From the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Related Categories: U.S. | Animal Liberation
Congressman Kucinich's statement on the AETA
by Mat Thomas (mat [at]
Sunday Dec 3rd, 2006 4:24 PM
Congressman Kucinich's statement on the AETA
Congressman Dennis Kucinich's Special Assistant sent me his statement regarding the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA) and asked that I post it to my blog ( ). However, I figured it would be more widely read if I posted it elsewhere.

Kucinich has been the only elected official in Congress (out of 100 Senators and 435 Representatives) to speak out and vote against the AETA. To thank the Congressman for standing by those who exercise their first amendment rights to protect animals from abuse, visit his website ( ), where you can also learn about and join his efforts to support humane treatment of farm animals.

Mat Thomas

Statement of Congressman Dennis J. Kucinich (D-OH) on the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act:

I stand with every Member of the House in defense of the rights of individuals to be free of bodily harm or injury under all and any circumstances. But, the fact of the matter is, existing Federal law already includes any place which does Federal research.

So the question is, why create a new and specific classification here?

We, of course, need to protect peoples' right to conduct their work without fear of assault. But, a larger question remains yet unanswered by this Congress: How should animals be treated humanely?

There are some specific principles with respect to humane treatment of animals but, these do not go far enough. My concern about this bill is that it does nothing to address the real issue of animal protection but, instead targets those advocating animal rights. This legislation will have a real and chilling effect on people's Constitutionally protected First Amendment rights.

I am not talking about people who would threaten anyone with death because they don't agree with them, but there are individuals who love animals, who don't want to see animals hurt, who have a point and a right to speak out. I think for that reason, this bill has not yet reached its maturity.

I understand what the sponsors of this bill are trying to do, but I don't think that they will reach the end they are hoping to achieve unless this Congress makes a clear statement about ethical principles with respect to animals and how we treat animals in research and other enterprise.

These are very serious questions that millions of Americans care about. I understand the intent here, but I think that you must be very careful about painting everyone with the broad brush of terrorism who might have a legitimate objection to research with or treatment of animals that is inhumane.

Bringing up a bill like this under procedures that only allow limited debate, and no amendments, no matter how well intentioned, is problematic.

I am not and never have been in favor of anyone using a cloak of free speech to commit violence. The Supreme Court Justice said, your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose. No one has the right to yell "fire'' in a crowded theater. We have heard those kinds of admonitions.

I am not for anyone abusing their rights by damaging another person's property or person, but I am for protecting the First Amendment and not creating a special class of violations for a specific type of protest.

Balancing Constitutional concerns against the protection of people and property is never easy. Unfortunately, the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act goes too far in the wrong direction.
Listed below are the latest comments about this post.
These comments are submitted anonymously by website visitors.
www.kucinich.comwww.kucinich.comTuesday Dec 26th, 2006 5:42 PM
Congressman Lungren's idiotic logic on this topicNeutral Red BioassayWednesday Dec 6th, 2006 12:57 AM