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.

Hugh Farrell and Gina “Tiga” Wertz have their first court date on July 14th: they’ve been charged with racketeering-–charges originally intended to target the mob–-for allegedly “conspiring” to engage in tree sits, participate in non-violent civil disobedience, and make an inflammatory blog post against the I-69 NAFTA superhighway.

When I reported on their arrest, though, I didn’t catch an interesting bit of information buried in the government’s motion for $20,000 cash bond. Mind you, these activists are not accused of any property destruction or violence, they’re accused of “conspiracy.” So how did the government attempt to justify the high cash bond?

According to Farrell’s motion for bond:

“The defendant has been observed advocating literature and materials which advocate anarchy, property destruction and violence, including ‘Ecodefense: A Field Guide to Monkeywrenching’ or ‘Recipes for Disaster: An Anarchist Cookbook.’”

In many ways, this is nothing new: the demonization of anarchists has existed as long as the term itself. But this is dangerous territory for a few reasons:

• It reflects more wasted resources on surveillance of First Amendment activity. Why was Farrell being “observed” by the law enforcement while allegedly “advocating literature” in the first place?
• It is intended to punish people for their political beliefs. Even if it is true that Farrell was observed advocating literature and that the literature advocated “anarchy,” how does this to relate to whether or not he’ll show up for his court date (which is what bail is all about)?
• Criminalizing books has no place in a democracy. Make no mistake, that’s what this is about: criminalizing dissent. The government isn’t burning the books, and it isn’t saying it is illegal to own them, but prosecutors are saying that if you *do* own them or “advocate” them it reflects negatively on your character.

  In that case, I’m guilty as well (and I’m sure I’m in good company with many of you). I own both of these books, and they are both available in countless bookstores and on Amazon.com. “Ecodefense” was a pivotal book in the history of the environmental movement, and includes an introduction by Ed Abbey. “Recipes for Disaster,” published by CrimethInc., isn’t the “anarchist cookbook,” you might expect: It has sections on coalition building and mental health.

As with so many of the cases I write about on this site, this isn’t about threats to public safety, it isn’t about property destruction, it’s about demonizing people because of their political beliefs. Well, in this case, it’s not even about that: It’s about demonizing people because of their books.

[The fact that prosecutors see these books as a threat is all the more reason to get yourself a copy or two. If you order them, please do so through the GreenIsTheNewRed.com Amazon account, below, and support this site at the same time! ]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You remember that terrorist attack in Mumbai? With hundreds of people dead and India and Pakistan–nuclear powers–facing off? Well, you know what that’s like?

Gay people who want to get married!

From Pat Boone’s column in WorldNetDaily:

What troubles me so deeply, and should trouble all thinking Americans, is that there is a real, unbroken line between the jihadist savagery in Mumbai and the hedonistic, irresponsible, blindly selfish goals and tactics of our homegrown sexual jihadists.

[Um, okay Pat. I hate to do this, but shall we all reminisce about your leather vest and chaps worn while promoting your album? Lookin' a little "sexual jihadist" there, dontcha think? For those that don't know, you've got to view these images in the context of bear culture.]

It’s amazing how fluid all of this terrorism rhetoric is, and how blurry the lines between “eco-terrorism” and “gay terrorism” and “corporate terrorism” and all the other types of scare-mongering have become. Right-wing nuts like Pat Boone, following the lead in the Green Scare, have seen an opportunity to label anyone and everyone they oppose as terrorists. (And they’re pretty eager to label everyone “gay” as well. You might recall that folks like this also said tofu makes you gay and Charlotte’s Web is animal rights extremism.)

Here’s the deal, though, Pat: If you’re really worried about homegrown and homo-grown terrorism, it’s not the mainstream folks in California and around the country who want to get married and adopt children that you should worry about. It’s these folks (and I mean that, of course, as a compliment to “Bash Back”):

Santa Cruz bombing at the home of a university scientist who tests on animals. Associated Press.

First, it should be noted that no animal rights group like the Animal Liberation Front has claimed responsibility. Yet the FBI has recklessly labeled this “eco-terrorism,” just like the recent Seattle arson, before the smoke had even cleared. We’ve seen plenty of instances when the government later says “oops, it wasn’t ‘eco-terrorism’ after all.” And we’ve seen other instances, like the attempted murder of Judi Bari, when the FBI framed activists. In short: reporters, activists, and the general public need to slow down, step back, and stop blindly trusting the “official” story provided by the FBI.

In this “with us or against us” War on Terrorism, though, facts don’t really matter. All that matters, in the eyes of the government and corporations, is whether you are in the “with us” camp or the “against us” camp.

In hopes of avoiding the latter, the Humane Society of the United States has offered $2,500 to the “eco-terrorism” witch hunt in California.

It’s strategic for HSUS to try to stay far, far away from this mess, since the organization is pushing a historic ballot initiative for farmed animals in the state. But corporations and industry groups have already responded to the PR gesture, loud and clear: all the donations, press releases and sound bites in the world won’t protect you.

From the Center for Consumer Freedom:

“Nobody should be fooled by HSUS’s paltry gesture. While pretending to be part of the solution, the group continues to be a significant part of the problem—an over-zealous social movement bent on extending legal rights to animals, whether or not thinking people like the consequences. The entire community of Santa Cruz is learning this week what can happen when human beings resist the sort of evolution the animal rights community has planned for them. And it’s not pretty.”

