Green Scare's Notes
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?
Related posts:
The National Lawyers Guild has a new report on state-level versions of the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act that have been popping up around the country. As I’ve reported here previously, on laws such as the California Animal Enterprise Protection Act, they use sweeping, overly broad definitions of terrorism that are, in some cases, even worse than the federal law. (Here’s one of my all-time favorite blog posts in which a Tennessee lawmaker describes how similar legislation is needed to combat “left-wing eco-greenies.”
Take a look at the full report, and the influence of a corporate front group called the American Legislative Exchange Council: “Beyond the AETA: How Corporate-Crafted Legislation Brands Activists as Terrorists.”
As NLG Executive Director Heidi Boghosian said:
“Although many states considered and outright rejected the ALEC bill soon after its release, there are still signs that parts of the legislation are being incorporated in some states’ laws that equate animal rights activists with domestic terrorism.”
The National Lawyers Guild continues to be out front on these issues, with its publication of a know your rights booklet for activists, and it’s Green Scare hotline, 1-888-NLG-ECOL. And NLG lawyers around the country have been working hard on behalf of animal rights and environmental activists labeled “terrorists.” If you’re a lawyer, please join the Guild. And if you’re not a lawyer, write a check, volunteer, or just drop them a note of support.
Related posts:
As a follow up to David Pellow’s guest post, “My Student is a Sociologist, Not a Terrorist,” here is an update from his grad student facing terrorism charges, Scott DeMuth.
DeMuth has been indicted for conspiracy to commit “animal enterprise terrorism” in relation to the unsolved Animal Liberation Front raid at the University of Iowa. The government has argued that DeMuth is an anarchist, and “therefore, he is a domestic terrorist.”
This is an excerpt from a public statement by DeMuth:
…I believe I was targeted by this grand jury because of my involvement in doing prisoner support as a part of EWOK! (Earth Warriors are OK!). Further, as a part of my academic career, I have been involved in researching the animal rights and environmental movements and interviewing participants of those movements. The identity and contents of interviews are protected by confidentiality agreements, and I have an obligation to this confidentiality as outlined by the Institutional Review Board and American Sociological Association guidelines.
Because of the grand jury’s use in investigating social movements, I refused to cooperate and testify in the proceedings. Additionally, because grand jury proceedings are held in secret, there is no real way to verify if I had only given my name or if I had given away the identity and contents of each interview I have done. Therefore, if for no other reason, I believed that my participation would violate the trust and confidentiality of those who I have interviewed. I went to Davenport on November 17th, knowing that I could be jailed for contempt of court, and I was willing to deal with whatever legal consequences came with that decision.
As expected, I was jailed for contempt of court. However, two days later, I was unexpectedly charged with “conspiracy with unknown persons” under the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA). As evidenced by the vagueness of the charge and its filing a day before the statute of limitations expired, I believe that this charge is being used punitively against me because of my non-cooperation with the grand jury. Additionally, it seems that this charge is a last-ditch effort by the prosecution eager to get a conviction in a failed investigation…
Under the AETA (and its predecessor the AEPA), the ever-expanding definition of terrorism has included everything from the ALF to PETA, even going as far as charging people who chalk on sidewalks as “terrorists.” Regardless of the many laws that exist to charge illegal activities, laws such as the AETA are written specifically to charge political ideologies and those who support them.
But this expanding definition of terrorism does not just affect animal rights activists, to which my case should attest. The government makes broad and dangerous generalizations across the board, conflating ideologies from all sides of the political spectrum with terrorism (e.g. anti-abortion activists, gun-rights advocates, environmentalists, and anarchists). Not only does the government target political activity, but it also uses the guise of the “war on terror” to target entire communities based on religion, ethnicity, national origin, and immigrant status. We must ask ourselves, “Who will be next?”
It is not just animal rights activists and anarchists who have a stake in this case, in the abolition of the AETA, and in the overall “terrorizing” of political dissent, but everyone who lives within America, everyone who values our inalienable rights and liberties, and everyone who seeks a better way of living than the one we have been given.
Related posts:
The following is a guest essay written by David Naguib Pellow, a Professor of Sociology at the University of Minnesota and faculty advisor of Scott DeMuth:
On November 17, 2009, Scott DeMuth was jailed for contempt of court, since he refused to answer questions posed to him by a federal grand jury in Davenport, Iowa. They were interested in questioning him about his knowledge of an unsolved Animal Liberation Front action in 2004 at the University of Iowa. Scott is a University of Minnesota graduate student and Dakota language student. Scott took a principled stand against the grand jury and paid for it with a contempt charge and, two days later, a charge of conspiracy to commit “animal enterprise terrorism.”
