Santa Cruz Indymedia : http://santacruz.indymedia.org
Home
Santa Cruz Indymedia

Announcement :: [none]

Benefit to Support the SHAC 7

Come dine in support of the SHAC7! There will be a four course vegan meal on August 27, 6:00pm, at the United Methodist Church in Santa Cruz.

On May 26th, three Bay Area activists, as well as four others across the country, were arrested and charged with Federal Terrorism and "Interstate Stalking" charges as a result of their involvement in the campaign against Huntingdon Life Sciences (a notorious animal testing lab).

Make no mistake -- this is not about terrorism or animal rights. The simple fact is that these charges are nothing more than an attempt to silence activists who have utilized their First Amendment right to speak out on controversial issues and tactics. If the government can get away with charging these activists with Terrorism, every protester in the US has something to worry about!

report back: Gourmet Dinner For the Shac7

[ SHAC 7 I Inside Huntingdon Life Sciences I The SHAC 7 and the future of democracy I Who is the Legally Defined Terrorist: HLS or SHAC? ]
watermelongazpacho.jpg
ban_short.gif
Come dine in support of the SHAC7!

Join us for a 4 course vegan meal on Friday August 27th, 6:00pm at United Methodist Chruch (250 California Street near corner of California & Bay St.)

Meal of:
Watermelon gazpacho
Papaya salad
Moroccan stuffed filo dough
Baked hazelnut-crusted pears with dried fruit compote.

Asking a donation of $20-$25, or what you can afford.

Call 831-459-9839 or email aaronneckbone@hushmail.com for more info or to reserve a spot.

For more information about the SHAC 7 visit SHAC7.com.
For more information about Huntingdon Life Sciences visit InsideHLS.com

Who is the SHAC 7?

On May 26th, three Bay Area activists, as well as four others across the country, were arrested and charged with Federal Terrorism and "interstate Stalking" charges as a result of thier involvement in the campaign against Huntingdon Life Sciences (a notorious animal testing lab).

The basis for these charges would be funny if it weren't such an insult to everything our country is supposed to stand for. The explanation for the charge of Terrorism is that the defendants have participated in a "comspiracy" to drivev the lab out of business. The interstate stalking charges appear to result from the activists crossing state lines to engage in legal protests.

Make no mistake--this is not about terrorism or animal rights. The simple fact is that these charges are nothing more than an attempt to silence activists who have utilized thir First Amendment right to speak out on controversial issues and tactics. If the government can get away with charging these activists with Terrorism, every protester is the US has something to worry about!
 
 


New Comments are disabled, please visit Indybay.org/SantaCruz

Comments

Re: Benefit to Support the SHAC 7

Wait- isn't this the group that broke windows and vandalized the homes of employees of the labs? Yeah, sounds like the Bill of Rights to me... how convenient you leave that out of your "defense".
 

Re: Benefit to Support the SHAC 7

Even if this were so, do you think that some broken windows are worth sending people to jail for 20 years? Have you even spent a week in prison before?
Do you care more about a few wealthy individuals losing a couple windows once in their lifetime or the millions of animals totured for Eternity perfume and Mr. Muscle Drain Cleaner!? (sure it might be traumatizing for a day or two for those execs...boohoo)
If you are someone who believes in the Bill of Rights, wouldn't you also agree that people deserve the right to a fair trial...to not be claimed guilty before having a trial at all?
These are peoples (and animals) lives at stake here, and if you care more about the law than life, then your just another -----.

visit the website.
 

Re: Broken Windows

Yes this is the lab where some of the key figures of the lab have had: mock gravestones (for the humans and animals that have died as a result of HLS) left on their front porch; demonstrations at their homes; and were visited by a group called the ALF who have smashed out windows. Note that the ALF is not SHAC. If you read the indictment, you will find out that none of these people are being charged with breaking windows. In fact, the indictment alleges very few illegal activities, and those illegal actions that it does mention are not attributed to any of the arrested activists themselves. Most of what the indictment mentions are legal forms of protest, like calling companies to complain about animal abuse or sending e-mails to HLS collaborators.

Even a conservative legal analyst from Fox News has expressed that she finds the indictment to be “reaching.� So why were the SHAC 7 arrested?

Supposedly, the federal government feels that by reporting news from the campaign on a website, philosophically supporting direct action, and attending and organizing legal demonstrations, the SHAC 7 were actually conspiring to make other people break the law. Legal activities such as letter writing are also being counted as part of an illegal campaign because the government proclaims that the SHAC 7 conspired to create such a volume of letters as to interfere with interstate commerce.

Sound absurd? It gets worse.

One part of the indictment actually makes mention of a “Top 20 Terror Tactics� post on the SHAC website. What the prosecutors fail to mention is that SHAC did not write the document, but re-posted it from a pro-animal testing website, which had written it to rally support against SHAC.

Another reason for the terrorism charges, the government states is:
“Count 28: On or about October, 2002, the SHAC website posted an announcement listing the home address and telephone number of CA, and HLS employee.
Count 29: On or about October 21, 2002, the SHAC website posted an announcement relating to signs that were posted in and around Princeton, New jersey area, which referred to CA as ‘deluded and deranged; and listed her home address and telephone number.�

Again what the prosecution forgets to mention was the article that was posted on the SHAC website re-posted from the local Princeton newspaper. In other words, people are facing jail sentences and millions of dollars in fines for placing our opposition’s writings on the SHAC website.

Using the governments theory that posting a controversial posting on a website, even if it is not you own, you should be prosecuted. The New York Times would be first in line for terrorism charges for re-posting the Unabomber’s manifesto. Do we see indictments to all of the New York Times employees? Of course not. These are politically motivated charges.
 

Re: Benefit to Support the SHAC 7

I stand corrected. Thank you for the clarification.
 

Calendar

No events for this day.

view calendar week
add an event

Views

Media Centers

Syndication feeds

Account Login

This site made manifest by dadaIMC software