Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act

The issue of animal rights has always been a very sensitive one, but has now been expanded to include the right to experiment on animals free of harrassment or intimidation. The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act has been passed (US Congress).

Terrorism?

Well, of course. What else? This attempts to not only close the door to public view, but also hide that door. The experimentation used to be "simple abuse of animals" and cynically for "the public good". More accurately to enable business to 'make money' by the exploitation of animals minimising the probability of legal action (compensation costs) when things go wrong. It is the Human Right to get paid out. This absolves the individual from taking personal responsibility for their actions. Animals don't have rights, but humans do. That has always been the attitude pushed by business. How can any legitimate and credible business 'make money' if it is prevented from killing animals or any creature. This constitutes an obnoxious ethic:

The complete exploitation of animals
that have no rights by humans that do

Pathetically, human attitude is (generally) totally hypocritical. Horse meat is disallowed for human consumption. Why, when the slaughter of cattle, sheep and pigs seems to be quite acceptable? This is the massacre of the animal kingdom for 'the public good'. Blind acceptance. Horse racing is 'the sport of kings', so horses are exempted from human fodder and declared 'unfit' for human consumption. End up in pet food though when the possibility for exploitation of the beast has ended. Pathetic isn't really the right word. More like 'sickness'. A serious blow was dealt to SHAC (Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty) when six members were convicted for inciting threats and harrassment against HLS (Huntingdon Life Sciences) staff and shareholders. In Britain, police have powers (given by government) to deal with intimidation by animal rights activists. It's all part of the 'control paranoia'. It will always be a dilemma when attempting to protect defenceless animals about how to do it. Desperate measures can be necessary when opposed by state endorsed violence from the 'police service'. In service to goverment to protect business (ie: money 'creation', shareholders). The illusion of protecting the public. Most police who are not politicians dressed up as policemen, are decent people, but are subject to control the same as any soldier under orders. It's the nature of control. But control of who and by whom? In a public disorder scenario, the army (and armed police) will shoot defenceless protesters if so ordered:

legal summary execution

without trial

Burma

Anyone placed in this position is 'under orders' and must obey regardless of personal conscience. Of course, it gets more complicated when the pack instinct gets out and protecting your mates becomes important. Who is the enemy? Whose side are you on? It gets very sinister. A terrorist may claim to be a patriot. That may be an honest conscience rather than state indoctrination speaking. Perhaps it's the same thing. There is no right or wrong. Just the side you're on. Sentient animals are not all fighting on the side of non-sentient animals. God said "help yourself". Man created the concept of a god. The true bosses on planet Earth. The real controllers. Think for yourself and not what you're told to think. Imagine a similar scenario in the death camps of Nazi Germany in the second world war.