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.

James Lee has written:

“The Discovery Channel is a big part of the problem, not the solution. Instead of showing successful solutions, their broadcast programs seem to be doing the opposite. Shows like ‘Cash Cab’ and ‘Dirty Jobs’ serve as diversions to keep the focus off what is really important, which is Global Warming and Animal Extinction. Why do they broadcast a show like “Future Weapons” that only promise to destroy the planet even more? And their new lineup “Planet Green” is all about more products and other substandard solutions.”

I’ve read countless communiques and justifications by radical groups about their actions, and whether or not you agree with them, you can at least follow some string of reasoning. The target has some connection to the radical beliefs they espouse. In this case? It seems to be the result of personal obsession divorced from reality.

Even with far-right extremists murdering abortion-providers, shooting up mosques, bombing black churches, there is some line of reasoning, however thin, that can be threaded between them and their targets. When a white supremacist stormed the Holocaust museum, one can connect the actions to a long line of holocaust denialism in those groups. When an anti-abortion bomber murders doctors, the link is much more direct. When Joe Stack flew a plane into the IRS building in Austin, there was a network of people supporting his actions and decrying the tyranny of taxation. Some call him a hero.

So could some of the right-wingers and mainstream reporters covering this please make the same connection in this case? Is there a movement against the Discovery Channel I am unaware of? Are there other eco-terrorists outraged by “Dirty Jobs” and “Future Weapons”? I do not intend to make light of this situation or the fear instilled in those hostages. However, as this issues spirals out of control, could one of these talking heads please stop and help me connect Lee to something, ANYTHING, except the local homeless shelter?

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.

It is impossible to know the true scope of these reports, and the impact they have had on the broader political climate of the Green Scare. It is fair to say, though, that for many corporate executives, these think tank documents may be the only exposure they have had to the history, motivation and tactics of the animal rights and environmental movements. They are a critical component of broader efforts to label activists (the “threats”) as “terrorists.”

One such report is by the Inkerman Group, called “The War on ‘Eco-Terror’: An analysis of the use of anti-terrorism legislation on activist movements in the UK & US.” It was sent to me with the request that I not identify the commissioner of the report. (The report, from 2007, is marked “confidential” and does not show up in a search of the Inkerman website, but a Google search of the volume number returns a back-end link to the source document on the Inkerman server. Good thing Inkerman is not a security firm, I guess.)

Like many other risk analyses, the Inkerman report is hilariously bad at times. The authors of the report appear to either be quite clueless about the true nature of the radical environmental movement, or quite malicious in their attempts to label mainstream, non-violent tactics as “terrorism.”

For instance, its timeline of “eco-terrorism” begins with the formation of the Sierra Club in 1892, and the formation of the Humane Society of the United States in 1954.

It goes on to identify key developments in the radical environmental movement, including… stickers.

Towards the end of 2000, a new form of eco-terrorism emerged in the US against Sports Utility Vehicles (SUVs). Activists, some reportedly part of the ELF, decided to demonstrate against the environmentally-unfriendly vehicles by placing homemade stickers on them. These ‘Mad Taggers’, as they became known, used to sticker the cars in question, chosen at random with messages such as “I’m Changing the Climate. Ask Me How”, “Bin Laden Used Your Gas Money”, “If You Love America, Get Rid of Your SUV” and “I Don’t Care About the Air”.

However, despite these claims and despite the financial interests involved in this report, the authors do not side in favor of more “eco-terror” legislation.

The introduction of new anti-terror laws seems only to be further complicating the definition of terrorism and what constitutes it, rather than clarifying it. This inherently implies that the Government is still struggling with legally defining the term ‘eco-terrorism’.

In today’s terror climate, the authorities’ fear that terrorist individuals and organisations may ‘slip through the net’ has justified the use of wide-ranging legislation against activists. Many times, actions of ‘eco- terrorists’ are perpetrated to induce fear, and this should rightly be clamped down upon and prosecuted. However, where peaceful protest such as the Camp for Climate Action 2007 intends not to disrupt or threaten human security, the threat alone of anti-terrorist legislation being used against protest is extreme. The issue lies in the blurring of lines between those extremists willing to carry out eco-tage, and those looking to undertake peaceful protest, which should be encouraged in a democracy. This is especially problematic where the two kinds of protests exist side by side at a demonstration, or within groups.

In contrast with the US, which declares eco-terrorism to be the most serious form of domestic terrorism today, the UK must respect the fine lines between democratic voice, illegal activity, terrorism and scare- mongering. [Emphasis added]

Unfortunately, corporations in the United States have not gotten the memo.

Twenty years ago today, Judi Bari and Darryl Cherney, two prominent Earth First!ers, were in Oakland protesting clearcutting. They had been on the road organizing Redwood Summer, a campaign to save old-growth forests inspired by the Freedom Summer of the civil rights movement.

