(US/ca) How bombings in Santa Cruz saved researcher protection bill

[Guest guest]

Great. Just great.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

STAPLES supports this:

 

--- On Tue, 9/9/08, AnimalConcerns.org <animalconcerns wrote:

AnimalConcerns.org <animalconcerns[AR-News] (US/ca) How bombings in Santa Cruz saved researcher protection bill"ar-news" <ar-news (AT) googl (DOT) com>Tuesday, September 9, 2008, 6:29 AM[Capitol Weekly]

In late July, a bill to protect academic researchers looked like it

might be on the ropes. AB 2296 by Assemblyman Gene Mullin, D-South San

Francisco, was stalled in the Senate Judiciary Committee. The

Researcher Protection Act of 2008 had been stripped down to intent

language, and looked like it might only pass in a watered down form.

Then on August 2, two University of California at Santa Cruz

scientists were targeted in firebomb attacks. Both targets do

health-related research on animals. One bomb forced the researcher to

flee out of a second story window with his wife and two children.

Rather than accepting a weaker bill, Mullin said, on August 4 he

amended the bill to include criminal penalties. After a detour through

Public Safety Committees in both houses, AB 2296 passed by off the

Senate floor 29-0 on August 22. It flew out of the Assembly 78-0 a

week later. As passed, the bill would make it a crime to publish

information about where academic researchers and their families work

and live with the intent to incite a crime or a threat of violence.

Both Mullin and some of those opposing the bill agreed that the Santa

Cruz bombings had a huge effect.

"There is absolutely no doubt that put an exclamation point on the

need for greater protection," Mullin said.

"I thought, 'Who are these people?'" said Virginia Handley,

co-founder

of San Francisco-based Animal Switchboard, which opposed the bill.

"They did it with the worst possible timing. The bill was basically

dead."

The Humane Society of the United States, Animal Switchboard have been

monitoring the bill and opposing some of its provisions. These

organizations have often used the Freedom of Information Act and other

free speech laws to find out who was doing different kinds of animal

research. This information, Handley said, was then publicized in

editorials, web pages and newspaper articles used to exert political

pressure and help recruit people to the animal welfare cause.

"Some of the language did make us a bit uncomfortable," said Michael

Markarian, executive vice president of the Humane Society. "We did

feel it could have an impact on lawful and legitimate advocacy."

-- full story:

http://www.capitolweekly.net/article.php?_adctlid=v|jq2q43wvsl855o|xe6umhg96c12lb & issueId=xdrpqerwe05fn1 & xid=xe5rwadtaax3g6