As a sociologist and Scott’s faculty advisor at the University of Minnesota, I am concerned about this case for many reasons. Scott is being targeted because he is a scholar who does research on some of the most important social movement struggles in our society and because of his affiliations with many such activists. In his work, he has researched and/or interviewed numerous activists from Native American struggles for sovereignty and land, and environmental and animal liberation movements in the U.S. Unfortunately, Scott is only the most recent scholar facing state repression whose research focuses on peoples’ movements. The U.S. boasts a long and shameful history of silencing and disciplining academics whose research and teaching emphasize the importance of collective efforts to effect radical social change. In recent years, professors studying various peoples’ movements (including the ones Scott focuses on) have been censored, demoted, fired, and jailed here in the U.S. This is an issue of academic freedom and I believe we should support scholars like Scott because of the importance of this kind of work for rethinking our history and for reimagining what kind of futures we can create for ourselves.
My own research on movements for racial justice, labor rights, environmental justice, and animal and earth liberation suggests quite clearly that the state and corporations spare no expense and rarely hesitate to engage in surveillance, infiltration, and other efforts to neutralize the power and reach of these groups. As a publicly outspoken scholar and activist, Scott DeMuth is at the center of these dynamics and is quickly becoming a force for common ground among people across various movements, organizations, and universities who believe that government power should always be checked and that scholars, citizens, activists, and ordinary folks must enjoy basic rights and freedom from coercion and repression. Support Scott, protect academic freedom, and let’s work to abolish the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act!
Sign a petition supporting Scott Demuth and academic freedom.
David Naguib Pellow is a Professor of Sociology at the University of Minnesota where he teaches courses on social movements, environmental justice, globalization, immigration, and race and ethnicity. His books include: The Treadmill of Production: Injustice and Unsustainability in the Global Economy, Resisting Global Toxics: Transnational Movements for Environmental Justice, and Garbage Wars.
Related posts:
Sarah Kramer makes “domestic” terrorism look good.
Check out some of her fantastic vegan cookbooks below, including Vegan a Go-Go and the classic How It All Vegan. If you buy them through these Amazon links, a portion will be donated to GreenIsTheNewRed.com.
And holidays are coming up, folks, so show the domestic terrorists in your life you love them. You can order an apron at GreenIsTheNewRed.com/shop. Every penny goes back into website costs, flier distribution and other projects related to exposing the Green Scare and campaigns to label animal rights and environmental activists as eco-terrorists and domestic terrorists.
Thanks very much to Sarah for having the same twisted sense of humor that we do.
Related posts:
The government filed an emergency motion to keep an animal rights activist in jail because he is an “anarchist” and “domestic terrorist” who associates with a “subversive,” but in a response issued Monday, an Iowa district court didn’t buy it. Scott Demuth will be released pending his trial.
Demuth has been indicted under the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act for alleged “conspiracy” as part of the 2005 Animal Liberation Front raid at the University of Iowa that rescued more than 300 animals.
He and another Minneapolis activist, Carrie Feldman, had been targeted by a grand jury focused on the ALF raid. Both Demuth and Feldman refused to testify on the grounds that the grand jury was a political witch hunt pressuring activists to speak, without an attorney present, about their political beliefs and political associations.
When Demuth was indicted, Judge Thomas Shields ruled that he could be released pending trial as long as he wore a GPS monitoring device and adhered to other criteria. Assistant U.S. Attorney Clifford Cronk filed an emergency motion to keep Demuth behind bars, arguing:
Defendant’s writings, literature, and conduct suggest that he is an anarchist and associated with the ALF movement. Therefore, he is a domestic terrorist.
Yes, you read that correctly. The government is arguing that First Amendment activity–writings, literature–and political beliefs are enough to make someone a terrorist.
Among the other reasons given to keep Demuth, a graduate student in the sociology department at the University of Minnesota, behind bars:
- He has political friends. According to the motion, he is an “associate” of Peter Young, “an outspoken and subversive animal rights activist who has been prosecuted for ALF activities and, after being indicted for animal enterprise terrorism, was a fugitive from justice for several years.”
- He protests. Demuth “participated in an anti-government demonstration in front of the courthouse” prior to the grand jury hearing.
- He has a network of support. There were individuals in the courtroom who supported him, Cronk argued, and many people had called into the U.S. attorney’s office opposing the grand jury “based upon their belief that the use of the grand jury was abusive and unconstitutional.”
