Now on ScienceBlogs: Open Lab: Time is Ticking!
The Egyptian goddess Isis was celebrated as the ideal wife and mother. The blogger known as Dr. Isis has some fancy-sounding degrees and is a physiologist at a major research university working on some terribly impressive stuff. She blogs about balancing her research career with the demands of raising small children, how to succeed as a woman in academia, and anything else she finds interesting. Also, she blogs about shoes. In fact, she blogs a lot about shoes.
...And behold, he raised the motherfucking Jameson on high as Isis bedecked her feet in glory, and the masses were sated. -- The Holy Gospel According to PhysioProf
Widget doesn't work?
Here's my giving page.
Thanks!
« Designed Specifically for Women? | Main | Thursday Wedding Jams »
Posted on: July 29, 2009 5:33 PM, by Isis the Scientist
Earlier today I was feeling frustrated and tweeted this:
For the first time Isis the Scientist just doesn't know how to reply. I'm sorry.
This tweet was in response to the fact that moments beforehand I had received this email:
I hope someone does to your baby what you do to your mice.
I don't have any mice.
Share this: Facebook Twitter Stumbleupon Reddit Email + More
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://scienceblogs.com/mt/pings/116036
Comments
Typical PETA mentality... They don't care that animal research SAVES human lives. Hell, these guys don't care about human lives at all!
What kind of craziness does it take to threaten the life of a child over something like this??
Posted by: doctorgoo | July 29, 2009 5:53 PM
I wonder, can you track that person down thru their email provider? Threats are likely illegal and hopefully punishable.
Posted by: gnuma | July 29, 2009 6:41 PM
The thing that frustrates me the most? All these "must free animals from research" fanatic types haven't clued in that these animals won't survive even a minute in the wild. They go in and "free the animals", not realizing the eventually more animals will be used for the same project (making the # of animals per experiment go up) which actually goes against what they want. But don't get me started......
Posted by: prof to be | July 29, 2009 7:04 PM
Pressing charges seems like a good response.
Posted by: ms physics | July 29, 2009 7:11 PM
I feel ill.
Posted by: PalMD | July 29, 2009 7:12 PM
That is absolutely, undeniably CRIMINAL. Call the police. And get a big, scary dog with lots of sharp teeth.
Willful ignorance is one thing, but terrorism based on that willful ignorance is quite another.
No further arguments for pseudonymous blogging needed.
My heart is broken. Stupidity and evil are such a dangerous combination.
Posted by: Catharine | July 29, 2009 7:14 PM
I just don't get people who value the lives of mice more than the life of a child. Anyone's child. *sigh*
Posted by: MFA Mama | July 29, 2009 7:14 PM
I'm with the MFA Mama. There is no non-human animal on this earth more important than anyone's child. Humane, useful experimentation using creatures from the lowly bacteria to the almost-human chimpanzees has saved millions of lives.
Anyone who would send this kind of e-mail is a sick person.
Posted by: Lauren | July 29, 2009 7:19 PM
Catharine said: "No further arguments for pseudonymous blogging needed."
Exactly right. I'm so sorry, Isis, that you had to receive an e-mail like that. I'm a little sick to my stomach.
Posted by: anon | July 29, 2009 7:38 PM
No kidding! An eye for an eye makes us all blind. I really don't think you need worry about a response, Isis. To my mind, replying just validates that way of thinking (although a good smiting is always the prerogative of any divine being).
But, it does seem to fall into the class of "threat" so I would try to track it down if it was sent anonymously, and add it to the list of items you might include/reference in conversations with your IUCAC and dept of security.
Posted by: Callinectes | July 29, 2009 8:13 PM
Maybe you could say you cuddle and pet your mice a lot, and feed them yummy things and sing to them? And moreover, you love them?
d.
Posted by: d. | July 29, 2009 8:44 PM
I am so furious about this, I can't even type what I want to say.
My boss is our IACUC chair. I can't believe some of the shit he has to wade through.
Posted by: Geeka | July 29, 2009 9:00 PM
That kind of venal hatred is nauseating. I truly want to believe that people are fundamentally good, but sometimes things like this make holding on to any vestige of that ideal more bittersweet than naive.
