"One Struggle, One Fight:

SHAC 7 and the Future of Dissent"

Pete Spina

Lining the sidewalk outside the federal courthouse in Trenton, NJ on
June 1, 2005, some of the signs they hold show pictures of
restrained, mutilated or tortured animals from experiments worthy of
the imagination of Dr. Josef Mengele, involving elaborate and brutal
head restraints on terrified primates, wired brain implants on
prostrate, living house cats and disemboweled beagle puppies. Other
signs call for the defense of free speech, invoking the First
Amendment of the Bill of Rights.The sun is out but the breeze keeps them cool. They are nicely, even
conservatively dressed, middle class and mostly white, and they
maintain an orderly composure while police deploy linked metal
barricades in front of them. Armed federal police guard the entrance
of the courthouse behind them, clad in bullet-proof kevlar vests.
They do not taunt the police, but they do chant loudly, enegetically
and in unison:

"Human freedom, animal rights! One struggle, one fight!"

Inside the courthouse, the trial of the SHAC 7 has begun.

The SHAC 7

On May 26, 2004, a federal grand jury indicted seven activists on
"terrorism" charges. Kevin Jonas, Jake Conroy, Lauren Gazzola,
Darius Fulmer, Andy Stepanian, Josh Harper and John McGee were
indicted on charges of "animal enterprise terrorism" under the
Animal Enterprise Protection Act of 1992.

At heart, this is a free speech fight. The specifics of the
indictment state that the seven are alleged to have run a website
that reported on protests aimed at pressuring investors,
stockbrokers and customers of the animal experimentation facility
Huntington Life Sciences to divest from the facility. The indictment
alleges the seven conspired to encourage the disruption of commerce
at HLS. The government's interpretation of the AEP Act seeks to
define as domestic terrorism any such third party action that has
the effect of limiting commerce, whether criminal in method or not
and no matter how peaceful, encompassing a variety of tactics such
as civil disobedience, demonstrations and divestment campaigns.

Industry spokesmen like David Martosko of the Center for Consumer
Freedom, a front group for the meat, dairy and restaurant industry,
have smugly described SHAC as the "mainstream animal-rights
movement's Achilles Heel." Their hope is that should the SHAC 7
trial end in a guilty verdict, it will effectively criminalize any
dissent. The AEP Act could then be used to prosecute other
organizations, like People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals
(PETA). This trial is a test case of the principle that advocating
non-violent change -- and being effective at it -- is the same as
engaging in violent terrorist activity.

This principle has been applied before in US history. It is the same
twisted logic that lead to the imprisonment and execution of the
Haymarket Martyrs, late nineteenth century labor organizers and
anarchists who fought for the 8-hour day. This principle sent Nicola
Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti to the electric chair. Like these
figures from history, the SHAC activists scarcely fit the bill of
the hardened thugs they are made out to be.

Soft-spoken Kevin Jonas volunteered for nursing homes, worked for
PIRG and founded an Amnesty International chapter at his alma mater,
Midwestern University. Jake Conroy went to art school. Lauren
Gazzola is a magna cum laude grad of NYU. Darius Fulmer works as an
EMT. Andy Stepanian spends his weekends with a group that cooks food
for the homeless. Josh Harper went to school for drama and runs his
own video production company. John McGee is a law student. These are
twenty to thirty year-olds more likely to discuss where they can
find tasty vegan ice cream than plot harm to anyone or anything, yet
the government ranks them as terrorists equivalent to Iraqi suicide
bomb mastermind Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.
Despite efforts to portray them as such, several government
officials openly ackowledged that SHAC has not violated the Animal
Enterprise Protection Act.

FBI Deputy Assitant Director John Lewis stated that "the activities
of SHAC generally fall outside the scope of the AEP statute. In
fact, SHAC members are typically quite conversant in the elements of
the federal statute."

McGregor Scott, US Attorney for California's Eastern District,
admitted that "While animal 'terrorists' [sic] are increasingly
targeting not only animal enterprises themselves...but also anyone
who is believed to be engaged in the provision of services to such
animal enterprises, federal law does not currently equip the
Department with the necessary tools to effectively prosecute the
perpetrators of such conduct."

Despite these admissions, the government is moving lockstep with
animal testing industry groups like the bogus Center for Consumer
Freedom and with Huntington Life Sciences itself, as well as
corporate investors who face the prospect of public pressure and
exposure due to their morally questionable business ventures. Having
failed to gain any headway on more militant, clandestine groups such
as the Animal Liberation Front, the government is seeking to destroy
the animal rights movement's above-ground and transparent activist
base.