Bari had already received dozens of death threats for her campaigning. She had drawn quite a bit of attention from opposition in the logging industry because of her effective organizing. As kp wrote in the Earth First! Journal recently:

She brought us lessons from her background as a labor organizer and analysis that helped evolve our radical thinking both philosophically and strategically.

The two were in Bari’s Subaru station wagon when a pipe bomb exploded underneath her, injuring Cherney and nearly killing her. Hours later, while Bari was still in Oakland’s Highland Hospital, local police arrested them and said they had knowingly transported the bomb—that they were responsible for their own bombing. Police dropped those charges weeks later, but this was just the beginning.

Bari and Cherney sued the police and the FBI, alleging false arrest, slander, and conspiracy. They said the government refused to follow any leads in order to smear them. In the opening statement of a two-month trial the prosecutor compared Bari and Cherney to domestic terrorists.

In 2004, fourteen years after the bombing, the federal government agreed to pay $2 million to settle the civil suit, and the city of Oakland agreed to a separate $2 million payment.

It might seem odd that I wanted to mark the 20th anniversary of such a violent and tragic event. I know that I write about plenty of depressing, negative news on this site, so why add to that?

This bombing should be a reminder, I think, of two things. The first is of how far corporations and law enforcement are willing to go in order to silence dissent. This buzzword “eco-terrorism” is often used alongside the word “violence,” but the violence has not flowed both ways. Environmentalists have been assaulted and killed, and they have not responded in kind; that is not the behavior of “terrorists.”

The second reminder is much more important. Experiencing a bombing like this, and surviving, must be a traumatic experience. On top of that, the victims were labeled terrorists and demonized in the press. Bari and Cherney, and all of Earth First!, had to deal with public relations attacks alongside the violent attacks, and through this their campaigns continued.

In this context, I think this is an anniversary worth celebrating, one of resilience and courage in the face of seemingly unrelenting violence and repression.

“It’s one of the most evil books ever,” said Glenn Beck, holding up a copy of The Coming Insurrection. (The video starts at 2:30). He then held up a copy of We Are an Image From the Future as he went on a nonsensical tirade against the threat of “communists” who want to destroy families.

For the most part, I think it’s a waste of time to get wrapped up in Glenn Beck’s nonsense. Being absurd and bombastic is this guy’s shtick. He has made millions doing it. When people start calling books “evil,” though, I think that’s reason to pay attention.

We should be concerned when people like Glenn Beck call books “evil” because people like Glenn Beck don’t read. For instance, the books he railed against were not written by communists, but by anarchists, a point which AK Press addressed in a very well-crafted response.

Or, perhaps Beck and his producers have read the books, know what they say, and they just don’t care. I really have no idea.

It’s hard to tell if people like Beck are stupid, or evil, or both. And that’s why, when I watched the clip above, I felt like I was watching a skit.

Give Glenn Beck a British accent, and is he not the spitting image of Lewis Prothero in “V is for Vendetta,” the scare-mongering talking head keeping an Orwellian country in perpetual fear?

The over-the-top hysteria; the scare-mongering against immigrants, unions, and anyone who is an “other”; the warnings that American values and families are under attack… it just doesn’t seem real. It is too much. Too far. It doesn’t seem real because we’ve seen this before, in films and literature whenever an artist wants to create an exaggerated, larger-than-life symbol of freedom sacrificed in the name of fear.

More and more, it feels like we are living fiction.

Michele Basso labeled the activists who protested her cruel experiments as terrorists.

Basso testified about her firsthand experiences with “animal rights terrorism,” such as receiving unwanted magazine subscriptions, home demonstrations, and local activists campaigning to open a museum. She has never been the target of violence, and said of this campaigning: “…I can’t stress the critical impact that this has had on me and my ability to do my work.”

Well, it looks like animal activists were not nearly as great a threat to Basso’s career as Basso herself.

She was recently suspended from working with animals, a “rare move prompted by what officials called a ‘clear pattern’ of problems with animal welfare.” According to the Wisconsin State Journal:

University administrators say researcher Michele Basso has had a bumpy history, citing a lack of respect for veterinarians, incomplete record-keeping and instances where monkeys developed brain injuries…

It is unusual for the university to suspend a main researcher’s work with animals, and officials say they only do so when they perceive that the risks to animals outweigh the benefits to science and medicine…

In other words, university officials came to the same conclusion as the “terrorists,” that the results of Basso’s experiments were not worth the cruelty.

Examples like this illustrate the government’s backwards priorities. Rather than catering to special interest groups and labeling political activists as “terrorists,” perhaps lawmakers should be listening to, and acting on, their concerns.