Whomever sent that also clearly has no idea how brutish and nasty mice dams often are to their pups.
Posted by: Toaster | July 29, 2009 9:04 PM
Would the author welcome those mice and all their pups into their home with such enthusiasm?
Alas, I long ago accepted the fact that the majority of people are completely ignorant to the real world of science (which brings them all the cool stuff like treatments for diseases and such when they visit the doctor)...
Posted by: Science Bear | July 29, 2009 9:41 PM
Please press charges. When an animal rights wacko threatens Little Isis I feel like my daughter La Dudarina is being threatened too. This shit has to stop.
Posted by: Kate | July 29, 2009 10:30 PM
Isis, you know what you can do with those emails and tweets?
http://emailsfromcrazypeople.com/
Posted by: jc | July 29, 2009 10:32 PM
I think that e-mail writer has to be held accountable for her or his actions. But how much of that needs to be your time, Isis? Is it not the obligation of your employer, as in "due diligence," to pursue this on your behalf and on the employer's own behalf? And/or the obligation of law officers.
Your employer technically is the applicant for those NIH grants. At least at my place they like to remind PIs of that. Now you can remind them.
Posted by: Gingerale | July 29, 2009 11:19 PM
They go in and "free the animals", not realizing ...
... that those animals will, more than likely, be euthanized on the spot once they are rounded up.
Posted by: Thomas Joseph | July 30, 2009 12:00 AM
I wonder whether PZ might have any useful advice for you - he deals with stuff like that all the time, including threats against his kids. And despite some of his antics, he seems like a fundamentally decent person to me who will gladly help a fellow blogger out.
Posted by: perceval | July 30, 2009 3:21 AM
Wow. Just wow. Sorry you got that, Isis.
Sir or ma'am who wrote this, not only are you dumb as bricks, you're also an asshole. You're the same sort of person who bombs abortion clinics, just on the other side of the political fence. Think about that one a bit. Oh wait, but you have already demonstrated that you can't do that.
Posted by: Scrabcake | July 30, 2009 3:38 AM
Sorry you received that Isis, there are certainly some screwed up folk out there. The e-mail you received is fairly typical, indeed it could even be considered mild by AR standards, some are a lot more graphic. In the UK we saw many, many examples of this kind of think from extremists involved with the SHAC and SPEAK campaigns.
If you want to get some kind of idea of the kinds of mentality at work here google the name of animal rights extremist Jason Miller and see how he and his supporters think. A word of warning, you probably don't want to access his website from a computer at your workplace, and it might be a good idea not to do so to often from your home computer either.
As an example of Miller's thinking, and with reference to Scrabcake's post (#20) here is an example of his thinking.
"Consider this. Hideous as their agenda may be to some of us, anti-abortionist activists love embryos and fetuses enough to utilize violence as a form of extensional self-defense on their behalf. The question isn’t, “Do we agree with their agenda?” The question is, “Have they been effective?” Their record speaks for itself. Assassinations of doctors who performed abortions have nearly eliminated the practice of late-term abortions in the US. Food for thought."
These are not nice, and in some cases not even sane, people, and it is time for the scientific community to stand together against such harassment, intimidation, coercion and even terrorism.
http://www.raisingvoices.net
Posted by: Paul Browne | July 30, 2009 5:10 AM
While the person who wrote that is certainly ignorant and stupid, he did nothing illegal and pressing charges is probably not an option. IANAL.
Posted by: Danimal | July 30, 2009 6:27 AM
Don't let the ravings of deranged people get to you Dr. Isis. That email does not merit a response, it needs to be ignored. Such messages are designed to upset you---if you let them, you are conceding a bit of the battle.
Posted by: Anonymoustache | July 30, 2009 7:35 AM
Where do you even begin with such hateful ignorance? What's the name of the Dixie Chicks song about all the hate and threats they got in the aftermath of their Texas comment? It comes to mind a lot these days.
We raise grassfed beef and lamb so catching flack from militant vegetarians isn't uncommon (although the localvore movement is strong enough around here that it's less common than it used to be). I caught one of my kids asking a young lovely in the local food co-op about her t-shirt slogan. "What would you free the pigs to do?"