The immensely effective SHAC campaign (having already bankrupted
Huntington Life Sciences twice before financial intervention by the
UK government, a move unprecedented in history) is first on the
list, but the government's tactics of intimidation and calculated
suppression of dissent can easily be extrapolated to other
grassroots movements, a fact that should deeply concern anyone
interested in civil liberties or social justice.

SHAC: a Blueprint for Effective Activism

Just as the animal research industry's motives are obvious, the
government's reasoning is simple: their greatest fear is that other
activists will learn from the SHAC campaign and integrate those
tactics into their own endeavors. From the global social justice and
anti-war movements to anti-racist, labor and community activism, the
potency of SHAC's methods are compelling.

In only three years, by means of secondary and tertiary targeting of
companies investing in HLS that do not actually need HLS to remain
financially secure, and by enabling the free-flow of information
about actions conducted by other groups in a coordinated manner, the
lab lost 90% of its worth as companies divested or cancelled
contracts. Insurance firms will no longer cover HLS. Accounting
firms will not do their taxes. All this has been accomplished by a
simple understanding of corporate hierarchies, knowledge of the
pressure necessary to isolate and discourage investment and the
application of time, energy and the concerted activity of committed
activists.

Key to these tactics are an aggressive, no-compromise stance.
Activists do not simply protest HLS, they protest anyone who has any
business dealings with HLS. In some cases, activists have sent black
faxes to companies' fax machines, burning out print cartridges after
20 copies, a tactic the federal indictment cites as a violation of
the FCC's indecency provisions. Other actions in the campaign have
involved demonstrations at the homes of executives and investors.
While these tactics are aggressive and rude, they simply do not fall
into the category of violent terrorism.

This has the government grasping for straws and reacting in
desperate ways. Central to the government's case against the SHAC
defendants is the accusation that SHAC activists are violent
extremists. These accusations carry no weight in reality, only the
threat of guilt by association. For instance, Executive Assitant US
Attorney Charles McKenna revealed in the first day of trial that the
government may seek to include testimony from Brian Cass, an HLS
managing director from England who was attacked outside of his home
by unknown, unidentified assailants. The only connection made
between the SHAC defendants in the United States and Cass is that
Cass worked for the same firm they targeted for protest, but at its
UK facility.

Other insinuations come straight from HLS execs themselves. HLS
general manager Mike Caulfield called the SHAC 7 "extremists" and
said the trial is about whether HLS employees "should have to fear
for their lives." This is a convenient scare tactic used by a
company whose direct financial interests are threatened by the
exposure of its practices and are completely unsupported in fact.
The mindset also betrays an egregious political double standard,
shared by the Republican Party.

Definition of a Domestic Terrorists

On May 18, 2005, the Senate's Committee on Environment and Public
Works held an oversight hearing regarding the prevalence of
"eco-terrorism," specifically focusing on the activities of the
Earth Liberation Front and Animal Liberation Front. In testimony,
FBI Deputy Assistant Director Lewis told the committee that animal
rights and environmental extremists are the nation's top domestic
terror threat, beyond even violent neo-nazi groups like the Aryan
Nations. He included SHAC in his assessment.

Republican Senator from Louisiana David Vitter echoed this
conclusion, discussing the actions of "ALF vandals" at Lousiana
State University. Although unable to produce a single instance of an
individual being injured in any way, he ended by saying that "It is
only a matter of time until these attacks by domestic terrorists
involving arson result in human deaths."

Democratic Senator from Vermont Jim Jeffords questioned the entire
proceeding. "I am puzzled why the Senate Environment and Public
Works Committee is examining the issue of animal rights and
eco-terrorism since the Committee lacks jurisdiction over criminal
law enforcement issues."

Jeffords went on to express his frustration that Democratic
Congressman Bennie Thompson, ranking member of the House of
Representatives Homeland Security Committee, had been barred by the
Republican EPW Committee Chair, James Inhofe of Oklahoma, from
testifying about the danger posed by demonstrably violent right-wing
extremists.

Jeffords stated, "I'd like to submit for the record a report
Congressman Thompson prepared, entitled - quote - 'Ten Years After
the Oklahoma City Bombing, the Department of Homeland Security Must
Do More to Fight Right-Wing Domestic Terrorists.' The report
highlights the apparent failure of DHS to assess the threat posed by
right-wing domestic terrorist groups in the Department's five-year
budget planning document. I share his concern that the Department of
Homeland Security needs to protect us from all terrorist threats and
should not focus on eco-terrorism at the expense of other domestic
terrorist groups, such as the KKK, right wing militias, abortion
bombers and skin heads."

Jeffords' concerns have good cause. In February of 2005, the husband
and mother of US District Judge Joan Lefkow were murdered, execution
style, in the basement of her home in Chicago's suburbs. Judge
Lefkow had issued a copyright infringement ruling against a white
supremacist group called the World Church of the Creator and ordered
its leader, Matt Hale, to change its name and cease using documents
bearing the group's name. Matt Hale then attempted to contract a hit
on Judge Lefkow's life. As he awaited sentencing for that
conviction, Lefkow's family was murdered.

