My community is Tennessee, where we recently protested the TVA for their role in the destruction of our mountains and their failure to clean up the disaster site of the coal ash spill in Harriman, TN. Not only have they failed to clean up the mess, they have done nothing for the affected communities and they've harassed and sought to intimidate individuals and groups for trying to do such dangerous things as air and water monitoring. So several people, including myself, took part in a 'die-in' in front of TVA headquarters this past weekend. Here's some video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0jqUpdxtYE

Here's the next step:
http://www.stopcliffside.org/news.php

I want to speak to some of the concerns being brought up about the Capitol Climate Action (CCA) and Powershift, the corporate-sponsored student climate conference (the two of these are not connected, and are being organized by different folks).

It's really important that we be critical of Powershift: it's sponsored by big corporate money, mis-represents itself as being "THE climate movement", and has given at least a silent endorsement of the plethora of corporate-friendly, state-sponsored 'false solutions' to climate change. They've also made a point to not talk about the climate crisis as another product of the same systems of oppression that have perpetuated inequality throughout civilization. That's a key point to understanding that this isn't just an issue about carbon in the atmosphere, and any hope we have of achieving climate justice is going to be through building strategic alliances across movements that support the work of us all.

As far as the Capitol Climate Action goes, there were three goals set out for the action:

1) Create a moment, image, and a situation that will help accelerate a major shift in the political and cultural consciousness regarding the urgency and scope of required action to address the climate crisis. (media and public narrative goal)

2) Press the new administration to take decisive action on climate and energy issues, within the first 100 days of office by using this coal plant as an iconic symbol of the problems of US Energy and climate policy. (government as an audience for policy goal)

3)Create a transformative, positive experience for the participants that further commit them to activism and the movement, and demystifies the role of non-violent direct action in social change. (movement building goal, catalyst)

Getting arrested was never a goal of this action. Civil disobedience and people risking arrest was our vehicle, and the action was a tremendous success. We surpassed our expectation of 3,000 participants by hundreds, if not thousands, in the freezing cold and snow. We shut down the plant for the afternoon, trained over 2,000 people in non-violent direct action, gotten tremendous positive media coverage (over 500 stories, with more in the works), provided political leverage to our allies.

I think we'll be seeing the impacts of this carrying on for a long time: for many participants this was their first direct action, and it's been a catalyst for people who are arriving back home this week to continue doing this work across the country. This is the beginning of a tremendous year of organizing to bring down the fossil fuel empire and to achieve climate justice!

I went to the conference in DC this weekend and was frankly disappointed. Some of the main sponsors included Wal-Mart, Ford, and Roche Pharmaceuticals.

Joe--As usual, you refuse to see the point. You want everyone to feel sorry for people like you who kill/mistreat animals. Well, I think anyone who mistreats animals deserves a taste of their own medicine. Lucky for you, the AR activists never give you the same treatment you give the animals.

As for the true terrorists--those are the people who terrorize innocent animals every day for no good reason. The people who do what they can to help those animals are heroes.

Kathy, so you admit that AR activist are terrorist then?

I'm not doing anything too crazy. I'm a member of two different local groups that focus on educating themselves and the rest of the community. One of the groups is focused on environmentalism in general, one is one animal rights in general. With this approach, people can CHOOSE FOR THEMSELVES how they do or don't help the environment and/or animals.
No way you can call this shit terrorism.
If it is, then Mormons and Jehova's Witnesses are terrorists too.

Joe: Since the fur store owners, researchers, and fur farmers terrorize innocent animals every day, maybe the activists are just letting THEM know what it feels like to be terrorized.

"There’s a reason why the FBI is trying to infiltrate them. Potlucks are an effective tool for building a strong movement."

I thought they were just after our superior vegan cuisine.

"Maybe they should start, then they (activist) will know what it is like to be terrorized."

Incitement to terrorist acts? Who's the terrorist now?
&
"So Sig Heil to all trying to force others into their lifestyle."

Godwin's Law. You lose.

By rights, as the level of conflict has been escalated by the side of the animal rights and environmental activists to a level of harassment, threats, sabotage, arson, vandalism, intimidation, and fear, the opposing side has the right and ability to employ such tactics, should they so choose. It is, in my mind, ludicrous to simply stand idly as somebody attacks your person or property, and I would not expect an activist or corporate person to do so. Therefor, it would seem that activists tread thin ice when employing such tactics since unpopular but powerful support is given to those that oppose eco-activism.

However, those who oppose environmental and animal rights activists have only a profit motive to propel their actions forward, whereas activists have moral imperatives to push themselves forward. If the French Revolutionary Army was any example, increased morale based upon a moral imperative and community support will bolster their willingness to act and motivation to do so in the most effective and direct ways possible. Corporations and businesses lack said moral imperative, and the likelihood of them stepping forward and acting to the same degree is extremely unlikely, especially since, in my mind, the resolve of the activists is extremely high if they are willing to do things that make even myself uneasy and subsequently risk severe repercussions.