"It's bad to eat meat. Pigs should be allowed to live naturally."
"Well, natural for a pig means relying on humans. Domestic means an animal chose to give up the uncertainty of finding food for a shorter lifespan. The species survives because of individual sacrifice. Besides a pig would eat you if it could."
"Oh no, pigs are cute and intelligent."
"So? they'd still eat you."
I didn't want my 10yo kid w/Aspergers getting clobbered by a muddled but increasingly agitated 20 something so I sent him off to find some mustard seed.
Young lovely hissed at me "It's people like you who are ruining the planet."
Your situation is certainly much scarier than mine. I hope it's an isolated incident.
Posted by: brook | July 30, 2009 7:35 AM
Sorry to see this Isis, it is nasty. Paul (#21) is right, this kind of email is typical of the email, phone calls, and mail that scientists engaged in animal research frequently receive. Probably far more common and frequent that many people realize, if the discussion on your previous post is representative. When the targets of this kind of threatening communication are not only those engaged in research, but also those that support it or even open public discussion, it seems obvious that the intended effect is to chill that discussion and support for medical research. We shouldn't let that happen.
Posted by: Allyson | July 30, 2009 7:59 AM
The majority of people are completely ignorant of the real world, period!
I agree that, while the sentiment is heinous, that e-mail is almost certainly not a threat from a legal standpoint, and it would be a waste of time and effort to do anything other than mock the sick ignorant fuck who wrote it.
Posted by: Comrade PhysioProf | July 30, 2009 8:00 AM
Although it may not qualify as a threat legally, it is a kind of harassment. Somebody should be keeping track of this sort of thing. If you don't report it, statistics about this kind of harassment are going to be no good (kind of like rape statistics.) Addressing the criminal directly is not necessary. But there must be some authoritative somebody out there that takes hate-crimish actions against scientists seriously. (How's that for butchering the English language?)
Posted by: Catharine | July 30, 2009 10:47 AM
You know, we had a saying when I was younger that comes to mind:
"You mess with the bull, you get the horns."
This is definitely a worthwhile and important conversation on all sides of the issue by reasonable people. Unfortunately, that also means along with riding this particular bull we get the horns and the clowns.
Posted by: Callinectes | July 30, 2009 12:20 PM
I am glad I live in Nebraska, where killing animals for fun & profit is a long-standing custom. We get very little "in your face" activism from the ARA community (occasional bumper sticker and tee shirts are my personal experience).
I do have a "distant inlaw" who is 25 and runs the kitchen for a vegan commune in Berkely CA. I haven't had to sit in a room with her since she started spending her vacations rescuing monkeys from illegal pet trade (an activity I do admire), but I suspect we might grate a bit.
Posted by: Pascale | July 30, 2009 12:54 PM
@ Catherine #6
Vicious, territorial dog...check.
Deadbolts...check.
Baseball bat in top shelf of walk-in closet...check (wood, though, no self-respecting home defender/baseball fan uses a metal bat).
Mr. Isis appreciates the support of rational and sane people in this space for his delightful, talented, and totally smokin' wife, and her family. 99% of you are awesome. On the other hand...
I remain shocked (shocked!) that Back to Reality hasn't shown up today (not that I'd want him/her to).
Posted by: Mr. Isis | July 30, 2009 2:03 PM
Several people have suggested that Isis report this either to the police, or to MRU IACUC or MRU Security offices. This makes sense, but is it possible (or simple?) for her to report this and still protect her anonymity? Just wondering...
Posted by: anon | July 30, 2009 2:06 PM
Ping!
Posted by: DrugMonkey | July 30, 2009 2:32 PM
I regret very much that Dr. Isis received this email, and I personally know how it feels to read these sorts of taunts. I have received similar emails so -- evil, is the only word I can think of -- that I lost my breath.