Other incidents by white supremacists and right-wing extremists in
the past involved a racist, three-day shooting spree in Illinois and
Indiana in 1999, attempts to manufacture or acquire weapons of mass
destruction, including biological and chemical agents, abortion
clinic bombings and assassinations of doctors who practice abortion
procedures, the delivery of home-made anthrax through the mail by
neo-nazis against "lawyers with Jewish-sounding names," and best
known, the Oklahoma City bombings of 1995 that killed nearly
two-hundred men, women and children.

The reality is that right-wing extremists have proven exceedingly
violent and brutal in recent years, while animal rights and
environmental campaigners have simply been extremely effective
activists. Right-wing extremists might kill people, but animal
rights and environmental activists hit corporate profits.

The government wears its political self-interest on its sleeve, a
self-interest that mirrors the interests of the animal research
industry: a total disregard for the suffering of living beings and
the blind pursuit of profit through intimidation and lies.

...and Then There Were Six.

Actions by prosecutors on the opening day of the trial expose the
inherent weakness of the government's case against SHAC. Attorney
Josh Markowitz announced to reporters that his client, John McGee,
was no longer part of the case and that Markowitz expected that the
charges against McGee would be dismissed.

Indeed, it seems that none of the other defendants even knew who
McGee was and many people openly questioned why he was indicted in
the first place. The extent of McGee's involvement in the SHAC
campaign remains unclear. However, the government's insistence on
investigating and indicting someone with no discernable involvement
in the group has several explanations.

First, the government wants to nail SHAC and nail them bad. It is so
desperate that it pursues every possible lead with maximum pressure,
including the use of illegal methods. A defendant's car windshield
was even smashed recently and a laptop stolen from that defendant's
car; $50 in cash was left untouched.

It is easy to understand John McGee's indictment in this context. If
he had any connection to protests against HLS or to the animal
rights movement more generally, a federal indictment against him
would up the ante considerably, forcing him into a position where he
could be coerced into helping the government's case against SHAC,
either with information or through testimony. The leverage gained by
a federal indictment is considerable, but it remains to be seen what
impact any information gained in this way would have considering the
questionable and indirect circumstances of McGee's involvement.

Still, even if McGee had absolutely no connection to the SHAC
campaign or the activists currently on trial and has not been
coerced in this manner, being the federal government means never
having to say you're sorry.

Second, the government wants to send a clear message to animal
rights and other activists in the United States: if you are
effective, you will face an unprecedented level of pressure from
federal agencies regardless of the legitimacy or the methods of your
activities. The conclusion that social justice, animal rights and
other activists should draw from this is stark. The war on dissent
is real, it is coordinated and the need for solidarity between
different movements has never been more urgent.

One Struggle, One Fight

Animal rights activists have largely been part of an insular, single
issue movement. Their activity rarely extends beyond specific
concerns. Many animal rights activists have only recently begun to
engage in a broader analysis of human society, but that engagement
has begun, if slowly. The animal rights movement has always been
effective at addressing the question of what, but it is equally
important to answer the question why: why companies such as HLS
pursue these actions, why the US, UK and other governments seek to
protect them and why many people do not share the animal rights
movement's concerns. The answers are not always as simple as some
would like to believe. If vivisection ended today, the basic
motivation behind its pursuit would still remain: it is a capitalist
enterprise driven by greed. As long as that incentive remains built
into the structure of society, so will animal cruelty.

For their part, social justice, anti-capitalist and anti-war
activists have largely been content with mass protests, marches and
petitions with the occasional foray into direct action. Labor
activists have been content with fighting for better working
conditions in a limited sense while expanding or preserving current
membership. Many anti-globalization activists pine for the
summit-hopping days following the Battle of Seattle. Coordinated,
long-term campaigns with specific goals are rarely undertaken and
tactics often bog down into predictable and increasingly ineffective
patterns. If there is one thing the animal rights movement can teach
other movements is that a listserv, mass membership, two meetings a
week or a zine on do-it-yourself herb gardening can never replace
energy, lean organization, clear objectives, perseverance and
innovative, strategically targeted direct action.

But is such an understanding possible? If it is not, we already have
a taste of what the future holds for us. Our future is being played
out right now inside a federal courtroom in Trenton, NJ against six
young activists who were bold enough to stand by their conscience
and act. They stand there now, as much for us and our liberties as
for the lives of the animals they chose to defend. We must stand
with them, not because we wish to save ourselves, but because our
liberation is bound up in theirs.