Before you don your mink coat next Thanksgiving and head out in your Hummer for pâté de foie gras appetizers and a turkey dinner, think twice. Terrorism has become a serious threat that has changed life on this planet. As extreme acts become more commonplace, environmental terrorism has blended into the daily bombardment of dismaying information. Extremists, or “eco-terrorists”, have besmirched the reputation of the environmental movement and the line between activism and terrorism has occasionally become blurred. Ironically, the roots of environmental terrorism are embedded in the basic values of democracy; one of the core American values is the freedom to protest against the failures of legal machinery, in this case, the protection of natural systems. One leader of the terrorist faction puts it bluntly: “There's nothing wrong with being a terrorist, as long as you win. Then you write the history.” One wonders, however, if the headline-grabbing jaunts of animal rights groups, SUV-haters, and those opposed to the use of wood for anything other than shade will ever again have anything other than a distasteful impact on a benumbed American population. One government report stated that since 1997, environmental terrorist groups inflicted more than $100 million in property damages in cities across the US. These groups have a different take on the issues, and serious advocates for environmental action cite industry polluters as the actual terrorists. Greenpeace, the largest environmental rights organization in the world, with over 5 million members in some 20 countries, is adamantly non-violent, but has nevertheless been disruptive and civilly disobedient – from forcibly boarding a shipload of Brazilian lumber to nuclear reactor trespass. Furthermore, they and other tax-exempt organizations have been accused of the unlawful transfer of millions in tax-exempt funds to non-exempt, more radical organizations. One of the founders of Greenpeace, Paul Watson is considered by many to be the originator of environmental terrorism, which he termed “passionate activisim”. Recently, things have become even more dicey. Some organizations seem to have crossed the line from legitimate, thoughtful, and forceful debate to unlawful acts of “eco-tage” to publicize their agendas. Vandalized cars were once the result of random rage among youthful gangs, but SUVs are now the particular targets of those who apparently have given up on a constructive exchange of views; lumberyard, housing, and shopping center development arson has become frequent. Vandalism of logging equipment and “spiked” harvested logs and other mayhem are the weapons of choice. Animal rights activists have been particularly blatant. Their acts have ranged from freeing thousands of mink (that ironically often died of dehydration in an unprotected environment), spiking frozen turkeys with arsenic, contaminating sheep feed, and destroying research laboratories. One well-known activist was quoted last year: “Those people – I think they should appreciate that we're only targeting their property. Because frankly, I think it's time to start targeting them.” In England, a group of mothers and wives of judges who had enjoined the activists from harassing companies linked to biomedical research were the subjects of internet warnings: “They are not immortal. They don't live in fireproof homes.” Employees and even those with remote interests in an animal research company, Huntington Life Sciences, have been subjected to threats. Sometimes the protests try to resort to humor. A group protesting treatment of dairy animals tried to post billboards in Louisiana last year, depicting former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke with a milk mustache. The ad said: “Got (Lactose) Intolerance? The White Stuff Ain't the Right Stuff. MilkSucks.com.” The legal response to acts of terrorism has been largely reactive. International law has long outlawed scorched earth “environmental modification”, a technique as old as warfare. Last year, Representative Chris Chocola of Indiana introduced the Stop Terrorism of Property (STOP) Act of 2003 to punish those who intentionally damage “the property of another with the intent to influence the public with regard to conduct the offender considers harmful to the environment”. This Bill has the support of groups such as the SUV Owners Association. The Animal and Ecological Terrorism Act is another bill before Congress. Don't look for anything soon on either of these initiatives. Prosecutions are certainly on the rise, but the random and clandestine nature of the organizations makes apprehension and proof difficult. Some have suggested that “terrorism impact statements” should be added to “environmental impact statements” as a requirement for large developments, especially those where natural systems might be compromised. Until then, for my part, I've decided to make certain that my garden earthworms get full due process. Douglass F Rohrman
Read full abstract
Jan 19, 2024
Selamu Wolde Sebicho + 2
Open Access