Though the criminally aggressive actions of a few (like blowing up my car or flooding my colleague's home) attract the most attention, the truth is that these quietly sent emails, the voicemails left in the middle of the night and the taunts hurt a large number of people, and their impact can be profound. I think that Dr. Isis is reacting exactly like we all would when we get these missives - one feels helpless because of the hatred expressed by someone that doesn't even know you. It's so irrational that you scarcely know where to begin.
But I also think that Dr. Isis has done exactly the right thing in sharing her horror with the rest of us. We have to be more open and share these experiences with others. For too long, people have gotten these emails, been threatened, etc., and they had to deal with it on their own. That should not happen anymore.
At UCLA, we created UCLA Pro-Test, which culminated in a demonstration of 700+ people on Apr 22. In that moment, any sense that an individual was on his or her own was destroyed, and I urge other people at other campuses to engage themselves in the same collective efforts to support those under attack and those that will be in the future.
I personally offer my warmest support to Dr. Isis and any others out there that have gotten such an email or contact, and I think we need to continue the conversation about these sorts of verbal attacks. I urge those who receive these taunts to be pro-active: write a letter to your local newspaper and discuss your research and your feelings over receiving the taunt, communicate with your congressperson about strengthening laws relating to the harassment of researchers (for those that do not know, the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act is currently being challenged on Constitutional grounds, and may not survive) and be the best possible advocate for the benefits and humane nature of your own work.
Posted by: David Jentsch | July 30, 2009 3:05 PM
I don't condone the sentiment expressed in the e-mail.
However, a number of commenters have made the utterly specious point that these animals wouldn't 'survive even a minute in the wild.' These are sentient creatures that, by definition, can suffer.
An infant wouldn't 'survive even a minute in the wild.' However, it would be untenable to argue that it is therefore permissible to breed a variety for testing and disregard the pain and suffering endured in the name research (research which is actually, more often than not, entirely devoid of any contribution to humanity) simply because they 'survive even a minute in the wild.'
Large number of animals still suffer for no good reason. Intensive farming dwarfs research in scale but that does not diminish the responsibilities of researchers.
Posted by: Steve K | July 30, 2009 3:25 PM
@#34 Steve K:
The point about surviving a minute in the wild is not about the animals' suffering. It is to highlight that the act does not have a rationale in the real world (i.e. the activists are either irrational or deluded/ignorant).
Which is largely what drives the other aspect of scientists' response: "We can't talk/argue/discuss/debate with these people.... they're nuts!".
Posted by: Lurker #753 | July 30, 2009 3:59 PM
What a thing to say. You imply I approve of harassing scientists? Screw you, bigot.
Obviously you should call the police if you feel threatened. I'm not a lawyer and I can't tell you whether this is actionable by the police, though I know the police prefer that you make a call just to be on the safe side. Anyone making clear threats is of course breaking the law. Report criminals for their crimes.
Notice how you naturally describe the situation, though; you won't use the word "terrorism."
Posted by: back to reality | July 30, 2009 5:14 PM
I'm so sorry someone sent you that email.
I'm very much in favor of animal rights (opposed to factory farming, try to use makeup that was tested through other means, extremely anti declawing, very active volunteer and foster parent for my local shelter) but no one deserves a threat like that.
In addition, I will say that there are some animal rights supporters who also see a difference between experimenting with animals to save lives (cancer, AIDS, disease research, etc) and to make a better lipstick. I've also been influenced by a researcher friend who genuinely cares about the mice she works with; she names them and talks about how they're helping save the world and looks sad when they pass.
On behalf of the noncrazy animal rights supporters--I'm so very sorry that someone wrote that to you. You seem like a wonderful scientist, mother, and all around awesome individual. I'm so sorry a jerk emailed you.
Posted by: Bethany | July 30, 2009 5:14 PM
That's a good suggestion.
communicate with your congressperson about strengthening laws relating to the harassment of researchersThat's a bad one. Harassing people is already illegal and the police are fully empowered to investigate within the boundaries of the Bill of Rights. All the laws you need are already in place, and have been for decades or in some cases centuries. It may be the case that a particular police force is not equipped with the necessary finances or training, but the remedies for that should be obvious.
