GreenIsTheNewRed.com» Terrorism Rhetoric

IRS Suicide Pilot Is Not a “Terrorist,” But Environmental Activists Are?

Will Potter — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 15:55:19 +0000

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:

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

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.

Canadian Politician Says PETA Throwing a Pie is Terrorism

Will Potter — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 12:30:55 +0000

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 Labeled “Recruiting Film for Eco-terrorists”

Will Potter — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 16:02:54 +0000

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?

Pet Shop Protesters Shot–Will It Be Labeled Terrorism?

Will Potter — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 13:00:37 +0000

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”?

Military Training Drill: Environmentalists Take Hostages, Murder Marines

Will Potter — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 17:38:39 +0000

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!

“ALF to vegan death threats”?

Will Potter — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 13:00:22 +0000

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:

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.
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.
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?

Vegan Chef Sarah Kramer is a “Domestic Terrorist”

American Idol Star Carrie Underwood Accused of “Supporting Domestic Terrorists”

Will Potter — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 13:32:49 +0000

American Idol star Carrie Underwood is donating a portion of the proceeds from her new single to the Humane Society of the United States, and getting accused of supporting “animal rights terrorists.” One of my favorite lines so far: “Carrie Underwood may think she is supporting puppies and kittens, but she needs to understand that she is supporting domestic terrorists instead.”

Let’s pause for a second and take a look at how idiotic this has all become. The Center for Consumer Freedom needed a hilarious flow chart to attempt to connect HSUS to “terrorism,” and failed miserably. Now, Carrie Underwood is being smeared as a terrorist for being “connected” to HSUS and, as Ecorazzi reports, the U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance is trying to put pressure on Fox. What’s next?

Underwood’s single, “Home Sweet Home,” is a cover of a Motley Crue song. Maybe that means they can go after Tommy Lee for supporting terrorism, too? (I mean, he also produced that, ahem, “terrorist training video” with PETA spokesperson Pamela Anderson).

It wasn’t long ago when HSUS donated money to an “eco-terrorism” witch hunt in California, hoping to protect themselves from this kind of guilt by association. They gave the green light to the Green Scare in the hopes of saving their own behinds.

What do you all think? Did HSUS get its money’s worth?

Jessica Alba Apologizes for “Eco-terrorism,” Doesn’t Even Get a Slap on the Wrist

10 Easy Ways to Be Labeled a “Terrorist” by the Government

Will Potter — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 12:00:28 +0000

I have a guest blog post over at Planetsave, “10 Easy Ways to Be Labeled a ‘Terrorist’ by the Government.” Please check it out, and perhaps leave a comment (and if you like the post, please vote it up on Digg, Reddit or Stumble using the Planetsave links).

Thanks very much to Alex Felsinger at Planetsave for the opportunity to bring information on civil liberties and the Green Scare to a wider audience.

And to folks who have showed up at GreenIsTheNewRed.com from Planetsave… welcome! To get started here, please check out my introduction to the Green Scare.

5 Reasons Why Republicans Should Care About the Government Labeling Activists “Terrorists”

Will Potter — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 13:00:07 +0000

Labeling activism as terrorism violates checks and balances on government power.

The coordinated campaign to smear political activists as “terrorists” should concern everyone, from far right to far left and everyone in between:

It puts all Americans at risk. Animal rights and environmental activists have never flown planes into buildings or sent anthrax through the mail, but the FBI labels them the “number one domestic terrorism threat.” Focusing on this Green Scare, and investigating property crimes, civil disobedience, leafleting and even vegan potlucks as “terrorism,” wastes valuable law enforcement resources. With the threat of another terrorist attack constantly looming, scarce anti-terrorism resources should be used to combat true threats to national security, not protect corporate interests and push a political agenda.
It puts all political activists at risk. Targeting these activists as “terrorists” sets a legal precedent that will be used against other social movements. The “terrorism” policies and priorities of the Bush administration could just as easily be applied to a different set of activists on the whim of a new president and new Congress. The word terrorism should not be batted around against the enemy of the hour, to push a partisan political agenda.
It violates checks and balances on government power. Singling out one group of people based on their beliefs puts far too much power in the hands of the government. If conservative lawmakers opposed hate crimes legislation because it mandated disproportionate sentences based on motive and ideology, then they should logically oppose legislation like the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act on the same grounds. Republicans, in the classic sense of that label, have always been distrustful of government power, and for good reason.
It wastes taxpayer money. In this economic crisis, as millions of Americans are worried about their families and losing their jobs, the FBI is wasting law enforcement resources monitoring flier distribution and testing the DNA of bandannas worn at protests. There are better uses for taxpayer money during the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression.
It makes it impossible to have a fair trial. Smearing activists as “eco-terrorists” and “domestic terrorists” in press releases, sound bites and press conferences, before they have even set foot in a courtroom, makes it impossible for them to receive a fair trial. “Terrorist” is the most powerful word in our language. Branding someone with that term automatically skews public opinion against them and in favor of the government. Regardless of how you feel about any individual defendant, a cornerstone of the judicial system should be that they are entitled to a fair trial.

Throughout history, the government has repressed social movements by isolating them from the broader society. That’s exactly what happened during the Red Scare, for instance. The government marginalized suspected communists first from other groups on the “Left,” and then from everyone else. “If you’re not one of those people,” we are always told, “you have nothing to worry about. Just go about your business as usual, and pay no attention to what’s going on.”

Most people who read this site are sympathetic to the civil liberties concerns I raise, and many are very sympathetic to animal rights and environmental issues. I think it’s important to remember, though, that there are plenty of everyday people who might have different views on animal rights and environmental issues (to put it mildly) but who would be just as outraged if they knew what is going on.

Are Mainstream Environmentalists Supporting “Eco-terrorism” Against Climate Change This Weekend?

Will Potter — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 13:00:02 +0000

Thousands of students converging in Washington, D.C. this weekend have already “gone green.” Now they are going “eco-terrorist.”

That’s absurd, right? No one in their right mind would call the 10,000 young people participating in the Power Shift conference and mass non-violent civil disobedience against a coal-powered plant“eco-terrorists.”

But corporations and the politicians who represent them have been trying to label tactics like this as “terrorism” for years as part of the “Green Scare.” That includes a wide range of activity from tree sits and road blockades to vandalism and, at the most extreme, arson. No human being has ever been injured by environmental activists, but the FBI has gone so far as to label them the “number one domestic terrorist threat.”

The conference and civil disobedience planned this weekend are a great example of how this scare-mongering is completely out of touch with the beliefs of everyday people, and how tactics once labeled “terrorism” are gaining widespread popular support.

The “eco-terrorists” are in good company:

Al Gore told Nicholas Kristof at The New York Times: “I can’t understand why there aren’t rings of young people blocking bulldozers, and preventing them from constructing coal-fired power plants.”
NASA’s chief climate scientist, Dr. James Hansen, has endorsed the “eco-terrorism,” saying: “We need to send a message to Congress and the president that we want them to take the actions that are needed to preserve climate for young people and future generations and all life on the planet.”
Public figures including Wendell Barry and Daryl Hannah, and many mainstream environmental groups, have endorsed the direct action.

Via Twitter and Facebook, I asked what you all wanted to hear more about on this site in the next few weeks. I heard back, loud and clear, that you want stories like the recent arrests of activists under the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, but it’s draining to see so much bad news all the time. I think this conference and direct action are a perfect example of how the Green Scare isn’t hopeless, and it’s not inevitable. It’s clear that if everyday people knew what’s going on, they’d be outraged.

There is plenty of work to be done, raising awareness and organizing, but it is work that can have substantial results.

So, I’ll turn this over to you: What are you doing? And what needs to be done? Write a comment about what you’re doing in your community, whether it is organizing public forums, posting fliers, creating websites, holding potlucks, organizing protests, or something else entirely. I’ll compile it for a future post on fighting back against the Green Scare.