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?

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.

He was quoted a few days ago about his hopes for using new “anti-terrorism technology” in his new job.

“We are particularly interested in computer profiling, which is much more sophisticated, and quicker, than traditional racial profiling,” he said.

The targets of this new profiling technology?

“Jihad, Crips, extreme animal-rights activists, it’s all the same: people trying damage the system,” added McKenna.“We need every trick in the book to avert disaster.”

As you can see in this photo, the SHAC 7 are quite gangsta. But no reasonable person could argue that they are the “same” as violent street gangs and Islamic terrorists.

Such absurd scare-mongering rhetoric has become normal for corporations, industry groups, and the politicians who represent them. When it is adopted by government officials who are in charge of keeping us safe, though, it has frightening implications.

There are limited anti-terrorism and law enforcement resources. When people like McKenna let shameless political opportunism shape security priorities (and make no mistake, this is nothing but political opportunism–he has already been rewarded for defending the “system” from activists), it puts everyone at risk.

“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:

• When are Militias and Tea Party Members “Terrorists”?

• Arizona’s “Show Me Your Papers” Law is About More than Immigration

• They Start With “Eco-terrorists,” then There’s a “Blurring of the Lines”
  
• 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.

The oil spill in the Gulf is on track to surpass the Exxon Valdez as the worst environmental disaster in U.S. history. That doesn’t bode well financially for BP, and it doesn’t bode well politically for the drill-baby-drill crowd. So how has the far right responded?

By trying to blame it on “eco-terrorists.”

Rush Limbaugh, after reminding listeners that “Al Gore urged young people…to engage in civil disobedience to stop the construction of coal plants,” speculated that the explosion was the work of “environmentalist wackos”:

Now, lest we forget, ladies and gentlemen, the carbon tax bill, cap and trade that was scheduled to be announced on Earth Day. I remember that. And then it was postponed for a couple of days later after Earth Day, and then of course immigration has now moved in front of it. But this bill, the cap-and-trade bill, was strongly criticized by hardcore environmentalist wackos because it supposedly allowed more offshore drilling and nuclear plants, nuclear plant investment. So, since they’re sending SWAT teams down there, folks, since they’re sending SWAT teams to inspect the other rigs, what better way to head off more oil drilling, nuclear plants, than by blowing up a rig? I’m just noting the timing here.

Former FEMA Director Michael Brown has also said that environmental activists could be the culprits:

“I think it’s a possibility clearly… This plays right into the real policy of this administration, which is ‘we hate big oil, we hate off-shore drilling and now we have an excuse not to do it.’”

This is, of course, complete garbage. BP officials have said the explosion was caused by a failed piece of equipment. And the “SWAT teams”? Right-wing bloggers noted that the Interior Department was speaking metaphorically about a team of inspectors.

Nevertheless, the eco-terrorism conspiracy theories are running wild. Tea Party bloggers have caught on to it, as have Sean Hannity fans.

In making these comments, Limbaugh was not giving voice to what his average listener was thinking. Regardless of where they are on the political spectrum, no reasonable person could see this unprecedented environmental destruction and think, “You know who must be behind that? ENVIRONMENTALISTS!”

So what’s really going on? The comments by Limbaugh and others are an attempt, however absurd, to do two things:

1. Deflect corporate responsibility. According to the New York Times, the spill is costing BP $6-7 million a day, and total costs could exceed $8 billion. Those are only a portion of the costs. After the Exxon Valdez spill, Congress passed the Oil Pollution Act. It changed the legal landscape around oil spills, and said that lawsuits against the company are not limited to those directly touched by the oil: those who have suffered economic damages can sue. Already, 26 lawsuits have been filed.

   Speculating about “eco-terrorists” is an attempt to cast doubt on the cause of the spill, in order to shift blame away from corporate polluters.

   As Sarah Palin recently said, amidst the increasingly macabre predictions about the Gulf: “I want our country to be able to trust the oil industry.”

