A hostage crisis at the Discovery Channel building has ended with the attacker shot dead, and pundits and reporters are rushing to label him a “radical environmentalist,” “eco-terrorist,” and “environmental activist.” Some are even saying “eco-fascist.” And others are pointing to the Earth Liberation Front. For talking heads, it is a good soundbite for pushing their political agenda, and for the press is makes a sexier headline, but the label just doesn’t make any sense.
James Lee’s “radical environmentalism” is a one-man campaign against the Discovery Channel, which airs programs such as Whale Wars… programs that the Japanese have attacked as supporting “eco-terrorists.” Lee spent thousands of dollars out of his own pockets advertising his protests, and paid homeless people to attend. His “manifesto,” as some are beginning to call it, rails against “parasitic human infants,” including “immigration pollution and anchor baby filth.”
I have been covering the radical environmental movements for over 10 years, and I’m flat-out confused by all of this. Here’s why. Lee’s “radical environmentalism” is directed at a company that is not the ire of any other animal rights and environmental activists. The Discovery Channel has actually been attacked as promoting radical environmentalism. Lee seems to have had no involvement with any environmental groups (aboveground or underground) except his one-man show. Nothing like this has ever happened in the history of the environmental movement. None of it adds up. Yet the mainstream press has been clamoring to say this was a “radical environmentalist” or “eco-terrorist.”
Is “radical environmentalist” a more acceptable rush judgment than saying someone was insane? Because that’s the first, and only, thing that has come to mind in this case. Continue Reading »
When most people think of “terrorism,” they think 9/11, anthrax, and suicide bombers. Corporations and the politicians who represent them are aggressively campaigning to apply the word to animal rights and environmental activists who have done nothing like that. Some activists have faced terrorism charges for chalking slogans on the sidewalk and protesting. Activism is not terrorism.
Black American Apparel t-shirts, with a matte bronze ink. Text reads “Activism Is Not Terrorism.” Available in either unisex or women’s sizes, shown here on the always-lovely Cassandra (caught giving “sultry eyes” to a cast member of Jersey Shore… true story).
A U.S. District Court has thrown out the indictment of four animal rights activists who were charged with violating the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, because the government did not clearly explain what, exactly, the protesters did.
In response, the Center for Constitutional Rights and attorney Matthew Strugar led an effort to have the indictments dismissed. In short, they argued that the charges should be dropped because they seem to involve only protected First Amendment speech, but that in order to make that argument the defendants’ speech must be clearly identified.
We talked about the history of the experimental units, and what separates them from ADX-Florence, the Supermax. Most importantly, the Supermax was created for the most violent prisoners, who pose a physical threat, and the CMUs were created for political prisoners who pose an ideological threat.
The Bureau’s proposal makes clear that the CMUs are intended to keep political prisoners with “inspirational significance” from the public spotlight.
You can listen to the interview below, and on Antiwar Radio.
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
Will Potter, founder of the GreenIsTheNewRed blog, discusses the prison-within-a-prison Communications Management Units (CMUs) designed to silence non-violent activist prisoners, limited oversight and questionable legal authority for CMUs, the tendency of governments to criminalize dissent from the left and right and why the erosion of individual rights (even of prisoners) negatively effects the whole society.
Last week a Philadelphia appellate court announced (after months of silence) that it would not revisit the conviction of animal rights activists on terrorism charges. The SHAC 7 were convicted of conspiring to commit animal enterprise terrorism by running a controversial website that posted news of both legal and illegal actions, along with personal information of people connected to the notorious animal testing lab Huntingdon Life Sciences. Their campaign had brought the multinational corporation near bankruptcy.
A three-judge panel of the court had previously upheld the conviction, and the defendants had asked that the full court review it. Now, the only option is to request that the Supreme Court of the United States review the case. There has been no official word about this yet, but multiple defendants have expressed their interest and having this landmark First Amendment case heard by the Supreme Court.
Meanwhile, the lead prosecutor who helped secure this “victory in the War on Terrorism” has– surprise, surprise– been promoted. Charles McKenna is now the head of the New Jersey Office of Homeland Security and Preparedness.
Chances are, you have never heard of the Inkerman Group. I certainly hadn’t, until I began researching the web of faceless “risk mitigation” companies that help corporations identify threats to their profits.
These companies produce briefing documents that identify business “threats,” including special interest groups, key activists, and legislation. It is a niche industry built upon fear: the business of risk mitigation depends upon the identification of a constant stream of threats. Corporations commission briefing documents which identify (or create) threats to corporate interests, which leads corporations spending money addressing these threats, which leads to more reports… you get the idea.
This financial motivation to identify threats results in some interesting reports. For instance, I previously wrote about the Society of Toxicology commissioning a “threat analysis” that included such detailed information as who animal rights activists are dating. Continue Reading »
I will be speaking at Yale with Andy Stepanian (of the SHAC 7, and a former CMU prisoner) about corporate campaigns to silence non-violent animal rights activists as “terrorists.”
The event is June 13th (see the flier for details). If you’re in the area, please come! Andy is a fantastic speaker. PS: RSVP on Facebook and help spread the word.
“Am I on a terrorist watchlist? Will I be labeled a terrorist?” Activists ask me questions like this all the time. Now you can find out if you are a terrorist using this convenient flow chart!
Click on the image for the full-sized version. And scroll down for information on why the chart flows the way it does…
For more information on each segment of the chart:
An overview of how animal rights and environmental activists are being labeled the top domestic terrorism threat: “What is the Green Scare?”
The terrorism rhetoric of corporations is absurd and can be funny at times, but it has dangerous consequences if we allow it to go unchecked. For example, there are secretive political prisons on U.S. soil for “domestic terrorists.” Daniel McGowan, an environmental activist, is housed there. Please follow this link and submit a comment against the government’s proposal to make them permanent.
If you are an activist who has experienced harassment because of your political beliefs (or your perceived political beliefs) please call the National Lawyers Guild "Green Scare Hotline," 1-888-NLG-ECOL, and contact us at GreenIsTheNewRed.
About
The War on Terrorism has come home. Corporations and politicians are labeling activists "eco-terrorists" and national security threats. Think red-baiting, with a green twist. Here you'll find original reporting and analysis of the Green Scare, and history repeating itself.
A hostage crisis at the Discovery Channel building has ended with the attacker shot dead, and pundits and reporters are rushing to label him a “radical environmentalist,” “eco-terrorist,” and “environmental activist.” Some are even saying “eco-fascist.” And others are pointing to the Earth Liberation Front. For talking heads, it is a good soundbite for pushing their political agenda, and for the press is makes a sexier headline, but the label just doesn’t make any sense.