And that's why it's not a good idea. Listen to yourself! This law is going to be struck down as unconstitutional, so you demand that we have a similarly unconstitutionally powerful bill to replace it! You, David Jentsch, are exactly the problem I'm talking about. You have no respect for the Constitution or individuals' civil liberties. Your automatic authoritarian reaction is to empower the 21st century police state to sidestep basic human rights.
Or be antidemocratic, defending the violent force of the regime against the citizenry. That's your choice. You can't be good advocates for your work while you're advancing the expansion of the police state.
Know your history, folks. Whenever the academics and scientists begin working in defense of the ruling class, that society is on the road to fascism.
Posted by: back to reality | July 30, 2009 5:28 PM
Dr. Isis, Mr. Isis, I'm glad you've taken steps in case this wacko is inclined to get up from the computer. Have you told Little Isis' daycare to keep an eye open? We used to have this all the time at my school because of the judges' daughters.
And all you AR people who write this kind of stuff? Get a real hobby, like knitting or geocaching or something nice and normal. Leave the rest of us alone! (And stay the Hell away from our Goddess!)
Posted by: JustaTech | July 30, 2009 6:21 PM
You have no respect for the Constitution or individuals' civil liberties. Your automatic authoritarian reaction is to empower the 21st century police state to sidestep basic human rights.
Huh, I guess I must have missed the part where "individuals' civil liberties" include the right to threaten and intimidate other citizens who are engaged in a legal and well regulated profession which is dedicated to improving the health and well being of people worldwide.
Posted by: DrugMonkey | July 30, 2009 6:52 PM
Actually DM, reading up on the law on wiki, I could see some very weird ways it could be interpreted.
Last time I checked, my civil liberties included the right to go to the paper and tell them if my MRU were violating it's IACUC procedures. But with the AETA, I'm not so sure. Even writing that down might theoretically get me prosecuted for "conspiring to interfere with an animal enterprise" (just in case- let the record show that I would not do such a thing, not least because my institution is very good on compliance with the appropriate laws and regulations, afaik).
Also, it amuses me that if anyone destroys any of my property, they could be prosecuted under this. While I think it's appropriate that applies to, oh say my lab notebooks being destroyed in an attempt to stop my work (HEAVENFORBID!) I think it's funny that it sounds like it applies to a random car accident where the person who hits me has no idea who I am (I can't think of a way around this actually, unless it's like the hate crime thing where you have to prove their motivation was related to what you are).
Not that anyone's civil liberties extend to hurting my car, but you can see the issue.
Posted by: becca | July 30, 2009 8:08 PM
@Becca: Luved your post. Gave me a laugh.
Posted by: Danimal | July 30, 2009 9:01 PM
Becca,
The AETA is much more narrow than you understand it to be. There are many conditions upon which actions are considered criminal under the statute. As a superficial bit of evidence in support of that, the statute is only being used to prosecute 4 people in the entire country right now - the "AETA4" who no doubt were involved in vicious harassment (including a physical assault on a researcher at his home, as well as criminal actions that threatened a researcher's whole family). I'd say that that sounds like judicious use of the law. By the way, to my understanding, none of the AETA4 currently dispute what the government says they did; they just want to be able to harass people under the protection of the First Amendment.
Regarding Back to Reality's points, the Constitutionality of many laws and legal matters are being challenged all the time (people routinely challenge the Constitutionality of tax laws, of abortion rights and the election that led a man born in Hawaii to be President because his father is Kenyan). That does not mean that any law or decision will be found to be unConstitutional, as the AETA may very well not be (I have actually read nearly all the briefs in this case, have you BTR?)... to claim otherwise is exceedingly simplistic.
In any case, these are matters we leave to the courts. They will ultimately make the decision. If the decide that the AETA is unConstitutional, it can be re-written in a manner that addresses the specific concerns of the court. I personally feel the law is just and duly narrow. If a court (ultimately the Supreme Court) decides otherwise, it is the responsibility of the Congress to meet their obligation to scientists (who are citizens with their own fair share of rights to live free of threats!) and to civil liberties with a new bill, that we should all be advocating.
Posted by: David Jentsch | July 30, 2009 9:42 PM
"I don't have any mice."