Today is the 40th anniversary of Earth Day and everyone, it seems, is “going green.” With widespread oil shortages due to peak oil looming within five years, and the startling effects of climate change becoming shockingly clear, environmentalism is more accepted and urgently needed than ever.

So why is the “number one domestic terrorism threat,” according to the FBI, the “eco-terrorism, animal rights movement”?

The environmental movement, like all social movements, has a wide-range of elements. There are people who leaflet and write letters. And there are underground groups, like the Earth Liberation Front, which have vandalized SUVs, burned ski resorts, and destroyed genetically-engineered crops. Even at their most extreme, none of these tactics have injured a single human being.

Nevertheless, they have been called “terrorism,” a label which has had extreme repercussions for those targeted. An environmental activist named Daniel McGowan was sentenced as a terrorist for his role in two ELF crimes, and for that he is now in a secretive prison facility called a Communications Management Unit, for “domestic terrorists.” The inmates and guards call it “Little Guantanamo.”

The “eco-terrorist” label has not been confined to the ELF and acts of sabotage. Corporations and the politicians who represent them have campaigned to stretch the label as far as they can. For example:

Utah Bill Would Make Environmentalists Like Tim DeChristopher “Eco-Terrorists”

“Animal Planet Collaborated with Eco-Terrorists”


Mafia Law Used Against Environmentalists for Tree Sits, Civil Disobedience, Blog Post

So how do government agencies and industry groups rationalize this? How do they justify labeling activists who have never harmed anyone with the same term as people who have flown planes into buildings?

A report by the Department of Homeland Security called “Eco-terrorism: Environmental and Animal Rights Militants in the United States” reveals part of the answer:

“All of these beliefs stand in direct contrast to the notion of individualism as promoted by Western culture..”

Put another way, the beliefs of a growing segment of the environmental movement go beyond urging people to switch lightbulbs or drive hybrids. Their critique challenges widespread cultural values, and questions deeply-held beliefs about whether humans have the right to exploit the natural world. Fundamentally, these activists question the unspoken dogma that human beings, and their interests, trump those of all other species.

That is only part of the explanation, though. It is not just that activists hold these beliefs. That, alone, is not a threat. The threat is when they act on them. Effectively.

That last word is critical. When activists take direct action to put their beliefs into practice, and in doing so threaten corporate profits, they become worthy of government reports and national security warnings.

For instance, the State Department warned corporations in a PowerPoint presentation:

“Although incidents related to terrorism are most likely to make the front page news, Animal Rights Extremism is what’s most likely to affect your day-to-day business operations…”

Forty years after Earth Day, the message from corporations, politicians and government agencies is clear. Shop and consume and shop some more, perhaps signing a petition or two along the way, and that is “going green.”

But if you go further, if you start demanding substantive, systemic change and shaking the economic and political power structures behind the green-washing, that is “eco-terrorism.”

NOTE: I apologize that comments are closed, I think it is a glitch in WordPress or Disqus (the comment system). I have not been able to resolve it yet, unfortunately.

Japanese whalers have repeatedly labeled Sea Shepherd, the environmental group, a “terrorist organization” because of the campaigns to end the slaughter of whales in a whale sanctuary. They have even gone so far as to label Animal Planet terrorists because of the show Whale Wars. And the Japanese government recently announced it is pressing charges against Peter Bethune, the captain of a Sea Shepherd ship that the Japanese whalers rammed and destroyed.

In light of this, I think it would be a good opportunity to the put the actions of Sea Shepherd in perspective. In every social movement, there are a range of possible tactics, both legal and illegal, violent and nonviolent.

A reader has alerted me to a dangerous escalation of tactics on the high seas, presumably in response to the draconian actions of the Japanese government. Sea Shepherd’s actions are mild compared to the potential threat of a much more dangerous terrorist group:

Nickelback.

Check out this photo of Sea Shepherd crew members with these grenade launchers donated by the rock band. Well, they are not grenade launchers. They are t-shirt launchers that the band used at concerts. Both are deadly weapons, however: the carnage that is a Nickelback t-shirt would send even the most hardened whaler running for his dinghy.

Sea Shepherd was reportedly using the launchers to toss bottles of stinky, rotten-buttery liquid onto the whaling decks, to interfere with the slaughter and processing of whale meat. [Here is the original photo from the Institute for Cetacean Research, aka the whalers.]

To be honest, I was a bit disappointed that this is the extent of Nickelback’s involvement in Sea Shepherd’s so-called “eco-terrorism.” I was hoping that the world’s most hated band would blare some of their terrible songs at the whalers, Branch Davidian style.

The next time whalers complain about “eco-terrorism,” I hope they remember the noble restraint shown by these environmental activists. To paraphrase Dr. King, in the shadow of every non-violent activist is someone in a black mask with a Nickelback album.

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.”

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?

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?