This is not an isolated incident. It is becoming increasingly common to see this kind of inflammatory, unfounded rhetoric coming from prosecutors who hope to smear activists as terrorists before they even stand trial.
For instance, in Hugh Farrell’s motion for bond, the government said he “has been observed advocating literature and materials which advocate anarchy.”
Stephanie Ernest summed up the threat of this pretty well in her comments over at change.org:
Wow. WOW. He’s suspected of being involved in a raid that involved vandalism and rescue, and he’s an anarchist, so “therefore, he is a domestic terrorist.” Forget the trial, folks! Verdict is in! How many people would be “domestic terrorists” if these were the criteria?
Related posts:
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals has been classified as as a “terrorist threat” in a document created by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
The USDA created a new “APHIS Facility Security Profile” form to send to animal experimentation facilities. Recipients were asked to answer about their experiences, and return the form to the government so the USDA can better meet their needs.
In one section of the form, on p4, item #2 B and C, PETA is listed as a “domestic special interest terrorist”:
B. Terrorist Threat. What terrorist activities have occurred in or around your building/facility in the past 5 years (documented cases)? Please check all that apply.
[ ] Attack from international terrorists
[ ] Attack from domestic special interest terrorists
-[ ] Earth Liberation Front (ELF)
-[ ] Animal Liberation Front (ALF)
-[ ] People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA)
-[ ] Animal Defense League (ADL)
-[ ] Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC)
-[ ] Formal hate group(s) (please specify):
-[ ] Other (please specify): ____________________
[ ] Cyber Attack from a known or unknown source.
I have written extensively on this site about how the ELF and ALF have become the number one domestic terrorism threat, even though they have targeted property and not people. And Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty activists were convicted on “terrorism” charges for running a website that vocally supported the actions of those groups. The listing of PETA and the Animal Defense League is something else entirely.
PETA is perhaps the most recognized organization in the animal rights movement. They are known for their undercover investigations, and their use of celebrities and outlandish media stunts to draw attention to factory farming, fur, circuses and animal experimentation.
Regardless of how you feel about PETA and their tactics, they are a lawful, above-ground, national non-profit.
So why in another section of the USDA form, are they listed as a possible answer under “Greatest Threat or Danger. What do you consider the greatest source of danger to your organization and/or fellow workers?”
Because they expose what goes on behind closed doors.
Justin Goodman, research associate supervisor for PETA, had a fantastic oped in The Sacramento Bee about the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act and the misuses of the “terrorism” label against non-violent activists. In California, four activists are facing terrorism charges for protesting at individuals homes and allegedly creating fliers with names and addresses on them.
From Goodman’s oped:
This should give all Americans pause. People who engage in nonviolent protests and civil disobedience are sitting in jail cells, stigmatized by one of the most politically charged and discrediting labels of our time, while people who wake up every morning and go to jobs in which they torment and kill animals in laboratories continue to enjoy their freedom, paychecks, social lives and families.
Animal industries are quite open about their desire to use terrorism laws to keep their practices out of the public spotlight. I recently posted about the Animal Agriculture Alliance calling for federal prosecution of undercover investigators. It’s not because the investigators are violent. It is because they pose an even greater threat: educating the public.
As Goodman wrote: “To shield them from public opinion and discussion and to protect them from peaceful and heretofore lawful pickets by locking up those who dare to challenge the suffering that occurs inside laboratories is an attack on every American’s right of protest.”
Related posts:
Justin Solondz, an environmental activist who was wanted by the FBI for “eco-terrorism” charges tied to the Earth Liberation Front, has been sentenced to 3 years in a Chinese prison for manufacturing drugs. Back in June I reported on his arrest via Twitter, and now much more details have emerged about his life overseas and his sentencing.
The story of Mr. Solondz’s life on the lam spanned three continents, involved at least two aliases and ended in a smoky bar in one of the world’s most authoritarian countries…
According to his father, Paul Solondz, the Dali police said they discovered 33 pounds of marijuana buried in the courtyard of the house that the younger Mr. Solondz rented, as well as what the prosecutor described as a drug laboratory inside the house.
Friends of Mr. Solondz in Dali said he went by the name Isaac Cox and was a familiar figure who favored black clothing, had a dog and rode a bicycle through the stone streets of Dali’s old section. (His mother, however, said court documents said he used the name David Isaac Hart.)
“He looked like a man on the run,” said a man who knew Mr. Solondz and did not give his name for fear of retribution from authorities and fellow foreigners. “Everyone who comes to this town is running away from something, some more than others.”
