New Yorkers Have Such Class
Dec 18th, 2006 by Will Potter
Thanks to friends of Daniel McGowan for sending these my way. They’re from the December 7 rally and outreach events in NYC around the Green Scare and fighting “eco-terrorist” scare-mongering. Click “continue reading” for the other photos.
Photo credit: Fred Askew
Photo credit: Ida C. Benedetto
Photo credit: Erin Siegal
so Dan McGowen admits starting two fires….Why shouldn’t he go to jail? Please help me understand why he is a hero and someone who commits arson for profit is a criminal.
Joe:
Nothing on this site has said anyone who has committed crimes shouldn’t go to jail. My point, rather, is that corporations and prosecutors are seeking “terrorism enhancements” and labeling individuals “terrorists” in the press– and not doing so against anyone, as you say, “who commits arson for profit”– because of the politics of those involved. It’s reckless to justify branding someone a “terrorist” simply out of politics. Will
its McGowan, silly, not McGowen.
does it make sense that the prosecution indicted McGowan on 2 arsons that had a maximum of life plus 335 years? hmmm…
RE: Joe
do you honestly believe he pled guilty because he committed those acts of arson? give me a break.
but regardless of whether or not he is in fact guilty, these arsons occurred quite a few years ago if i am not mistaken. he has since been involved in above-ground, legal activism. what good does putting him in jail do exactly? the human services org that he worked for (i forget the name) is minus one hard worker. his family is indebted with legal charges. and the activist community is pushed underground as a result of the fear that is associated with practicing LEGAL civil disobedience, attending LEGAL protests, and LEGALLY reporting the actions of fellow activists.
there is no reason why we should not be supporting those who have been sentenced as a result of the green scare.
RE: k
He still commited them and deserves to be in prison or can anyone who commits a felony just do some voulenteer work and then its forgoten?
Joe is a troll, ignore him.
Ok lets see if this gets posted. Apparently name calling is allowed for some here, but you may call me what you want and it won’t change the fact that he commited arson!
Joe obviously does not understand that the AETA is aimed at punishing people for their OPINIONS. Joe states that he is in favor of hate-crimes legislation. But libertarians raise exactly the same objection to hate-crimes legislation.
If a bully beats somebody up, this is assault, and already illegal. If the bully insults his victim with words such as “nigger” or “faggot” or “kike” while beating him up, it is called a hate crime and given a more severe sentence. The difference is that the prejudiced bully has certain OPINIONS about blacks or gays or Jews. Such opinions may be deplorable, but they are opinions. Voltaire said: “I disapprove of what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it.”
Why should a bully who beats somebody up and yells a word expressing some sort of prejudice be punished more severely than a bully who beats somebody up and does not yell such a word? He does not have any right to beat people up, but he does have a right to hold prejudiced opinions and should not be punished for these opinions. The differential in the sentences punishes the bully for holding prejudiced OPINIONS. Punishing people for their opinions is unconstitutional.
In the case of green scare defendants, the government wants to add “terrorism enhancements” to their sentences. Some of them could get 3 years without the terrorism enhancement, or 28 years with the enhancement. The differential of 25 years is punishing them for their OPINIONS. The U.S. government has no business telling the citizens what they are allowed to think.
I would recommend to Joe that he read John Stuart Mill’s essay “On Liberty” in order to appreciate the importance of freedom of thought. Societies that rely on thought control stagnate. Do we want America to become a stagnant society like Spain in the days of the Inquisition? If not, then we should support freedom of thought and expression and oppose laws like the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act and the Patriot Act and the Military Commissions Act, which are turning this country into a fascist dictatorship.
Alright, I’ll be the first to point out the irony…
The Tobacco Industry: Purveyors of animal-friendly chemical-substance addictions!
I agree with Joe, animal rights activism will never be taken serious among the majority of the population (whose mindsets you are looking to change), without greater condemnation from activists themselves of illegal and destructive actions and those who commit them. First and foremost, your “average joe” wants peace and love in this world. Trying to make a point through loud, hate-filled, angry and violent means will turn people off from your message before they’ve even heard the words you’re saying. I know this isn’t the popular choice, because it does not feed the ego as much as that above list of behaviors, but if you’re serious… SERIOUS, about trying to make a positive difference in this world, make sure you’re working more FOR the good, and less AGAINST the bad. And make sure you’re not redirecting your anger from somewhere else in your life AT animal rights activism…
In response to the previous post by Guy, let’s consider the analogy implied in the name “Green Is the New Red.” The present Greed Scare is like the anti-communist witchhunt known as McCarthyism in the early 50s. The place of Communism is our national demonology has been taken by “terrorism,” and the ALF and the ELF are being falsely accused of “terrorism” while those who express sympathy for them are smeared with guilt by association.
In the 50s the House Un-American Activities Committee subpoenaed liberals and former Communists and tried to force them to name names, implicating others for “subversive” activites. Now, grand juries go on fishing expeditions, threatening animal and environmental activists with jail if they refuse to name names and betray others.
Then as now, opportunists, reformists, and compromisers tried to protect themselves by distancing themselves from the radicals. In the 50s, it did them no good whatsoever and was cowardly and contemptible. It will do us no good now. Instead of excommunicating the radicals and issuing moralistic denunciations of their activities, we should express solidarity with them and oppose and protest against unjust, draconian laws which have a chilling effect on freedom of speech.
Guy wants “greater condemnation” from animal groups of activities by the ALF. The HSUS, an animal “welfare” organization, and Friends of Animals, an animal “rights” organization, have been vociferously condemning the ALF for years. This is a tactical error on their part. They should instead extend solidarity to the imprisoned activists. “An injury to one is an injury to all.”
To pursue the analogy to the anticommunist hysteria of the 50s, mainstream groups like HSUS and FoA who distance themselves from the radicals are like the liberal anti-communists of the 50s era, such as the labor unions and the Cold War liberals of the Democratic Party… the same bozos who brought us the Vietnam War.
The real libertarians and the real animal liberationists are those who support and extend solidarity to the ALF, the ELF, and SHAC, not those who confine their activism to the issuing of lofty moral pronouncements from their comfortable offices. That is not moral idealism; it is cowardice and political opportunism.