Hah! Genius.
Posted by: RTomsett | July 30, 2009 10:31 PM
David Jentsch- thanks for the reply. I was pretty sure it couldn't (or at least wouldn't) be applied the way I described; but it's reassuring to find out how it actually functions.
Although, I'm ever-so-slightly disappointed my car isn't extended special protections.
Posted by: becca | July 31, 2009 12:05 AM
Don't be stupid, DrugMonkey. Your response applies equally relevantly to the due process rights of a person accused of highjacking an airplane. Taking you seriously, your across-the-board dismissal of accused criminals' rights indicates that you believe the accused simply have no rights before the state, making you in fact a fascist. Affording you the benefit of the doubt, you're an imbecile instead.
Posted by: back to reality | July 31, 2009 2:51 AM
Wrong, and anti-democratic, and fundamentally anti-American.
Your fear has clouded your thinking, so let me remind you. Physically assaulting someone has been illegal for hundreds of years. Threatening someone's family has been illegal for at least decades if not centuries.
You aren't making any case for the new War on Terror laws. You are making a case for the laws that were already on the books before the AETA.
Strike down the new laws, quit siding with the police state in the War on Terror, and go talk to your local cops about what you do and how you can best cooperate with them to assure everyone's safety. If they aren't yet able to do what you need of them, then it's an issue of too few or untrained cops, and that's going to be solved by local police levies, not War on Terror knee-jerking.
Posted by: back to reality | July 31, 2009 2:57 AM
Don't willingly be a sucker. Like the PATRIOT Act, it functions however the Department of Justice would like it to function at the moment. There are no bounds whatsoever on the government's power right now. That we are not building concentration camps is entirely a function of the executive branch's indifference, not any meaningful checks and balances.
Posted by: back to reality | July 31, 2009 3:13 AM
My previous post should have gone straight to my point:
There are no bounds whatsoever on the government's power right now and that's why it's everyone's duty to oppose the new McCarthyism, including by resisting its rhetoric and not labeling one's fellow citizens Soviet spies.
You all want to play with the word terrorism and pretend it has no consequences. You know damned well that innocent people will be denied due process, as happened in all previous Scares. Always they are denied due process, and probably innocent people will be put to death. But you want to pretend that this is a rhetorical game and you're not responsible for exacerbating the deadly situation. History will remember you differently.
Posted by: back to reality | July 31, 2009 3:30 AM
Seems to me a very immature e-mail, it may be sent by a 14 or 16 year old just in the "OMG it's terrible", "how would you like it" level of reasoning.
It's vindictive, emotive, nasty and unpleasant, but I doubt it's actually a threat (that said, I have no experience of medical research - so maybe this is how it starts)
In any case,not nice to receive, the awesome Dr Isis did not need or deserve this.
Posted by: RJ | July 31, 2009 7:16 AM
RJ, you would be surprised how many fully grown adults would send an email like that.
Dr. Jenstch, you are an inspiration to many grad students. I admire your courage.
Posted by: Scicurious | July 31, 2009 9:55 AM
Btr, we are not talking about that at all. The entire discussion is whether ARA nuts who don't even bother to dispute the charges should be called terrorists or not. Your anti-gov blathering is just another distraction ploy. In case you haven't noticed, the ARA nuts who do finally serve time were all *self-admittedly guilty*.
Posted by: DrugMonkey | July 31, 2009 10:05 AM
Btr, we are not talking about that at all. The entire discussion is whether socialist sympathizers who don't even bother to dispute the charges should be called Soviets or not. Your anti-gov blathering is just another distraction ploy. In case you haven't noticed, the socialists who do finally serve time were all *self-admittedly guilty*.
You don't get to decide how your rhetoric is used by the government. You only get to decide whether you will play along with the War on Terror or not.
It's obvious you're on the side of the unchecked executive. It is your prerogative and your right to make that choice. I think it is a dangerous choice.
Posted by: back to reality | July 31, 2009 7:59 PM
Somebody is definitely guilty of planning the 9/11 attack.
That doesn't make the PATRIOT Act okay.