If you look at the actions without an ounce of the rhetoric, then the environmental activists and animal rights activists indeed *are* terrorists. They employ methods that are intended to scare or intimidate a target population into manifesting or extinguishing specific behaviors. From that point of view, the government has been employing the same tactics via different methodology for quite some time. Perhaps my earlier statement was off, and it is the government who opened the forum and set the level of conflict to terror. Regardless, the actions of the activists are indeed terrorism. Non-lethal terrorism, but terrorism nonetheless. (note that when I say this, I mean to indicate ALF and ELF, not the mainstream activists who support them).

The question that I think should be consider by the author and readers of this site is whether or not Kant was right. Categorical imperative: the means do not justify the end because the means are ends unto themselves. I am inclined to think that Kant was wrong, because if just ends are to be achieved and no "just" means are effective, then "unjust" means must be applied. This is a battle of wills between moralist and profiteering interests, and something has to break sooner or later.

So, condemnation of government actions and condemnation of activist actions are moot points, since terrorism and harassment is being engaged in by both sides. However, the most valid point that I've seen in these articles is making sure the government stops targeting the innocent. They are the civilians in this conflict, and by hostage-taking to intimidate the violent protesters they are causing "civilian casualties" intentionally. No matter what manner is used to harm civilians, civilian casualties are always unacceptable.



So, to be a bit more succinct, I think Joe is not being hypocritical, but is probably significantly misguided in condemning vegan potlucks. Perhaps he should think of it like trying to convert people? haha.

When it comes to the animals, all men are Nazi.

Will, I don't see any fur store owners, researchers or fur farm owners threathening, commiting arson or planting bombs (fake or not) at "activist" homes. Maybe they should start, then they (activist) will know what it is like to be terrorized.

Joe:

Drew made a comment about potlucks, POTLUCKS, and you responded that him "forcing his lifestyle" is why animal rights activists are being labeled terrorists.

Now, you're saying that activists should be the targets of threats, bombs and arsons.

A little hypocritical, don't you think?

Drew, did you ever wonder the reason some a labled terrorist is because you want everyone to eat and live like you? I don't want to be a vegan and won't have it forced upon me, why can't you repect that?

So Sig Heil to all trying to force others into their lifestyle.

@Joe:

I think you just made my point better than I ever could.

You're absolutely right, people are being labeled terrorists because of their beliefs and how they want to live, and how they want others to live.

Let's not forget why the feds and the multinationals are attacking activists. It's because we are effective. And we are winning. In the past 20 years we've seen huge advances towards animal liberation.

And hey commenters! Quit bashing the vegan potlucks! There's a reason why the FBI is trying to infiltrate them. Potlucks are an effective tool for building a strong movement. We need a diverse movement, one that includes protests, civil disobedience, direct action, legislative change, and potlucks!

That said, I'm working on community organizing and building up alternative institutions that celebrate vegan culture.

First off, it is crazy to label non-violent civil disobedience as terrorism. Everyone should understand this and if any of these cases ever make it to the Supreme Court one would expect that such legal labels of "eco-terrorists" for environmental activists would be rejected.

That being said, I question the tactic of mass civil disobedience to end climate change. I question it not because I am opposed to mass civil disobedience. My problem stems from the fact that we, as activists, too often forget that getting arrested is NOT the goal, but making change is. People did not march from Selma in 1965 with the intent of getting arrested. They got arrested and beaten, but their goal was to deliver a message to their state government - the arrests and beatings they did not want nor did they provoke them.

The power of non-violent, civil disobedience is that the reasonable person may be treated unreasonably by their neighbors, the police, their bosses, or the political establishment just for petitioning for change or equality or justice. The goal should be to juxtapose images of reasonable people, doing nothing wrong, being harmed by unreasonable authority or narrow minded individuals.

When one can accomplish this, non-violent, civil disobedience is a force that can bring all societies to their knees.

I understand perfectly that there has been an escalation needed since the 1950s and 1960s. State authority has adapted well, in America, to handling non-violent protestors. Rarely do you see footage, anymore, of a person standing on a street corner carrying a picket sign and moments later that person is beaten by police. When it does happen the shock from the community continues to be strong and the condemnation of state power and police abuse is heard.

The problem with modern non-violent, civil disobedience, is that because it is more and more difficult to provoke an unreasonable response from authority figures, protestors begin with escalated tactics. They block streets or climb buildings. They chain themselves to doors or smear paint. And while these tactics are successful at producing a state response, the images of the protest become less and less those of a reasonable person bering harshly treated by unreasonable police and more like over zealous protestors being manhandled by over zealous police.

