McDonald’s has rolled out a new logo in France, replacing the iconic red background of the golden arches with green. Here’s some info from ZLOK design blog, and here is where I saw the story originally (although I can barely stumble through the French!), at TerraEco.net.

There has been so much fluff news lately about “easy ways to go green.” You know what’s an even easier way to go green? Changing a logo. And adding some hippies into your advertisements! If anyone has friends in France, I would love to hear more about how this transparent green-washing has been received there.

News like this is a little bit outside the normal content of the website, but I think it’s striking how environmental activists are the “number one domestic terrorist threat” at a time when nasty, multinational corporations are simultaneously climbing all over each other to appear “green.”

No related posts.

New video shows Japanese whalers changing course to intentionally ram the Sea Shepherd’s Ady Gil as the high-tech ship sat idly in freezing waters.

The ship was destroyed and a Sea Shepherd crew member suffered cracked ribs, according to news reports. What’s even more disturbing is the Japanese ship, which was many times the size of the Ady Gil, refused to acknowledge a distress call from the environmental activists.

According to the Japan Times:

Watson, speaking from aboard the ship Steve Irwin, also said Sea Shepherd put out a mayday distress signal “but the Japanese fleet refused to acknowledge that and just kept going. It was a hit and run.”

The Japanese whalers have long been attempting to label the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society as an “eco-terrorist” organization because of its campaigns to directly intervene in the illegal slaughter of whales. They have gone so far as to call Animal Planet a terrorist organization, for airing a TV program about the group called “Whale Wars.” And even when they shot Captain Paul Watson, they still maintained that it was the environmentalists, not the whalers, who were the “eco-terrorists.”

This is perhaps the most disturbing incident to date of the reckless violence of the whalers, not only against the whales but against anyone who tries to halt them. They directly threatened the lives of non-violent activists, destroyed their ship, then left them in freezing waters and ignored a distress call.

Which is the terrorist organization, again?

Related posts:

1. Sea Shepherd’s New Terrorist-Ninja-Batmobile-Ship
2. Canadian Police Ask Sea Shepherd Officer if He is Planning “a 9/11 or something”
3. Chuck Norris Advocating Armed Revolution and Terrorist “Cell” Tactics

Avatar earned $1 billion in two weeks, already making it the fourth-biggest-grossing movie to date. James Cameron said early on it would cost, and make, ridiculous amounts of money. He also said it has been a dream of his for more than a decade. According to industry groups and right wing pundits, though, the film really has a more sinister motive: recruiting “eco-terrorists.”

Avatar has a similar archetypal narrative to countless other sci-fi films. The Na’vi are an indigenous race on a far-off planet, Pandora. Humans want to mine Pandora. The Na’vi fight back. Give ‘em some fur, and it sounds a little Return of the Jedi-ish.

But the usual corporate cheerleaders have been warning audiences that Avatar is actually pushing a radical environmentalist message, because the Na’vi are, um, defending their utopian planet against complete annihilation.

Richard Swier’s column at Red County is a good example. He compares the Na’vi to the Earth Liberation Front, the FBI’s “number one domestic terrorism threat.” He warns:

This movie justifies the use of force against companies dedicated to finding, mining and processing natural resources… AVATAR is the celebration of and a recruiting tool for ELF, ALF, Greenpeace and the Sierra Clubs around the world.

It would be kind of hilarious if I still had a sense of humor for all of this stuff. Unfortunately, this has happened many times before. One of my favorite examples is when a children’s movie, Hoot, was labeled “soft core eco-terrorism for kids.” The same thing happened with Charlotte’s Web.

It’s easy to dismiss these kinds of columns, but the underlying values that prompt them should not be ignored. A Hollywood sci-fi mega-blockbuster like Avatar can be viewed by some people as “eco-terrorism” because the core values held by the protagonists parallel the core values held by an increasing number of real people.

Over at Mother Nature Network, Avatar was described as “transforming the shrill cries of a tired activist movement into pure, gravity-defying magic.” Mainstream activists and publications can revel in the film, cheering on natives killing invaders, because it all safely takes place in a movie theatre. None of this has happened in real life; the ALF and ELF have never harmed a human being. If they did, these same green groups would undoubtedly be condemning them.

That’s really the take away-message of all of this. The radical environmental movement is a threat not because of its tactics, but because of its beliefs.

Swier makes that very clear:

This is the final goal of eco-terrorists. Deny humans access to the natural resources on earth in order to save the planet. You see environmentalists truly believe that humans are an infestation upon the earth.

What did you think about the message of the film?

Related posts:

1. Why Aren’t the EPA’s Most Wanted Fugitives Labeled “Eco-terrorists”?
2. Pet Shop Protesters Shot–Will It Be Labeled Terrorism?
3. Interview in “Journal of Aesthetics & Protest” on Labeling Activists as Terrorists

Three animal rights activists were shot with brass pellets during a recent protest against puppy mills in Santa Monica, California. According to local news outlets, the police are investigating the shootings as an assault with a deadly weapon.