You're the one who's trying to distract from the issue, DrugMonkey. These unconstitutional laws like the AETA are a grave threat to the republic. And the source of the problem is your and Jentsch's constant fear-soaked knee-jerk reactions of "more new laws!" instead of "more enforcement of the current laws." I won't include Isis in that particular condemnation because I haven't seen anything from her on AETA one way or the other, only a lazy adoption of Ashcroft rhetoric.
Posted by: back to reality | July 31, 2009 8:05 PM
Btr, Leaving AETA aside for a return to the discussion of actions that gave ground for AETA.
There are people who believe that scientists should be protected (by laws, old or new) from sustained and serious harassment-- harassment that goes well beyond civil disagreement and debate and into actions that are clearly meant to intimidate and engender fear.
Then there are people who clearly believe any and all actions against scientists are justified as part of the campaign to further an AR agenda.
Just to be clear -- I mean the kind of actions that are seriously threatening, not civil expressions of disagreement. These actions are most often conducted anonymously, often at night, and often at scientists' homes. The actions frighten neighbors, children, and others. Their purpose is nothing other than to frighten and intimidate other citizens; in this case, scientists, their families, friends, colleagues, and the broader scientific community. And these actions are obviously performed mostly by people who are well-skilled in evading prosecution, often by running away in the dark.
The ARA groups are clearly split over whether to directly support these kinds of actions or not.
But what doesn't seem to happen is a public condemnation of these actions by both individuals and groups who share agendas with respect to nonhuman animals. The silence on this point by both individuals and by groups gives every appearance implicit support and encouragement for more violence and intimidation. Why is that? And why don't we see open, public discussion of that issue as we do open and public discussion of animal research?
Posted by: Allyson | July 31, 2009 9:10 PM
Dear Mr. Isis,
Metal bats are allowed in college.
"@ Catherine #6
Baseball bat in top shelf of walk-in closet...check (wood, though, no self-respecting home defender/baseball fan uses a metal bat)."
Posted by: Lab Lemming | August 2, 2009 12:14 AM
You're lying. I'm right here in this thread saying you should arrest and prosecute criminals to the constitutional extent of the law. Bethany, above, extends her sympathies to Isis. In fact, in every such thread I've ever seen, some AR person publicly condemns violence. So I don't know or care where you invent your lies, but back here in reality, everyone can see that you are entirely dishonest.
Posted by: back to reality | August 2, 2009 5:09 PM
And this. What a liar you are.
There were no "actions that gave ground for AETA." Everything you're talking about was already illegal. Property destruction was illegal. Assault was illegal. Making threats was illegal. There was no need for a new law. Why do you keep forgetting this? Why do you keep ignoring this?
Are you stupid? That's the charitable interpretation. Because the alternative is that you actually want the government to be allowed to suspend the Constitution.
Posted by: back to reality | August 2, 2009 5:21 PM
Isis, I'm sorry you have to deal with this kind of sick bullshit.
Posted by: Candid Engineer | August 2, 2009 9:54 PM
One of the central reasons college baseball is wholly unwatchable, L.L. Right, like Mr. Isis doesn't know about metal bats in college.
Posted by: Mr. Isis | August 2, 2009 11:11 PM
@Btr, #58
Indeed, all the criminal acts that animal right extremists do are and were illegal. What 'back to reality' fails to realize is that these are perpetrated by organized criminals against a particular group of people (biomedical researchers). These are not random attacks that any member of the public would be subject to. The same way we have passed laws to protect abortion doctors from extreme right lunatics, we have now passed AETA to protect biomedical researchers from extreme left lunatics. Although, 'back to reality' appears more of the 'anarcho-vegan' type.