And all too often we are getting arrested for breaking the wrong laws. We are arrested for trespass or resisting arrest or failure to obey a police order or destruction of property. In the 1950s African American's were arrested for being black because they sat at the white lunch counter or refused to give up their seats on a bus. They were able to break the laws they wanted changed. Today we rarely break the laws we want changed. And all too often we use a building, bridge, or event as a back drop to protest a completely unrelated problem. There was a Greenpeace protest in the early 1990s in Chicago that I was a part of where we hung a banner on the Sears Tower which read "END THE 50 YEAR NIGHTMARE: NUCLEAR-FREE FUTURE NOW." As far as I know, the Sear Tower was selected for this banner hang not because it was heavily involved in the nuclear industry, perhaps some tenants in the building were, but mostly because it was the tallest building we could find.

What was the logic there? Big building + daring climb = media attention. Did it get attention? Yes. However, a deeper analysis of the action shows that the people arrested for climbing that building were arrested to gain media attention for a billboard. That is a long way from getting arrested because you used your body to shield a baby seal from being clubbed to death and in so doing you violated the "Seal Protection Act." Any person standing next to a baby seal about to be clubbed to death would feel an urgency to act or a pang of guilt for lack of action. The fact that another person did act to save the life of that animal would seem reasonable and the state response of arresting and perhaps beating that protestor would seem very unreasonable.

On the other hand the act of climbing the Sears Tower does not contain the same urgency of action. The Sears Tower was not a part of the nuclear industry nor was a nuclear danger present at the Sears Tower on the day we choose to climb it. While no one can deny the danger posed by nuclear waste the action, being so far removed from its object of protest, seems very disconnected and unreasonable. Further, the streets that morning in Chicago around the Sears Tower were blocked off, fire and police were dispatched, and the people who climbed the building risked their lives for what amounted to little more than a Greenpeace advertising campaign for their anti-nuclear program. Greenpeace could have bought a billboard at any location to display their message, and it may have been cheaper, and certainly caused individuals less personal risk.

So then, what with DC this weekend? It is wonderful that people want to gather in DC and press the government to take more drastic actions to combat climate change. But as far as civil disobedience I am lukewarm on the idea. Perhaps organizers will design civil disobedience with more intent then merely gaining media coverage for their rally on climate change. I know many people who are going to DC and a few who are planning actions and I know that they are intelligent, gentle people who are well versed in the power and purpose of non-violent civil disobedience. So I am hopeful that this protest will be different, more focussed, breaking laws that will really impact on climate change rather then merely breaking laws to get more news coverage.

I have more or less left the protesting/ street arena in pursuit of a different tactic. I decided to go back to grad school this year for animal behavior/ ecology. I hate that anything in favor of the environment or animal protection gets labeled by agribusiness "experts" as purely emotional, so my goal is to continually provide new ammunition and more "credibility" to the cause.
I look at things like The Great Ape Project and it's success in Spain and become inspired.

I am building a site to rival peta2.com because I think the kids deserve more credit. Frankly I am tired of the same cookie cutter marketing approach of objectifying womyn, celebrities, or artists. I think when young folks are challenged a little more than, "joey-joe from super-pop-punk-warped-band.com has dreamy eyes and look he's eating a vegan hot dog! OMG!" then they will move a little further. Call me a hopeless optimist but I believe in the bright spots in people, and I belive we can all do so much.

Oh, and I stay optimistic even after doing a stint in the bing for the movement.

Thank you Mr. Potter for all the good work you do, and thank you to all the readers who let their hearts lead their actions.

be smart & keep your heads up

@fo realz:

"Call me a hopeless optimist but I believe in the bright spots in people, and I belive we can all do so much."

Despite all of this, I've found myself becoming an optimist as well. Thanks for note.

If I ever go down and someone throws a vegan potluck or prom benefit for me and does not continue demos as normal, I would have some choice words for the organizer once I was released. I'm of the belief that the best way to honor our prisoners is by continuing the battle.

What I'm *doing* is regular peaceful demos against HLS and the fur industry, which is apparently terrorism now and could, laughably, get me thrown away and tortured in some secret prison.

My god, sometimes I even wear a bandanna when it's cold out! Double my terrorist points!!

What needs to happen is for people to BE UNAFRAID to come out and join those who are standing up to {insert murdering, raping corporate scum company here} - there really *IS* strength in numbers, so skip the god damn vegan potluck and get out there with a sign, a loud voice, and a bullhorn*


*bullhorn as permitted by local law

Here's one:

Folks in Seattle are hosting a "vegan prom" benefit for the AETA4
http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=52563417414