About 20 activists were protesting Aquarium & Pet Center in Santa Monica, which they say sells dogs bred in puppy mills in inhumane conditions.

Carole Raphaelle Davis, the West Coast director of the Companion Animal Protection Society, said store employees have threatened the protesters and were seen laughing after three activists were hit.

The shooting resulted in minor injuries, including welts.

“It’s shocking to think that people would try to intimidate people or cause them harm simply because they expressed their views,” said WeHo council member Jeffrey Prang, who has been working with the group to write a municipal ban on the re-selling of any pets except bred or rescued animals in West Hollywood.

The incident is disturbing enough on its own, but it needs to be put in a broader context. The animal rights and environmental movements are labeled the “number one domestic terrorism threat,” according to the FBI. Some elements of those movements have engaged in property destruction, economic sabotage and arson. In the history of the U.S. animal rights movement, though, not one person has ever been targeted with physical violence and no one has been shot.

If an animal rights activist had committed a crime like this, against an animal researcher for instance, they would undoubtedly be prosecuted as a “terrorists” under the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act.

In fact, the government’s threshold for what constitutes “terrorism” is much, much lower when it comes to the conduct of animal rights and environmental activists. Right now, four animal rights activists in California are facing charges under the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act for chanting and chalking slogans on the sidewalk. They’re being labeled “terrorists.”

Incidents like this should be it abundantly clear that there are two systems of law in this country. One is for the wealthy, the corporations, the animal research industry. If they are under attack, they can lobby for new terrorism legislation and pressure the politicians and government officials who represent them to crack down on the “terrorists.” They can carve out special crimes to protect them, and only them.

The other system of law is for everybody else. If they are under attack–through violence, not just home protests or economic sabotage–well, it’s just business as usual.

So what do you think? Will the government labeling this violent, politically-motivated crime “terrorism”?

Related posts:

1. Animal Rights Protesters Face Higher Sentences than Racist Cross Burners
2. White Supremacist Opens Fire at Holocaust Museum, But Will it Be Labeled “Terrorism”?
3. Avatar Labeled “Recruiting Film for Eco-terrorists”

Wow, here’s some news of the weird for you. There’s been an ongoing campaign against mountain top removal in West Virginia. Big Coal is playing dirty, and has been smearing opponents of their plans as “eco-terrorists.” The local press shamefully jumped on the bandwagon, calling Mike Roselle an “eco-terrorist” for civil disobedience and warning he “may put lives at stake in West Virginia.”. (Roselle is a co-founder of Earth First!, the Ruckus Society and the Rainforest Action Network, and one of the most influential activists in the history of the environmental movement–and I don’t think that’s an overstatement).

Well, that was too much to stomach, even for the guy who claims he invented the term “eco-terrorist.” Ron Arnold of the Center for Defense of Free Enterprise said:

“I’ve covered Roselle since 1995 and even devoted dozens of pages to his protest activities in my 1997 book EcoTerror: The Violent Agenda to Save Nature. I covered his actions to distinguish between radicals and terrorists. I say he’s a radical environmentalist, not an eco-terrorist. It’s not a crime to be a radical and Roselle has never been charged with any violent crime… Face it: what he did was civil disobedience, not terrorism. But his opponents are dredging up eco-terror accusations. That’s just hot air and it’s wrong.”

Of course, Arnold goes on to say he feels this way because the “honorable” term of “eco-terrorism” should not be “diluted” by this kind of scare-mongering, so it’s clear he still firmly stands by the use of the word. But I think it’s important to note how the usage of “eco-terrorism” has strayed beyond even what the architects of the Green Scare had intended.

The AETA 4 have been indicted as terrorists for lawful First Amendment activity, the SHAC 7 are in prison for running a website, lawmakers are threatening new legislation to target non-violent activists like Tim DeChristopher.

As Arnold says, people like Roselle “may be a terrible pain in the ass, but he’s no terrorist.”

Related posts:

1. IRS Suicide Pilot Is Not a “Terrorist,” But Environmental Activists Are?
2. 3 Definitions of Eco-terrorism
3. Washington “Eco-terrorist” Bill Includes Civil Disobedience and First Amendment Activity

Cherry Point Air Station in North Carolina held a terrorism training where environmentalists stormed the military base, took hostages, demanded money, and killed two Marines.

The “eco-terrorist” attack drill was used to “practice the response of emergency workers and special response teams.”

Cherry Point is considered one of the best jet bases in the world. It trains Marines and also launches strike missions headed for Afghanistan. Its runway is huge, large enough that Cherry Point is an alternate landing site for space shuttles. There’s no doubt that military units should be prepared for terrorist attacks and hostage situations.