Posted by: Denis Alexander | August 3, 2009 12:13 PM
As someone who has been the victim of both legal and illegal harassment, I feel that it is important that I speak about the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA), particularly about the pernicious and false claims made that it is an instrument designed to punish otherwise protected and legal activities of individuals opposed to the use of animals in commercial and academic settings. To a significant extent, the AETA does not render actions, previously legal, illegal. Neither do hate crimes laws render new activities illegal; what they do is apply new penalties for class-based crimes, in which an individual is targeted because of their status or identity. The AETA does a similar thing for persons targeted for their occupational status. If someone comes after you because you are a biomedical researcher (engaging in illegal threats, harassment or infliction of harm), they are subjected to elevated criminal and civil penalties. What is more, if they successfully disrupt the activities of your work, they can be forced to pay for the costs of repeating your work. Common sense people know that it is only fair: if someone disrupts your legal occupational or recreational activities, they should have to pay for it (by going to jail and/or paying restitution), and this is what the AETA ensures.
Here is what the AETA prohibits: Force, violence, and threats involving animal enterprises
“(a) Offense- Whoever travels in interstate or foreign commerce, or uses or causes to be used the mail or any facility of interstate or foreign commerce--
(1) for the purpose of damaging or interfering with the operations of an animal enterprise; and
(2) in connection with such purpose--
(A) intentionally damages or causes the loss of any real or personal property (including animals or records) used by an animal enterprise, or any real or personal property of a person or entity having a connection to, relationship with, or transactions with an animal enterprise;
(B) intentionally places a person in reasonable fear of the death of, or serious bodily injury to that person, a member of the immediate family (as defined in section 115) of that person, or a spouse or intimate partner of that person by a course of conduct involving threats, acts of vandalism, property damage, criminal trespass, harassment, or intimidation; or
(C) conspires or attempts to do so;
shall be punished as provided for in subsection (b).”
Certain individuals claim that the act represents a broad expansion of the powers of the government to “suspend the Constitution”, even though any common sense individual who has read the text of the Act knows that is plainly false.
You don’t need a law degree to understand the text of the Act itself:
(e) Rules of Construction- Nothing in this section shall be construed--
(1) to prohibit any expressive conduct (including peaceful picketing or other peaceful demonstration) protected from legal prohibition by the First Amendment to the Constitution;
(2) to create new remedies for interference with activities protected by the free speech or free exercise clauses of the First Amendment to the Constitution, regardless of the point of view expressed, or to limit any existing legal remedies for such interference; or
(3) to provide exclusive criminal penalties or civil remedies with respect to the conduct prohibited by this action, or to preempt State or local laws that may provide such penalties or remedies.
Importantly, therefore, the AETA establishes biomedical researchers as a class warranting protection, but let’s be clear about this, it was activists determined to use harassment as a tool that made that necessary (not scientists or politicians). The law wouldn’t be in place today had people not decided to attack researchers at work and at home. Indeed, the AETA was initially introduced in 2005 by Sen. Inhofe (Oklahoma), but it languished for a while until the terror-eliciting activities of animal rights extremists in California spurred Sen. Feinstein (California) to co-sponsor a modified bill in 2006 which ultimately passed both houses by unanimous contest (meaning democrats and republicans both signed on). Ultimately, it is the behavior of animal rights extremists that is responsible for the passage of this law.
A criminal case in Northern California (involving the AETA4) is currently working its way through the courts. The plaintiffs argue that the AETA, despite its text, cannot help but violate First Amendment rights. The ultimate determination on this point is under judicial review, but I want to be further clear about the impact of this on speech: no activists are being unduly prevented from speaking their mind about their views because of this, or any other law. Just a month ago, dozens of activists spent 2 ½ hrs in front of my house (http://s569.photobucket.com/albums/ss133/seeyou11/2009-05-30_UCLA%20DEMOS/ ). They carried posters showing grossly dissected animals, suggesting that this is what I do in my own lab (it is not). They screamed their wishes that I should “burn in hell”. They terrorized my neighbors and made their small children cry. They told people that my research was useless and had never generated any information of any value, and when asked to back up those claims, stated merely that they “didn’t have or need any proof”.
But here’s the rub. No one was arrested. They left in the same white van they came in. Ask yourself: do you really believe the claims that the AETA is leading to a Constitutional crisis? Is speech being wantonly and illegally prohibited? In the reality most common sense people live in, the answer is unequivocally “no”. With that in mind, anyone reading the comments above should give serious thought to who the real “liar” is.
Posted by: David Jentsch | August 3, 2009 5:24 PM