2. Deflect attention from the bigger questions. If eco-terrorists were responsible for the spill, then we don’t need to question an industry that, at its core, is unsustainable and destructive. If eco-terrorists were responsible for the spill, then we don’t need to question our reliance on a substance that, no matter how much we drill, is about to run out.

   We can just go on with business as usual. Everything is fine, but these extremists want you to think otherwise, so they can push their “green socialist agenda.”

   Questioning whether “eco-terrorists” were responsible avoids taking a hard look at who, and what, is really responsible: an American way of life that is inherently unsustainable, and can only be maintained in the short term through increasingly reckless energy policies.

None of this is anything new, for those of you who have been following this “Green Scare.” Animal rights and environmental activists have been labeled the “number one domestic terrorism threat,” according to the FBI. Because of this, they have been frequent corporate and political scapegoats.

For instance, in 2004, when luxury homes in Maryland burned down, everyone shouted “eco-terrorism,” and then OOPS it turned out to be a group of guys with personal vendettas or out for kicks. Or there was the Boston pet store owner who burned down his store, with the animals inside, and tried to blame “animal rights extremists” as part of an insurance scheme.

In many ways, Limbaugh’s comments are not extreme, they are the norm. Forty years after Earth Day, going green has gone mainstream, but corporations and the politicians who represent them are labeling environmentalists as “eco-terrorists.” The problem is not Rush Limbaugh; the problem is misplaced government “terrorism” priorities and scare-mongering that are natural fodder for political opportunists, no matter how untenable their claims.

Peter Young’s home was raided the FBI this week, and the search warrant repeatedly mentions his name in relation to “animal enterprise terrorism.” In the last article we looked at how this Utah raid is, ostensibly, related to the investigation of an Animal Liberation Front raid at the University of Iowa.

As with all of these cases, though, it’s important to put this in a bigger political context. Few attempts have been made to connect Young to Iowa (the government argued in court that Young was an “associate” of Scott DeMuth, the defendant in the Iowa case, because DeMuth identified someone in his journal as ‘P’).
Young says he has never met DeMuth, a graduate student whose research has included radical social movements.

However, attempts have been made to repeatedly label Young a “terrorist” not for underground crimes like raiding fur farms (which he was convicted of years ago) but for lawful, aboveground, First Amendment activity. For instance, he published The Blueprint, a listing of fur farms in the United States.

Young wrote in the introduction:

While past fur industry investigations focused on the treatment of animals, this one sought something else: names and addresses. Of all forms of animal rights outreach, the dissemination of “names and addresses” is at once among the most overlooked, and most potent…

The fur industry is among the most vulnerable targets in our sights. We rented a car, and set out to create the roadmap to its collapse.

Fur farmers responded by labeling this document, which is listing of public information obtained lawfully and disseminated lawfully, a “terrorist handbook.”

Multiple newspapers in Utah and Wisconsin published stories with industry soundbites along these lines. The Park Record in Utah reported:

“‘The Blueprint’ is a little disturbing. Basically, what ‘The Blueprint’ is, is a terrorist handbook,” a mink rancher in Coalville told The Park Record on Wednesday.

The man, who is in his 20s, spoke to the newspaper at his ranch on the condition of anonymity.

“All this is is domestic terrorism, and I have a target on my back,” he said in the interview. “They’re out there calling death threats in to ranchers. We spend many sleepless nights on the ranch.”

Most times he is armed, the rancher added.

All of this has the effect of increasing fear of animal rights activists as “terrorists,” and legitimizing any subsequent actions such as FBI raids of activists’ homes. As in all of these Green Scare cases, these media campaigns and this raid are, above all else, about instilling fear.

A man intentionally flew his airplane into an IRS office in Austin as a part of suicide attack yesterday, and left behind a manifesto outlining his anti-government grievances, but politicians and the press are somehow unsure about whether it should be labeled terrorism. Meanwhile, a bill was introduced in Washington State this session labeling civil disobedience and First Amendment activity as “eco-terrorism.”

