Animal rights campaigners admit blackmail
Published Date:
08 September 2010
By Clare Semke
Crime reporter
Portsmouth, UK
A GROUP of animal rights campaigners face jail after admitting blackmailing firms and suppliers in a bid to bring down a controversial testing laboratory.
Thomas Harris, 27, from Clarence Road, Gosport, has pleaded guilty to conspiracy to blackmail companies and suppliers linked to Huntington Life Sciences between 2001 and 2008.
His partner Nicola Tapping, 29, of the same address, pleaded guilty to conspiracy to harm the Cambridge-based firm from 2005 to 2008 under the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 by interfering with firms supplying them.
Jason Mullan, 32, from Holloway Road, London, and Alfie Fitzpatrick, 20, from Knowle Road, Solihull, West Midlands, pleaded guilty to the same charge as Tapping at Winchester Crown Court.
The four, who were members of Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty, admitted the charges on the eve of their trial.
The six campaigners for animal rights waged an international campaign of intimidation against a host of companies in an attempt to force the closure of Huntington Life Sciences.
Staff working for the supply firms were targeted with abusive telephone calls and criminal damage to their homes. Read More
All over the world, there seems to be nothing animal rights activists won’t stoop to in order to further their vegan agenda. We’ve seen it here in the US when they firebomb the houses of medical researchers and other violent crimes. Hopefully these criminals are dealt with appropriately.
Showing posts with label SHAC. Show all posts
Showing posts with label SHAC. Show all posts
Thursday, September 9, 2010
Monday, October 19, 2009
AR Terrorists Illegal Activities Confirmed By Courts
Virtual Sit-Ins Doom Online Animal Rights Activists
By David Kravets
October 16, 2009
Setting aside claims of vagueness, a divided federal appeals court is upholding the constitutionality of the Animal Enterprise Protection Act, a statute that makes it a crime to encourage “physical disruption” or “economic damage” against animal-research centers.
Thursday’s decision by the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (.pdf) was the first time an appellate court has grappled with the free speech issues raised by the law, reviewing the case of radical animal-rights activists who were convicted in 2006 of using e-mail and websites to encourage violence — including bombings — against a New Jersey animal-research center, its shareholders, office holders, bankers and others affiliated with it.
The six ranking members of the Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty group, some of whom were sentenced to up to six years in prison, argued that the 2002 statute, amended in 2006, has a chilling effect on speech because of its ambiguity.
The defendants maintained that, among other things, they simply espoused protests and released names and addresses of people who should be subject to protests, in a bid to pressure change at New Jersey’s Huntingdon Life Sciences. The company tests mice, rats, dogs, monkeys and guinea pigs for big pharma, agribusiness, veterinarians and medical-implant companies.
The court noted that “political hyperbole” or advocating violence that is not imminent and unlikely to occur is protected. But speech that constitutes a “true threat” is not. Read More
The vegan animal rights terrorists that continue to believe violence is going to help their cause are finding out that might not be the case. It seems the courts agree that it’s illegal to list names, addresses, and the time of day, along with the suggested physical violence to perform against individuals. And thankfully, law enforcement officials realize the threat these people pose. The message has been sent loud and clear that animal rights terrorism isn’t going to be tolerated in this country.
By David Kravets
October 16, 2009
Setting aside claims of vagueness, a divided federal appeals court is upholding the constitutionality of the Animal Enterprise Protection Act, a statute that makes it a crime to encourage “physical disruption” or “economic damage” against animal-research centers.
Thursday’s decision by the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (.pdf) was the first time an appellate court has grappled with the free speech issues raised by the law, reviewing the case of radical animal-rights activists who were convicted in 2006 of using e-mail and websites to encourage violence — including bombings — against a New Jersey animal-research center, its shareholders, office holders, bankers and others affiliated with it.
The six ranking members of the Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty group, some of whom were sentenced to up to six years in prison, argued that the 2002 statute, amended in 2006, has a chilling effect on speech because of its ambiguity.
The defendants maintained that, among other things, they simply espoused protests and released names and addresses of people who should be subject to protests, in a bid to pressure change at New Jersey’s Huntingdon Life Sciences. The company tests mice, rats, dogs, monkeys and guinea pigs for big pharma, agribusiness, veterinarians and medical-implant companies.
The court noted that “political hyperbole” or advocating violence that is not imminent and unlikely to occur is protected. But speech that constitutes a “true threat” is not. Read More
The vegan animal rights terrorists that continue to believe violence is going to help their cause are finding out that might not be the case. It seems the courts agree that it’s illegal to list names, addresses, and the time of day, along with the suggested physical violence to perform against individuals. And thankfully, law enforcement officials realize the threat these people pose. The message has been sent loud and clear that animal rights terrorism isn’t going to be tolerated in this country.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)