But who to use in a drill? Hmm. There’s, I dunno, Al-Qaeda, which has attacked U.S. military and civilian targets. There’s anti-abortion extremists who have recently murdered people. Or there’s environmentalists who have never taken hostages, never harmed anyone, and primarily direct their campaigns at corporations or government agencies, not the military. Bingo!

Do you feel safer yet?

This isn’t an isolated instance: the nation’s largest homeland security training drill was a hostage scenario involving animal rights activists.

Drills like this contribute to the fear-mongering campaigns of corporations labeling activists as “terrorists.” They add to the existing climate of fear that has enabled legislation like the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, and has led to the placement of environmental activists like Daniel McGowan in secretive political prisons called Communication Management Units.

Outside the gates of the Cherry Hill base where the drill took place, there’s a sign, featured in this photo, with the words: “Pardon our noise. It’s the sound of freedom.”

Thanks to Stewart for the tip!

Related posts:

1. Military Pull Activist Into Unmarked Car at G20 Protests
2. IRS Suicide Pilot Is Not a “Terrorist,” But Environmental Activists Are?

Scare-mongering against radical animal rights and environmental activists has become so easy that it is hard for some folks to resist joining the attacks. POM Wonderful, the juice company, tried to label lawful protesters as part of the Animal Liberation Front. Groups like the Center for Consumer Freedom have warned of “violence” when PETA moved to DC. The Humane Society of the United States went out of its way to blame underground groups for an arson, when the police had no evidence linking the crime to them. The list, unfortunately, goes on and on. Perhaps the most absurd addition to the list to date comes from within the animal rights movement.

Gary Francione, a law professor at Rutgers, and Steve Best, a philosophy professor at the University of Texas–El Paso, have been going back and forth about animal rights issues, specifically the use of direct action. It almost led to a debate (which looks like Francione pulled out of) and has currently turned into a shining example of all that a post-newspaper Internet future heralds: trash talking, trash talking and more trash talking. It came to a head recently when Adam Kochanowicz warned of “ALF to vegan death threats” after receiving a message from Gary Francione that said:

I have received several messages from people informing me that they have received threats and/or violent communications because they have posted messages in support of non-violence or critical of the views of Steve Best.

If you feel threatened, you should go to the appropriate authorities.

You might want to go through your FB list. The administrators of “Go Vegan or Die,” which promotes violence (including personal violence) and the harassment of those who promote non-violence, are: Mary Xanthos, Karen Challenges, Ward Chanley, Kerri Millam, Holly Donna Balaclava, Gina Maltese, and Camile Marino. People communicate with Steve Best at their own risk as he distributes emails to those whom he knows will respond with threats of violence.

If you are a member of this group or otherwise support violence, please respect my wishes and leave this site.

This continues to get circulated around on blogs and Facebook pages, so I think it’s important to clear up a few things. These are the same types of smear tactics being used by animal industries against activists as “terrorists.” Specifically:

1. Linking above-ground individuals who ideologically support direct action with underground activists who carry out direct action. Regardless of how you feel about people who support illegal tactics, warning people to communicate with a professor of philosophy “at their own risk” because he “distributes emails to those whom he knows will respond with threats of violence” is idiotic. It’s a heavy accusation, and one that, in this political climate, is surely not taken lightly by the FBI.
2. Singling people out by name as the “leaders” because of their ideology or the alleged actions of those involved with them. Francione lists individuals by name not because of anything they have done, but because of a Facebook group that promotes ideas he disagrees with.
3. Labeling the ALF as “violent” or prepared to become violent. There has not been a single act of physical violence in the history of the U.S. animal rights movement. To think that the Animal Liberation Front or any underground animal rights activists would choose to break that history and make their first target a VEGAN is pretty laughable and egotistical. But with scare-mongering like this, it doesn’t matter how laughable it is. It is intended to end a debate by labeling people as “violent.”

Francione has made it a point–like many academics, Steve Best included–to single out people he ideologically opposes and attack their positions. At times, he has done so pretty shamelessly. For instance, when Austrian activists were rounded up and detained without charges, Francione went out of his way to attack the “welfarist” campaigns of the activists arrested.

Here’s the thing: everyone involved can continue the name-calling and chest puffing and other nonsense that has come from all sides in this debate as much as they like. The vast majority of people, including activists, probably will not pay much attention.

But sweeping, serious allegations of violence, along with naming names and encouraging people to contact law enforcement, only serves to follow in the footsteps of industry groups that have turned activists into the “number one domestic terrorism threat.”

What do you think?

Related posts:

1. Vegan Chef Sarah Kramer is a “Domestic Terrorist”

A right-wing Christian group and an anti-gay Michigan church are suing gay activists who “terrorized” the congregation by protesting, distributing leaflets and kissing.

