ALEC’S
ANIMAL AND ECOLOGICAL TERRORISM ACT
Introduction
In December 2002, the Criminal Justice Task Force of the American
Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) endorsed a model “Animal
and Ecological Terrorism Act.” The US Sportsmen’s
Alliance, an organization whose business partners include the
Associated Fur Industries of Chicagoland, Remington Arms Company,
and the outdoor gear retailer Cabela’s(1),
helped write the legislation and is now promoting it to state
legislators across the country. ALEC’s fact sheet on the
Act states, “This bill does not inhibit one’s right
to free speech,”(2)
but even a brief reading suggests otherwise.
The legislation’s vague language and increased penalties
for violent crimes already covered under existing laws are designed
not to protect hunting, fishing, livestock farms and animal research
facilities, but to suppress legitimate environmental, animal rights,
and family farm advocacy. The Act defines an “animal or
ecological terrorist organization” as “two or more
persons with the primary or incidental purpose of supporting any
politically motivated activity... intended to obstruct, impede
or deter any person from participating in a lawful animal activity”
or in “mining, foresting, harvesting, gathering, or processing
natural resources.” This and other passages in the Act could
be used to prosecute mainstream environmental groups engaged in
nonviolent advocacy work. People providing support to such organizations
– even in the innocuous form of a monetary contribution
– could also be prosecuted.
In addition, the ALEC legislation’s last section creates
a “terrorist registry” managed by each state’s
Attorney General. Anyone pleading guilty to or convicted of “animal
and ecological terrorism” would have their name, address,
signature, and picture displayed on a website for at least three
years, “at which time the registrant may apply to the Attorney
General for removal.” This provision could not only stigmatize
nonviolent environmental activists as terrorists but also adds
insult to injury by putting the burden on them to remove their
name from the “terrorist registry.”
State Representative Ray Allen, the chair of ALEC’s Criminal
Justice Task Force, introduced his version of the Act in the Texas
House. He stated that the measure is needed to counter “growing
violence among the growing fringe of animal rights groups and
eco-freaks.”(3)
The bill has also been introduced in New York, South Carolina,
Arizona, and Washington. As of June 2004, it has yet to become
law in any state, but ALEC has prioritized passage of the Act
during upcoming state legislative sessions.
There are small, radical fringe groups like the Animal Liberation
Front and Earth Liberation Front that have engaged in property
destruction and other violent acts to protest what they see as
serious environmental threats or animal rights’ abuses.
According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, “the frequency
and aggressiveness of [eco-terrorist] attacks is on the increase.”
Yet the vast majority of environmental, animal rights, and family
farm organizations that do not condone trespassing, violence,
property damage, or any other criminal activity could also be
targeted under the ALEC legislation, with serious ramifications
for the constitutionally-guaranteed freedoms of speech, press,
and assembly. Since the acts that the ALEC bill claims to target
are already covered under existing laws, a more fitting response
to the problem would be to increase efforts to investigate and
prosecute violent fringe groups, as the FBI is already doing.
back to top
Talking Points
- ALEC’s Animal and Ecological Terrorist Act’s definitions
of “animal and ecological terrorism” and “terrorist
organizations” are so vague that mainstream, law-abiding
environmental, animal rights, and family farm organizations
and their supporters could be prosecuted under its terms.
- The Center for Constitutional Right’s vice-president,
human rights lawyer Michael Ratner, called sections of the ALEC
bill “so broad they sweep within them basically every
environmental and animal rights organization in the country.”
- Acts of property destruction, arson, and assault that ALEC
claims necessitate its draconian Act are already covered under
existing laws, as can be demonstrated by the successful prosecution
of past fringe group attacks and by ongoing FBI efforts.
- The bill language places severe restrictions on individuals’
First Amendment rights and, by singling out certain kinds of
advocacy, denies environmental, animal rights, and family farm
advocates equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment.
- The Act, by focusing on environmental and animal rights activism,
implies that advocates on these issues are unusually prone to
criminal activity.
- The legislation’s proposed “terrorist registry”
is an unprecedented invasion of privacy that ALEC and its supporters
have not even tried to justify in terms of recidivism rates
or other criminal justice data.
- The bill cynically exploits past tragedy and the current political
climate by labeling as “terrorism” legitimate political
activity.
back to top
Links to Relevant
Bills
Arizona
HB
2367 (Introduced 1/26/04; Withdrawn 3/15/04)
SB
1081 (Introduced 1/14/04; Vetoed by Governor 5/12/04)
Hawaii
HB
2550 (Introduced 1/27/04; Referred to AGR/EEP, JUD 1/30/04)
New
York
S
2996 (Introduced 3/13/03; Referred to Consumer Protection
1/7/04)
A
4884 (Introduced 2/20/03; Referred to Agriculture 1/7/04)
Pennsylvania
SB
1257 (Introduced 1/10/02; Referred to Environmental Resources
and Energy 6/17/02)
South
Carolina
H
4439 (Prefiled 12/3/03; Referred to Committee on Agriculture,
Natural Resources, and Environmental Affairs 1/13/04)
Texas
HB
2510 (Introduced 3/12/03; Left pending in Agriculture and
Livestock 4/10/03)
HB
433 (Introduced 1/16/03; Read and referred to Defense Affairs
and State-Federal Relations 2/10/03)
Washington
SB
6114 (Prefiled 12/10/03; Referred to Ways & Means 1/30/04)
back to top
Press Clips
back to top |