The AETA's Double Standard

The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act was created to protect animal exploiters.

So it would seem logical that this law would be used to prosecute the people responsible for recent crimes against Maine lobstermen.

In one community a lobsterman was shot in the neck and two boats were sunk in the harbor.

If animal-rights activists were suspected of these incidents, the media would be labeling them "terrorists," and the AETA would be used to prosecute them as such.

The AETA applies to someone who ...

(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;

But the perpetrators of these separate incidents will not be charged under the AETA for one simple reason: The government supports their ideology.

The police believe the crimes were caused by fellow lobstermen engaged in a turf war. The motive is money, something the U.S. government understands.

The man who shot lobsterman Chris Young in the neck was only charged with aggravated assault. He was freed on bail and told to stay away from the Maine island where the incident occurred.

He wasn't labeled a terrorist, nor will the person responsible for the boat sinkings. That distinction is reserved for Muslims and animal-rights activists, such as those who protest outside an animal experimenter's home and chalk his sidewalk.