The far-right Alliance Defense Fund is taking on the lawsuit on behalf of Delta Township’s Mount Hope Church, which was “invaded” by queers in November.

Accounts of the day differ, of course, but they go something like this: Local activists affiliated with the Bash Back! protested the church, wearing pink bandanas and chanting slogans including “Jesus was a homo”.

That was all just a distraction, though, so other activists wearing their Sunday-best could proceed inside unnoticed. When security guards were lured outside because of the loud protest, two women went to the front of the sanctuary and began kissing, while others threw leaflets over the balcony and unfurled a banner that read, “IT’S OKAY TO BE GAY! BASH BACK!”

The criminal complaint against Bash Back says church members were “terrorized by the Defendants’ conduct inside the church,” and that they felt the queers “might be violent.” [Interestingly, the next paragraph notes that the defendant's agreed to move their protest at the request of the pastor. Not exactly "terrorizing" behavior.]

Perhaps my favorite reaction to all of this has been from Catholic League president Bill Donohue:

“If an organized group of gay bashers stormed a gay church, there is not a single sentient person in the United States who wouldn’t know about it. This is urban fascism come to America’s heartland.”

Urban fascism? If gay bashers “stormed a gay church,” it would be to use physical violence against people because of who they are. That’s much different than gay activists using non-violent protest to challenge the ideology that fuels gay bashing (an ideology we could label “suburban fascism,” if we’re adopting Donohue’s terminology).

Nevertheless, according to the Alliance Defense Fund, this “revealed how dangerous the homosexual agenda is.”

Hmm. You want to talk about “dangerous”? “Dangerous” is not queer kids kissing. “Dangerous” is racists opening fire at a museum. “Dangerous” is right-wingers, espousing many of the same anti-gay, fundamentalist Christian views as these plaintiffs, murdering people.

No related posts.

This clip is about two years old, but it’s too good to keep to myself. At The Connecticut Forum, Ann Coulter says her hero is Joseph McCarthy (I mean, what’s not to love? Blacklists, naming names, ruining lives– a true American icon whose legacy lives on). She then says if she could be anyone in history, she’d be FDR so she could stop passage of the new deal. Al Franken handles her dumbassery perfectly.

No related posts.

Is Chuck Norris a Terrorist?

In his column at the far-right WorldNetDaily, he cites the national debt, Obama administration, and a lack of religious values, as reasons for putting out his call to action:

How much more will Americans take? When will enough be enough? And, when that time comes, will our leaders finally listen or will history need to record a second American Revolution?

He says Texas will be leading the revolution, he quotes Sam Houston, he remembers the Alamo, he promises to “run for president of Texas,” and… wait, it keeps getting better! He says he and Fox’s Glenn Beck (who says the Obama administration will put conservatives in FEMA internment camps) have organized a telecast called “We Surround Them,” in which “thousands of cell groups will be united.”

And, to top it all off, he puts in a promo for his next martial arts event, so folks can see “a good example of the raw Texas fighting spirit” that’s he is advocating.

Let me catch my breath. Ok. Wait. Ok. I can barely process how hilarious and absurd and infuriating this is. Chuck Norris is advocating violent revolution, and having a conference call about it.

If an animal rights activist, environmentalist, anarchist, or any other “domestic terrorist” had put out an oped like this, and organized a conference call with cells, A CONFERENCE CALL WITH CELLS, the Joint Terrorism Task Forces would be kicking in doors RNC-style.

Geez, an American Idol star was labeled a “terrorist” for giving money to the Humane Society.

Animal rights activists in California have been indicted as “terrorists” for home protests. Activists in Utah have been arrested as “terrorists” for allegedly releasing mink from fur farms. Environmentalists have been sentenced to 20 years in prison for “conspiring” to destroy property. And none of those people have harmed anyone, advocating harming anyone, or armed themselves to harm anyone.

This isn’t an isolated example of the blatant hypocrisy of the War on Terrorism. Right-wing groups, for example, aren’t on the Department of Homeland Security’s list of terrorist threats.

So why isn’t Chuck Norris a threat? Because the government crackdown on activists as “terrorists” has nothing to do with crimes or the potential for violence, it’s about prosecuting ideology and chilling dissent. Even though Chuck Norris is using extreme rhetoric, the ideology behind the rhetoric–religious fervor, capitalism, empire–isn’t a threat. It’s not dissent. It’s the norm.

And that’s why, no matter how powerful his roundhouse kicks, and how many “cells” he organizes, Chuck Norris is less of a threat than animal rights activists with chalk.

Related posts:

1. Animal Rights Activist Named Alongside Bin Laden on FBI’s Terrorist List
2. Activist Accused of “Advocating Literature and Materials Which Advocate Anarchy”
3. 3 Reasons Why Murdering an Abortion Doctor Isn’t Being Called “Terrorism”