-----
/ o o \
====OO=====OO===
http://pnews.org/
Progressive News & Views (since 1982)
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
From: Lindy Greene <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Below is a more comprehensive write up about the SHAC 7 case and upcoming
appeals. But first, a few updates and reminders.
----------
First, Kevin and Josh (the two defendants remaining in custody) are
finally starting to receive books and letters, which really brighten their
day. Please continue to write them (even if you don't hear back). You can
find their addresses at www.SHAC7.com.
Second, a reminder about donations. They are still desperately
needed--information about how to donate is at the bottom of this email.
However, if you do send in a donation, PLEASE MAKE SURE TO MAKE IT PAYABLE
TO "NJARA" (not the SHAC 7). Thanks to all who have contributed to the
appeals fund thus far.
The SHAC7 Conviction: A Blow to Free Speech and Compassionate Activism
On March 2, the Bush administration dealt yet another blow to the First
Amendment, as the SHAC 7 were found guilty of multiple federal felonies
for advocating the closure of the notorious animal-testing lab Huntingdon
Life Sciences. Now, all six activists face years in federal prison. Four
of the six are currently under house arrest while awaiting sentencing in
June, and the SHAC7 Support Committee and attorneys are continuing to work
to have the remaining two defendants released as well.
Not only is this conviction an appalling miscarriage of justice for the
defendants, but it also demonstrates the erosion of free speech
protections and is part of a politically motivated attack on the animal
rights movement in particular. This is the first time anyone has ever been
tried under the Animal Enterprise Protection Act of 1992 (formerly known
as the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act), and the convictions set a
nightmarish precedent for animal protection campaigners throughout the
country. Many industry hacks hope that convictions under the AEPA will
clear the way for the government to go after any activist that campaigns
against big business and is successful, regardless the legality of their
tactics.
History of the Case
All of the defendants were involved in some capacity in the campaign to
close Huntingdon Life Sciences, a contract research lab with one facility
in New Jersey and two in England. Horrendous acts of cruelty to animals at
the lab were exposed in five different undercover investigations. Video
footage showed workers punching beagles in the face, dissecting live
monkeys, falsifying scientific data, and violating countless sections of
the animal welfare act. Since 1999, activists have campaigned globally
against the lab, bringing it to the brink of closure.
With a laundry list of victories behind the campaign, it was only a matter
of time before big business called on the government to stop the big bad
activists. After several hearings before Congress brought governmental
pressure to bear, a New Jersey federal grand jury indicted seven
individuals and the organization Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty USA on
charges of animal enterprise terrorism under the Animal Enterprise
Protection Act on May 26, 2004. Also included in the indictment were
charges of interstate stalking and conspiracy to use a telecommunications
device to harass others.
The Indictment
Originally, seven individuals were charged, along with the organization
Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty USA. The individuals were Kevin Kjonaas,
Lauren Gazzola, Jacob Conroy, Joshua Harper, Andrew Stepanian, Darius
Fullmer, and John McGee. McGee was eventually dropped from the case.
All of the defendants were charged with conspiracy to violate the Animal
Enterprise Protection Act, a never-before-applied 1992 statute. Kjonaas,
Gazzola, Conroy, and Harper were also charged with conspiracy to harass
using a telecommunications device (sending black faxes). Kjonaas, Gazzola,
Conroy, and SHAC USA were charged with conspiracy to commit interstate
stalking and three counts of interstate stalking via the Internet.
While the charges themselves sound alarming, the defendants are not
actually accused of having personally engaged in terrorist or threatening
acts. Instead, the government's case centers around the idea that
aboveground organizers of a campaign are responsible for any and all acts
that anyone engages in while furthering the goals of the organizers. In
this case, the claim is that the SHAC7 should be imprisoned because
underground activists took illegal actions against companies with ties to
H.L.S.
If it weren't so serious, this distortion of the law would be laughable,
and yet somehow the defendants were convicted and are now facing years in
federal prison based on the claim that being part of an activist campaign
is tantamount to being a member of a global conspiracy.
The "Green Scare"
During the "Red Scare" of the 1940s and '50s, government propaganda
campaigns convinced the public that members of the Communist Party
represented an imminent threat to the United States. Through the use of
this sort of fear-mongering in association with FBI Director J. Edgar
Hoover, U.S. Senator Joseph McCarthy was able to brand anyone who
disagreed with him as a Communist or Communist sympathizer. Two of the
main tools used to pursue these goals were federal grand juries and Senate
hearings.
Today we see a return of these tactics in the collaboration between U.S.
Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) and F.B.I. Deputy Assistant Director John
Lewis. In hearings last year, Lewis labeled the animal liberation and
environmental movements the biggest domestic terrorism threats facing the
country. A news article also referenced Inhofe indicating that since the
government could not find the people who engaged in the underground
activities, it must go after the above-ground activists in these
movements.
The Return of the Political Conspiracy Charge
Three of the six charges listed in the indictment were conspiracy counts.
In fact, half the defendants only faced conspiracy charges. A conspiracy
charge is typically very vague, very difficult to prove, and yet very easy
to imply guilt of. These sorts of charges have a long history of use for
political purposes during periods when an administration is in power that
wants to curtail protest activity.
During the 1960s, conspiracy charges were used to target anti-war
protestors and resulted in the conviction of Dr. Spock merely for speaking
out against the draft and supporting resistance to the Vietnam war. In a
similar case in 1969, a grand jury indicted eight activists on conspiracy
and incitement charges for their part in protesting the 1968 Democratic
National Convention.