It’s not an isolated instance. Across the country, at the state and federal level, both pre-9/11 and post-9/11, corporations and the politicians who represent them have campaigned to label animal rights and environmental activists as the “number one domestic terrorism threat.” Even the most radical underground groups like the Animal Liberation Front and Earth Liberation Front have never harmed a human being.

Yet those who have murdered abortion providers and flown planes into building escape the label.

Let’s take a closer look at the systemic disparities.

These have all been labeled terrorism in the press, state houses or the courts:

• Washington “Eco-terrorist” Bill Includes Civil Disobedience and First Amendment Activity
• Utah Bill Would Make Environmentalists Like Tim DeChristopher “Eco-Terrorists”
• Animal Rights Activists Charged As Terrorists for Chalking Slogans on Public Sidewalks and Wearing Masks at Protests
  
• Canadian Politician Says PETA Throwing a Pie is Terrorism
• ELF Activist Receives Longer Prison Sentence Than Racists Who Attempted to Assassinate Obama
• Ag Industry Calls for Prosecutions of Undercover Animal Activists
• Appellate Court: Encouraging Civil Disobedience is Not Protected Speech

According to the FBI, none of these recent crimes are terrorism:

• Threatening to kill or injure police officers at a public tax protest assembly called a “Tea Party”
• Louisiana Man Convicted of Civil Rights Violation in Connection with Cross-Burning
• E-Mailing Threatening Communications to Judges
• Threatening Employees of Latino Civil Rights Organizations
• Man Held Hostages at Gun Point inside Post Office
• Homeland Security Says Timothy McVeigh Isn’t a Terrorist, But Peace Activists Are
  

Focusing scarce anti-terrorism resources on animal rights and environmental activists, while there are clearly domestic groups who have, and will continue, to carry out physical violence, puts all Americans at risk. Perhaps if the government spent less time preparing for attacks by environmentalists, events like this could be prevented.

A PETA activist pied the Fisheries Minister of Canada, as a publicity stunt to draw attention to Canada’s seal slaughter, and now a member of parliament says the pieing should be investigated as an act of terrorism.

The Globe and Mail reports that the member of parliament, Gerry Byrne, said:

“When someone actually coaches or conducts criminal behaviour to impose a political agenda on each and every other citizen of Canada, that does seem to me to meet the test of a terrorist organization…”

“I am calling on the Government of Canada to actually investigate whether or not this organization, PETA, is acting as a terrorist organization under the test that exists under Canadian law.”

Ingrid Newkirk, the president of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, called it empty posturing and said “It is unlikely to impress anyone who has a heart for animals or who is bright enough to spot the difference between a bomb and a tofu cream pie.”

The whole thing sounds a bit outlandish, huh? Well, unfortunately this isn’t the first time people have called for labeling tofu cream pies as terrorism.

To put this in a bit of historical context, pieings were much more common in the 90s when groups like the Biotic Baking Brigade and others snuck into corporate meetings to lob a pie at a dignitary. The point of the whole thing, of course, is to make a silly spectacle. It’s hard to be taken too seriously when your face is covered with vegan whipped cream.

When corporation and industry groups were calling for an expansion of “animal enterprise terrorism” statutes, one of the claims they made is that the law did not cover “not so savage acts” like pies in the face. Really. Check out this background document on the Animal Enterprise Protection Act. Ultimately, that law was expanded and became the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act.

I suspect this will all blow over, much to the dismay of corporate hacks like the Center for Consumer Freedom, which put out a press release egging the whole thing on. But that’s not the point.

The real danger is that this “terrorist” PR campaign, which has been going on since the 80s, has worked its way to the top levels of government, here and abroad. Regardless of how you feel about PETA, pies or parliament, that should make everyone stop dead in their tracks.

Scarce anti-terrorism resources devoted to investigating tofu cream pies, or threatening to investigate tofu cream pies, are resources better spent keeping people safe from less savory national security threats.

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?

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”?

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!