After serving his prison time in China, Solondz will be extradited to the United States where faces charges for his alleged involvement in the ELF arson of a horticulture center at the University of Washington in 2001.
As his father told the Times:
“Compared to those horrible people who want to kill as many people as possible in the name of religion, the avowed mission of this organization is to not harm any people or animals,” he said. “This should not even be called terrorism.”
Related posts:
Scott DeMuth, a Minneapolis activist, has been indicted for conspiracy to violate the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, apparently in relation to a 2004 Animal Liberation Front raid at the University of Iowa. He faces up to 5 years in prison. His indictment marks a continued expansion of the scope of the new terrorism law, which has already been used to target activists who release mink from fur farms, and the AETA4, who are accused of protesting and chalking on public sidewalks.
The indictment comes after DeMuth and another local activist, Carrie Feldman, were found to be in contempt of court refusing to cooperate with a federal grand jury investigated that ALF burglary and vandalism. They were handcuffed and taken to jail for refusing to testify about their political beliefs and political associations.
I have written previously about Feldman’s refusal, and her statement to the grand jury (Activist to Iowa Grand Jury: “We will not be intimidated. We will not cooperate.”).
In a statement prepared prior to the grand jury hearing, DeMuth said:
“Grand juries can be very disempowering for us all, and especially for those targeted by them. We face questioning without legal counsel present or a right to remain silent. We can be threatened, coerced, and jailed. However, no punishment could be worse than surrendering our values. “
There has been some speculation about what, exactly, DeMuth’s conspiracy charges entail. Is the indictment for conspiracy to damage property? Or is it for conspiracy to instill a “reasonable fear”?
The truth: neither.
Bear with me for a moment. The indictment lists sections 43(a) and 43(b)(2) of the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, and says the conspiracy was to commit economic damage in the amount exceeding $10,000. Section 43(a) is simply the offense section. Section 43(b)(2) spells out penalties for damages exceeding $10,000. The indictment does not specify whether the charges are for violating
43(a)(2)(A) (damaging property) or 43(a)(2)(B) (instilling fear). Does that make sense? I know it’s a little tedious, but I think it’s important to clear up. (I just spoke with Matthew Strugar, who was quoted on Peter Young’s blog, and he agreed.)
Local press has been speculating. But regardless of what, specifically, DeMuth is charged with conspiring to do, one thing is clear: conspiracy charges have been used throughout U.S. history as a catch-all when prosecutors can’t get anything else to stick. That’s exactly what happened in the case of the SHAC 7, under the previous version of the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act.
I have personally met both Scott DeMuth and Carrie Feldman, on multiple occasions. They were involved in organizing a Green Scare speaking event in Minneapolis. They are both incredibly kind, passionate, activists who are involved in a variety of local issues, including organizing public lectures and supporting the RNC 8. They are lawful, above-ground activists who have organized against the Green Scare. Now they, themselves, have become targets, and they need your support.
You can write letters to Carrie Feldman and Scott DeMuth, and email them to: davenportgrandjury@wordpre
Related posts:
After being repeatedly exposed for serious, systemic animal cruelty, and now facing a media nightmare, animal agriculture corporations are firing back by calling for the prosecution of undercover activists who expose the abuses.
The Animal Agriculture Alliance says:
As these videos achieve the publicity sought by the groups, the Alliance is concerned that the activist employees providing the tapes are not held accountable for their failure to follow company animal care policies and their failure to immediately report mistreatment to the farm owners or managers.
There have been a slew of investigations in the last several years that have gained international attention. Two recent examples include the Mercy For Animals investigation of an egg hatchery and the Peta investigation of cows at Land O’ Lakes supplier facility.
Rather than stepping up and addressing these abuses, the industry is now arguing that it is the activists who should be punished for bringing them to light.
When I testified before Congress about the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, one of the concerns I raised is that the vague and overly broad law could be used to target whistleblowers and undercover investigators as “terrorists” for causing a loss of profits.
Those concerns were dismissed, just as lawmakers dismissed my concerns that the law would be used to target First Amendment activity (concerns that have unfortunately been proven true with the case of the AETA 4).
These investigations pose a serious, continued threat to the animal agriculture industry. The writing is on the wall, and they know it. They need to do everything in their power to make sure that people are not exposed to the realities of factory farms, even if that means utterly absurd campaigns like this one to arrest the activists who expose abuses.
Make no mistake: if these investigations continue, and they will, these corporations will escalate their tactics by campaigning for the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act to be used against them.
Related posts: