Zoophile security and political terrorism
I recently came across an interesting concept in security and criminology. I am under the impression that the laws criminalizing the act of sex with animals is a profiteering act of terrorism in the name of social and property security for business profit.
If the laws are passed in all 50 states, there will be no real safe haven in the USA for known zoophiles. This means these people must pay for "special security" by hiring protection or being sent somewhere they will be protected, for a price. Similarly, the owners of animals are terrorized into believing that they require security and investigative services, such as cameras and human guards on their property. These are known as "scare tactics." This states the risk that the organizations who sell the security service will fabricate security risks such as: entrapment, or deceiving people to have sex with another person's animal. Enabling trespass and other property crimes.
"They may use scare tactics. For example, they may talk about a rash of supposed burglaries in your neighborhood"
Please read the following… Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_security
— The term NGO (Non Government Organisation) cannot be simply defined due to complexities surrounding its structure, environment and complex relations it shares with its internal factions; being its organisational mission, membership and sources of funding, and external factors such as the relationship it shares with actors; detailing the economic, political and societal constructs they may be bound by. A generic understanding of the term may refer to the actions taken in the interests of independent, voluntary contributors which exist independently from governments and corporations, designed to represent and provide a collective voice to individuals regarding issues. These issues cover contributions to the fields and industries of human development, health and nutrition, human rights and education, and environmental concerns; all of which influence and affect human security. The traditional roles of NGOs may be classified into three components, in accordance with Lewis:
Implementer: refers to the mobilisation of resources in order to aid the provision of goods and services, such as the act of service delivery.
Catalyst: refers to the emotional and psychological aspect of the NGOs ability to inspire, facilitate or contribute to spur action or thinking.
Partner: refers to the NGOs relationships shared with external actors such as governments, donors or the private sector players through joint activities, or projects with communities, with the purpose to strengthen the relationship between the NGOs and these partners in a mutually beneficial fashion.
The expansion of these roles have culminated in assisting the creation of a society where NGOs serve as important players in the global arena in regards to maintaining human security. Due to this increasing influence and the emergence of growing natural and man-made disasters, NGOs now are contracted by governments in order to adequately respond to crises, as well as assist individual or collectivized groups of citizens in lobbying their interests; thus culminating in the ability to enact, influence and change government agendas. However, NGOs are still largely dependent on certain levels of government funding, hence critics may argue that NGOs pose the ability to potentially damage issues of human security due to this financial dependence. Despite these critiques, the focus, expertise and infrastructure developed by NGOs through their activities linked with human development and human rights allow them to make unique contributions to human security provision. —
Some NGO's, especially the ones who are lobbying for the criminalization of the act of sex with animals are the definition of what terrorism is. This is terrorism in the name of fraudulent animal welfare goals.
Terrorism: "The unlawful use of violence and intimidation, "Especially against civilians", in the pursuit of political or financial gains.