We’ve already seen how the New McCarthyists are exploiting crimes like this to push a broader political agenda. They’re saying if you oppose bombings, you must support legislation like the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act and a new California “eco-terrorism” law. They’re saying if you oppose bombings, you must support home raids. They’re saying if you oppose bombings, you must support hauling activists before grand juries.

Their goal here is not to solve this crime, or stop underground groups. Why? Because the true threat here is not the tactic, the true threat is the belief system. This is a culture war. Don’t just take my word for it. Feedstuffs, an “agribusiness” publication, said the HSUS ballot initiative in California represented the threat of a “vegetarian nation.” Fight them with everything you have, it warned: The “dam must not be breached.”

In many ways, Feedstuffs and CCF are absolutely right. This is a turning point in history. Not just for the animal rights movement, but for a country showing frightening parallels to the worst eras of government repression. The question, then, is this: Should we all, like HSUS, try to buy ourselves a little time? Or should we step up and fight the New McCarthyists head on?

[And to continue the heated discussion on a previous post... Where do you draw the line in terms of activist groups proclaiming their disapproval of other activists? With awards for arresting activists? With counter-protests? With press releases? When (if ever) is it appropriate and effective?]

What do you think?

On May 21st in Austria, the government carried out an unprecedented round-up of the country’s most prominent, above-ground, lawful animal advocates. Some of them have been on hunger strike in protest. The Guardian reports that “shelter workers, animal welfare teachers and public campaign organizers” are held “under suspicion of membership in ‘a criminal organisation.’”

Well, a judge in Austria recently ruled to keep them behind bars because they pose a “security risk.” An example of this security risk cited by the court is that Martin Balluch (who writes about his hunger strike here), was asked if he would remain chairman of the Association Against Animal Factories if he were released, and he said yes.

In Austria, as in the United States, this has all been done in the name of fighting “terrorism” and disrupting “terrorist organizations” like the Animal Liberation Front and Earth Liberation Front. But just like in Sara Whitehead’s case, the Austrian roundup has only added fuel to the fire of underground activists.

Bite Back Magazine reports this translation of an anonymous communiqué from Germany: “But we released at least 2000 mink! We gave them a chance to escape. A chance is better because in a few months they will be killed by the farmer. These animals deserve freedom! This action is dedicated to the imprisoned Austrian animal activists!”

So this “War on Terror” ain’t workin’. But I argue that it isn’t MEANT to work. It’s not meant to stop illegal activity, because in many ways, illegal activity isn’t the true threat. The true threat is that the beliefs of these individuals–that animals and the environment deserve the same consideration as human interests–are gaining massive ground. Austria is one of the most progressive countries in the world in terms of protecting animals. And many of the activists that were rounded up were working on a constitutional amendment on animal welfare.

Martin Balluch, who has a double PhD in physics and philosophy and is a former colleague of Stephen Hawking, said it quite well in this ominous interview prior to his arrest:

“The moment the politicians can portray you as terrorists and are believed, they have won this battle, no matter what.”

There’s an article floating around by Alex Epstein of the Ayn Rand Institute (Ugh, I know, but stay with me here) that reveals a lot about the goals of the New McCarthyists in this Green Scare:

Animal rights terrorists are often cast as “extremists” who take “too far” the allegedly benevolent cause of animal rights. But… the terrorists’ inhuman tactics are an embodiment of the movement’s inhuman cause.

…While these terrorists should be condemned and imprisoned, that is not enough. We must wage a principled, intellectual war against the very notion of animal rights; we must condemn it as logically false and morally repugnant.

People ask me all the time why corporations and politicians spend scarce anti-terrorism resources going after animal rights and environmental activists that have never killed anyone. After reading about all the legislation, court cases and general harassment, they often say something like, “Ok, so some property crimes have taken place by some activists, but I don’t understand such a disproportionate response against all activists.”

My response is generally that corporations see their profits at stake, and politicians, in turn, need to protect the profits of the corporations that support them. But it goes much deeper than that, I’m realizing. I still can’t completely put my finger on it, but these New McCarthyists feel that more than money is at stake here.

They see it as a new culture war, in a way. To people like Epstein, it’s not just about profits. It’s about a way of life. The War on Terrorism is merely a tactic to fight an ideological war against those who challenge the notion that humans have the right to subjugate the environment or animals to their own selfish interests. Environmental activists and animal rights activists are not merely seen as “pro-environment” or “pro-animal,” they’re seen as “anti-human.” They’re seen as a threat to the sanctity of human life.

To some, the activists are a threat to the deeply-held religious belief that humans were created by God to hold dominion over all other species, and use them for whatever purposes they choose. It’s hard to do that when pesky activists are willing to put their freedom on the line to challenge that dominion.

If we begin to look at this Green Scare as exactly that– a moral war influenced by religion– it takes on even stronger parallels to the Red Scare. I visited the new National Portrait Gallery this weekend (highly recommended if you haven’t gone) and a few quotations on the walls of the presidential gallery caught my attention. I tracked down one of them (or a variation, perhaps).

Replace “communism” with “environmentalism” or “animal rights activists” and tell me if I’m just imagining things:

Our religious faith gives us the answer to the false beliefs of Communism… I have the feeling that God has created us and brought us to our present position of power and strength for some great purpose.

President Harry Truman, Public Papers of the President of the United States: Harry S. Truman – 1951 U.S. Gov. 1966 pp548-549