Clay Shaw (R-FL) Responds re: H.R. 4239

The best responses from legislators are the ones that disagree with you and don’t think they’re disclosing that. This brings us to a letter dated October 5 from E. Clay Shaw, Jr. (R-FL), in response to my letter about H.R. 4239, The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, which has passed unanimously in the Senate.

Let’s deconstruct his fine communique:

• Dear Dr. Martin
  • Yes, occasionally, I check the "Dr." box on the salutation options, for those who would actually be swayed by something like that, but always sign Mary Martin, Ph.D., never Dr. Mary Martin.
• Thank you for contacting me with your concerns about yada yada yada. I appreciate hearing from you.
  • Very nice. I think he might like me.

• H.R. 4239 was introduced "to provide the Department of Justice the authority to apprehend, prosecute, and convict individuals who intentionally cause the loss of property of animal enterprises such as farms and research labs; or places a person affiliated with an animal enterprise in reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury."
  • Rep. Shaw has clearly demonstrated his ability to read part of the proposed bill, or someone’s summary of it.

• On May 23, 2006, in submitted testimony, U.S. Deputy Assistant Attorney General Brent J. McIntosh said, "this proposed law . . . . [i]s narrowly drafted to criminalize only outrageous, violent conduct that causes economic damage or instills the reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury in others."
  • Kudos to Mr. McIntosh for being able to read, as well. But unlike Mr. Shaw, Mr. McIntosh used six words that are, in fact, NOT TRUE: is narrowly drafted to criminalize only. The proposed bill contains the following, vague language:
    • 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 disrupting an animal enterprise; and
        • inconnection with such purpose
          • intentionally damages, disrupts, or causes the lossof any property, blah, blah, blah . . .

Disrupts? What the heck does that mean?

So, then, I can’t use the mail to distribute photographs of the horrors of a factory farm facility, and call for a boycott that causes economic loss. Because if I do . . .

• PENALTIES include imprisonment and fines.
• Even conspiracy to cause economic damage, and economic disruption are crimes.

Sure, there’s lots of language about bodily harm and fear of death. But the proposed bill leaves a huge hole that could be filled with things like: undercover investigations on factory farms or puppy mills so the public can see what they’re paying for, and, of course, distributing the results through leaflets, and protesting by demonstration or boycott. Narrowly defined are not words I’d use to describe it.

But back to Mr. Shaw:

• "Please know I will have your concerns in mind should H.R. 4239 come before the full House of Representatives for consideration."

Yeah, great, like that’s gonna help me. Or the animals.