A Terrorist Under Every Bush?

The government took the "you’re either with us or against us" rhetoric of the War on Terrorism, the same mentality as the Red Scare, and applied it to animal rights activists.

~Will Potter

Following a well-worn script, Dusty Loy tries to label all animal-rights advocates as "terrorists". His piece is titled Terror: The real threat is animal rights activists. According to him, these "Terrorists and their supporters must be prosecuted." Who does he think are their supporters? His answer is clear: mainstream "groups such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals." That means more than 800,000 PETA supporters and better than eight million Humane Society supporters. That's preposterous. Out of the millions of Americans who fund and support these groups, only a tiny minority -- a mere handful -- ever take radical action on behalf of animals. This tiny minority is what Loy thinks is the real terrorist threat, over-looking well-known dangers like abortion-clinic bombers, Ku Klux Klansmen and Aryan Nations anti-Semites.

When someone's sense of the gravity of terrorist threat is so badly disproportionate to the evidence, it is hard not to suspect bias. It is unsurprising then that Loy fails to address any of the underlying ethical issues raised by animal advocates. Animal cruelty and abuse vanish into a litany of alleged economic and human benefits. The animal-use industries manage to sidestep the cruelty issues, while portraying themselves as the victims. How does this role-reversal come about?

As Tom Regan, Professor Emeritus at NC State, explains, the media and the public are fed a carefully orchestrated public-relations script. The industries "speak with one voice, tell the same story, even use the same words to denigrate their common enemy: animal-rights extremists". He traces the script to a 1989 American Medical Association white paper that recommended portraying animal rights advocates as "anti-human," "anti-science," and "responsible for violent and illegal acts," while the animal-exploiters would portray themselves as sensible, moderate, and scientific, only advocating the humane and responsible use of animals. The animal-user industries follow this script closely, including branding activists with the handy "terrorist" label.

In line with this agenda, Loy uses scare tactics to warn Iowa State students about the alleged threat of "eco-terrorism." But this is just so much industry PR, convenient for promoing simple-minded hysteria, but with little relation to the facts. When the facts are viewed impartially, there's not much to that threat. But there is a real danger here that should concern all Americans: the threat to the First Amendment and our freedom of speech. At a recent Senate hearing, the FBI has (preposterously) designated animals-rights activists one of the "top domestic terrorist threats" and said they would be given " investigative priority."

Senator Frank Lautenberg (Dem. N.J.) objected that "we must take care not to lump legitimate groups with terrorists. To do so would only minimize the very real threats against our society." Citing the Oklahoma City bombing, fatal attacks on abortion doctors and clinics, the bombing at the Olympic Games, and numerous other cases of terrorism, Lautenberg noted: "All of these cases involved the loss of human life. To date, not a single incident of so-called environmental terrorism has killed anyone." Who's next, he wants to know -- "Right to Life? Sierra Club?"

And in a recently filed lawsuit, the ACLU has documented the way that, for political reasons, the FBI has expanded the definition of domestic terrorism to include mainstream groups who criticize government policy, i.e., groups such as Greenpeace, PETA, the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, and the ACLU itself. The ACLU? Domestic Terrorists? Get serious.

As Matthew Scully, former special assistant and chief speechwriter for George W. Bush, wrote in Fear Factories:

Among animal activists, there are some who go too far -- there are in the best of causes. But...there isn't much money in championing the cause of animals, so we're dealing with some pretty altruistic people who on that account alone deserve the benefit of the doubt.

If we're looking for fitting targets for inquiry and scorn, for people with an angle and a truly pernicious influence, better to start with groups like Smithfield Foods (my candidate for the worst corporation in America in its ruthlessness to people and animals alike), the National Pork Producers Council (a reliable Republican contributor), or the various think tanks in Washington subsidized by animal-use industries for intellectual cover.

The big picture is shaping up. Civil libertarians try to make sense of the FBI's labeling animal-rights activists "terrorists," while activists try to make sense of the media and public bias in favor of industry animal-exploiters, but it all makes perfect sense when we consider the script, and the motivations behind it.

The bottom line is that animal-rights groups threaten big business. And when the profits of mega-corporations are at stake, the threat becomes political and goes all the way to the top. It's no wonder the bulldogs of the FBI have been set upon the activists. But when we follow the money and the special-interest politics, it is clear who has the hidden agenda and the profit-driven motivation to distort the truth. And it is not the animal-rights advocates!