I see it as giving them their just desserts 
I believe the untold part of the story, which was mentioned on an interview on 1010 in Toronto is that there have also been Death threats sent to the sealers, and their families by what I would assume are animal activists.
Though, there is no direct link to PETA, I’m sure there are people from PETA sending these letters.
That doesn’t mean PETA is a terrorist organization because some members are doing these acts, of course it’s the same way that the Hell’s Angels are just motor cycle enthusiasts who happen to have members who do criminal acts.
I would say that violence is separate and apart from a protest. Vietnam protestors who spit on returning soldiers* are guilty of assault.
*which may not actually have happened, based on some stuff I’ve read in other threads.
Does that statute apply to individuals or organizations? Per the OP Gerry Byrne only called for PETA to be investigated for possible terrorism, not for the pie-tosser to be charged with same.
That’s a bit different. Organized violence is arguably the group’s raison d’etre, and group members are officially recognized for certain acts of violence performed (like the “Filthy Few” patch, which denotes an Angel who has murdered on behalf of the gang).
That’s that state up by Alaska, right?
I think that is the point. It is not some random person committing an assault. It was an assault organized by PETA for a political purpose.
It doesn’t meet the criteria for serious violent injury, but pushing a pie in someone’s face is definitely over the line. I can tell you that I would not enjoy having that happen to me at all. At the risk of sounding overreactionary, I can actually see some potential for psychological damage from the incident - it isn’t that far a step from someone pushed a pie in your face to someone shot you, when all you were doing was your job.
If we have to live in fear of pies, the terrorists have won…
As absurd as watching a pie getting smooshed into someones face may look you have to look at it from the perspective of the person being pied.
There you are, up doing a speech, in front of press (Nerve wracking as it is) and you are an elected official. In the middle of talking suddenly everything goes black you feel hard pressure on your face and you feel goo dripping off you.
Your first thoughts won’t be… “hmm is that a tofu pie?” you just might, in panic, think “OH MY GOD HAVE I JUST BEEN SHOT!” not rational, but likely in that first instant.
Though the actual damage may be minimal, you probably won’t find that incident fun. Beyond the humiliation there is that first fear that strikes.
assault != terrorism
Didn’t claim it was. But thanks for the reminder.
``entity’’ means a person, group, trust, partnership or fund or an unincorporated association or organization
your entire post revolves around being placed in fear, so yeah, you did.
No I didn’t.
I was referring to the posts mocking of being pied in the face as just a silly thing.
Being placed in Fear != Terrorism. Unless you believe Tobe Hooper, Stephen King, et al should be placed in Gitmo… Hmmm then again.
But for the record ** I don’t think this act was one of Terrorism.**
Assault? Yes.
Oddly, as it was a Planned assault on an individual representing the Government by an organization I’m not sure how that get’s defined legally.
Also I do think there are members of PETA that have supported or engaged in Terrorist acts in the name of “animal Liberation”. But that isn’t unusual, as all Squirrelly extremist groups tend to gather all sorts of nuts.
That is what Gerry wants to have defined in this case. Again, one person acting randomly isn’t a terrorist, it is just an assault. An assault planned by an organization to further their political goals may qualify under the Canadian legal definition. If the PETA nut had used a gun this might not be so far fetched.
Protestors often use pies in the face as sort of a comic protest (“Who could get upset? It’s just a pie in the face.”), but it isn’t just a pie in the face, which I’m starting to think is why protestors use it - to get away with an assault. I would actually be interested in having assault by a group like this better defined. They simply don’t have the right to interfere with someone else’s person, regardless of how great they think their cause is, and I’m starting to see why the government would be interested in escalating the consequences when an organization is behind the assault.
I have no use whatsoever for Ingrid Newkirk, but I did enjoy this quote:
I’m against pie-throwing for a variety of reasons.
But…if you argue that we should “consider the mindset of the pied victim” and whether she might be traumatized or put in fear, then it’s only evenhanded to consider the mindset of the other side.
Those who see the seals as innocent animals and not exploitable commodities are seeing the government-supported side kill hundreds or thousands of “their side” every year.
Am I arguing that they’re right? I am not. But I am pointing out that regardless of other beliefs they may have, some of which certainly may be extreme and/or illogical, the particular belief that an animal should not be killed is not nearly so loopy or non-mainstream as readers of the SDMB might think. There’s a large body of historical thought on the issue and it is not to be dismissed lightly. And they are seeing “their side” – innocents they feel responsible for – routinely slaughtered en masse by smug and self-justifying people.
I still don’t think they should pie anybody. But it’s a fairly mild response viewed in that light.
PETA is not against the killing of animals. PETA is against the use of animals by people, and if killing animals will get them to that goal, then they quite openly advocate killing animals.
Now I don’t know whether PETA should be considered a terrorist organisation - as far as I know they’ve done some questionable things - but I’m quite certain that shoving a pie into somebody’s face is not a reason for or against.
First they went after the tofu cream pies . . . but I was not a tofu cream pie . . .
Correct me if I’m wrong, but from what you quoted, it sounds like Gail Shea is just the victim – Gerry Byrne is the one who appears to have made the statements you’re objecting to, so I think it’s Gerry Byrne who is the “twit [who] actually believes that [Gail Shea] was the victim of terrorism” and who is the one you mean to be pitting.
Right?