In the SHAC7 case, the defendants were accused of having conspired to
incite others to break the law in pursuit of the goal of shutting down
HLS. The courts have consistently held that First Amendment free speech
concerns must take precedence, even to the extent of permitting the
advocacy of force and violation of the law, except where such advocacy is
directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to
do so.
For example, in Hess v. Indiana the conviction of a demonstrator who was
overheard saying "we'll take the fucking street later" was overturned
because the Court concluded that the unlawful action advocated was not
imminent but rather at some indefinite future time. The Court also found
constitutional protection for the statement by NAACP members that "If we
catch any of you going in any of them racist stores, we're going to break
your damn neck."
Protests Across State Lines
The only charges in the indictment that were not conspiracy charges were
federal stalking counts. The government's case on these charges was built
around the premise that organizing or participating in home demonstrations
across state lines becomes stalking. Never mind the fact that there were
clearly police present in the video shown of the protests, and if anyone
had done anything illegal, they clearly would have been arrested.
In order to convict the defendants on these charges, the jury had to be
convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the people whose homes were being
protested were not only in fear for their lives or of being physically
harmed as a result of the protests, but also that this was a reasonable
fear, and that the protestors intended for them to feel this way. With
such a high burden of proof required, and the knowledge that this was
never the intent of the defendants, these charges appeared impossible to
get a conviction on.
The Trial
The case first went to trial in June 2005, but ended in a mistrial when
one of the key defense attorneys fell ill during opening statement.
The trial resumed on February 6, 2006. It was originally scheduled to last
three months.
The judge limited the defense capabilities from the beginning, ruling that
the defendants could not introduce their own computer expert (but the
government could introduce their computer expert) and that there could be
no anti-vivisection expert (but the government witnesses could carry on
about the benefits of animal research). He also limited the defendants'
preemptory challenges during jury selection to seven and failed to dismiss
jurors who worked for companies that had been the subject of the campaign
to close HLS.
The government's case lasted two weeks and consisted of parading a long
list of witnesses up on the stand to testify about protest activity they
had been subjected to. While none could identify any of the defendants as
engaging in any criminal acts against them, many did testify about the
criminal acts of others. The judge allowed people like HLS Director Brian
Cass (based in the United Kingdom) to testify about the campaign in
England, an attack on him in England, and the benefits of animal research--
despite the fact that he had nothing to say about the defendants in the
case. Government witness after government witness took to the stand only
to testify about activity that had nothing to do with the defendants.
Over time, it became clear that the government's strategy was to throw in
every action that had ever happened in the campaign and then insinuate
that the defendants were somehow involved.
The highlight of the government's case came when prosecutors called to the
stand a young activist from Ohio who had sent black faxes to an HLS
supporter and participated in an Electronic Civil Disobedience (ECD)
against an HLS affiliate. The activist testified that, in fact, SHAC USA
had not encouraged him or influenced him to take these actions but,
instead, he had been moved to action after seeing the undercover videos.
He further testified that the tactics of black faxing and ECDs were common
knowledge and that he had read about them on a number of websites.
After over two weeks of the government presenting witnesses, it was the
defense's turn. In criminal cases, the defense is under no obligation to
present any witnesses or evidence, with the idea that it is up to the
government to prove the defendants' guilt. It is not up to the defendants
to prove their innocence. With the view that the government had failed to
make a strong case against the defendants, the defense presented one day
of witnesses and rested its case.
Despite pleas from the individual defendants,
After three days of deliberation, the jury returned guilty verdicts on all
counts.
What Went Wrong?
How could these individuals be found guilty for speech? Most would say,
welcome to Bush's America. Welcome to post-9/11 America. Welcome to
corporate America. But it is more complex than that.
The defendants started the case with the chips stacked against them. The
court's rulings from the beginning were not in their favor, and the
federal government had the advantage of endless people power to work on
the case, as well as months of wiretaps, emails, and Internet postings,
which could easily be misconstrued with a little help from the government.
Essentially the verdict in the trial came down to the question of whether
the jury would look past the hand-waving and vague suspicions of the
government, as well as past their own sense of camaraderie with the
witnesses who took the stand to testify about how perfectly legal home
demos terrified them and their families. Sadly, the defense presented by
the SHAC7's team of attorneys was just not up to the task under these
conditions.
What Now?
The defendants each face significant time in prison. The two defendants
convicted of only one charge may be sentenced to up to a year in federal
prison, and the others will likely face sentences of five to ten years.
Although legal precedents are clearly on the side of the SHAC7, appealing
the verdict will be a lengthy - and costly - process. For the defendants,
this means potentially being imprisoned for years before it is possible
the verdict could be overturned.
The defendants desperately need our support - both financially to cover
the costs of the appeal process and morally to help them through these
difficult and trying times. For more information on how you can help
support the SHAC7 and reclaim our free speech rights, please visit
www.SHAC7.com.
To donate, please send check or money order payable to "NJARA" and
earmarked for the SHAC 7 Appeal to:
New Jersey Animal Rights Alliance
PO Box 174, Englishtown, NJ 07726
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
M A I L I N G L I S T S
(1) pnews-news - NEWS mailing list - (text only)
Send "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" as subject
----> pnews-news-request(at)inyourface.info
=======================================================
(2) pnews-views - VIEWS mailing list- (text only)
OPEN discussion - "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" as subj
Send to ------> pnews-views-request(at)inyourface.info
=======================================================
(3) fightback - articles and pointers distribution list
(html/text) - expert informed opin., credentialed authors
----> http://pnews.org/dada/
========================================================
(4) ATTN: WEBMASTERS - Link Exchange/improve site rank
----> links_only-subscribe(at)googlegroups.com - or, go to:
-----> http://groups.google.com/group/Links_Only
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
