically unsound thing to do, I would have the first round fired be blank (or one of those flamethrowing ones) to get their attention.

The business end of a shotgun is not easily trifled with. Hopefully they wouldnt do anything stupid enough to call the coroner instead of the sheriff.

cracked butt
January 6, 2004, 08:07 AM
In my neck of the woods, ALF, which is nothing more than the goon squad arm of PETA burned down a co-op because some of its customers were mink farmers.

TarpleyG
January 6, 2004, 10:22 AM
I agree with LawDog. Why do they need yet ANOTHER law "in the name of Homeland Security" to deal with this problem. They get caught by the landowner's after dark, they get shot dead (at least in Texas). They get caught any other time, go directly to jail, do not pass go and do not collect $200. I am tired of everything being "in the name of Homeland Security." Our Homeland was just as secure before Tom Ridge!!!

GT

Yanus
January 6, 2004, 11:23 AM
I agree with you people about the "homeland security" excuse being used for a new law. I see in the not too distant future when the entire BOR is canned or simply ignored in the name of "homeland insecurity"...... and the scary part is a majority of the population will meekly go along "for their own safety"...............

God, I sure hope I am wrong....................:mad:


Yanus

DaveB
January 6, 2004, 11:43 AM
Hey, whatever works; just so long as the newly-christened "terrorists" are hippies, or animal rights loonies, or anybody else who has a beef with the right...

They came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. . . .
Then they came for me, and by that time, nobody was left to speak up."

- Niemoeller

I think that some of you have forgotten this...

db

TallPine
January 6, 2004, 12:17 PM
All the folks who don't think what we have a moral right to defend our property should chime in about now ... :rolleyes:


Does anyone else but me see that the real problem is that we have so many laws preventing people from just taking care of the problem themselves? (like the shotgun approach mentioned above)

TrapperReady
January 6, 2004, 12:23 PM
Personally, I think PETA's tactics and antics are asinine and sometimes criminal. However, it makes me very nervous to see things cloaked in "Terrorism" by lawmakers.

Remember Richard Daley destroying an airport (which would normally be considered a terrorist act in and of itself) under the guise of Homeland Security? If there are laws on the books, then prosecute under those. Don't expand the WOT to include the actions of every fringe group. Not only does that expand the already formidable powers of the federal government, but it waters down the efforts to combat more serious threats.

BenW
January 6, 2004, 01:37 PM
Another vote for disapproval of putting it under the "Homeland Security" umbrella.

That said:
they generally shrug off sneaking onto a farm to take photos as an act of civil disobedience
Because being Collectivists, your farm is their farm, so what's the big deal? As long you have a bunch of people who don't believe in property or property rights, and no Texas-like laws to prevent their mischief, it's not going to stop.

Jim Diver
January 6, 2004, 01:49 PM
I don't understand. If UBL tries to sink a ship, it's terrorism. If Paul Watson tries to sink a ship it is criminal?

If UBL bombs a building it is terrorism. When Daniel San Diego bombs a building it is criminal?

I view it as this: A crime committed for personal game is a crime. Crime committed to effect political change is terrorism.

PETA does these things to effect political change and are therefore terrorists.

nico
January 6, 2004, 06:06 PM
Jim, I think most people here will agree with you that a lot of what PETA does is terrorism. It's the idea of giving any law in the name of "homeland security" rubber stamp approval that bothers me. I don't see why they wouldn't just let the law stand on its own

dustind
January 6, 2004, 07:18 PM
They came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. . . .
Then they came for me, and by that time, nobody was left to speak up."

- Niemoeller Peta, elf, and alf are some of the closest things to nazis this country has. There are pretty large similarities between them and Hitler's SS. As you may know the SS started out as strong political supporters of Hitler, carrying out covert terroristic missions. They then became the elite fighting unit they where known as. They committed almost identical acts, and said very similar things as does elf, alf, etc. They both operate the exact same way. They both support killing innocent people, they are terrorists in the true sense of the word. (using fear to control people)

That said, I hate these laws just as much no matter who they go after. You are right that it can be anyone next, but your analogy is simply ironic. It could not have happened to a more horrible and deserving group of people, but who knows who is next...

Andrew Rothman
January 6, 2004, 10:30 PM
Antics?
Mischief?

Give me a break. Trespassing is trespassing. A crime is a crime. Screw terrorism.

Get off my property or face the consequences. Go do your civil disobedience on public property.

If you enjoyed reading about "Peta antics now Terrorism" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!