portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reporting united states

animal rights | forest defense | human & civil rights

PETA latest group to be associated with terrorism.

The FBI is calling eco-terrorism one of the most serious threats to the national, and Republican senator James Inhofe is thus accusing PETA of supporting terrorism. What fun times we live in!
So, apparently I'm officially a supporter of terrorism. I might have been for awhile - I'm not sure what all's on "the list" anymore. But I read an article in the Korporate media today which was extremely shocking to me, so I'll summarize:

Apparently the FBI and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms held a press conference in which they named "eco-terrorist" groups - IE, ALF and ELF, according to them - a huge terrorist threat to the nation. I *support* many of the non-violent actions of these groups - in fact, I'm fairly sure that none of their actions have been violent, if somewhat dangerous - so I guess that makes me a terrorist right there. Yippee. Mark that down. But wait - it gets even better! Not only are they a terrorist group, but so is the group Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty in Britain, which hasn't done shit that could be considered dangerous. Shockingly enough, they had the nerve to - " vandalize company property and harass lab employees and customers".

Clearly, they're right up there with those promoting holy war. In fact, James Inhofe, a senator from Oklahoma, even said "Just like al Qaeda or any other terrorist movement, ELF and ALF cannot accomplish their goals without money, membership, and the media,". He said this before making the accusation that PETA was giving money to members of the ELF and ALF. PETA, a group with 800,000 members.

I didn't actually watch the event in which all of this apparently took place - so if anyone did and could report on it more specifically, that would be great. But I don't know...I just feel that this is VERY disturbing and wanted to let people know about it. I guess...being as I will admit to be being a fairly privledged white person - with the luxury of tending to not be easily targeted - all this is finally starting to hit closer to home for me. First they came for the Muslims, then they came for the environmentalists...
Globalisation of Eco-Squatting 19.May.2005 04:11

Revolutionary Cell

It is false that social values are inseparable from scientific inquiry;
false that the purpose of science is the urban-archievement of social goals;
false that knowledge is nothing but the product of negotiation
among members of the eco-scientific community; false that kowledge,
facts, reality are nothing more than social constructions; false that
eco-science should be more democratic; false that the physical sciences
are subordinate to the social science.

Smash Racism!

link to a CNN story 19.May.2005 04:31

d bag

The problem 19.May.2005 05:21

Mike stepbystpefarm <a> mtdata.com

but so is the group Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty in Britain, which hasn't done shit that could be considered dangerous. Shockingly enough, they had the nerve to - " vandalize company property and harass lab employees and customers".

The problem is whether the term "terrorism" can properly be applied to actions which although not directly dangerous to people (property damage -- and I'll explain the "directly" later). That may depend upon whether these are directly against the target and designed to stop the activity objected to or indirectly agains 2nd hand parties (for not joining in a boycott) or 3rd hand parties (for not joining the a boyoctt of thsoe who refues to join the boycott) ad infinitum. In other words, is it "terrorism" if the the immediate objective is "political" << do you have to convince people to join a movement or can you attempt to coerce them >>

It might help if we for a moment leave the matter of SHAC and HLS and consider an imaginary scenario. One that we will be able to reverse. Let's say that in a society there is a "segregation" campaign, a campaign over whether "yahoos" (to make this abstract) will or will not be served in public accommodations. But that this is not a legal matter. We can ask......

a) Is it "terrorism" to throw a brick through the window of a resturant which refuses to serve yahoos?

b) Is it "terrorism" to throw a brick through the window of a resturant which does serve yahoos?

c) Is it (in either case) "terrorism to throw a brick through the window of a delivery service which refuses to stop delivering food to a resturant in the cases above.

d) Is it "terrorism" to throw a brick through the window of a driver who refuses to quit his or her job with the above delivery service.

Notice that we should be able to discuss the latter things without reference to how effective the actions amy be (for against the "end segregation of yahoos" campaign) but in terms of whether the immediate intent of the action is to coerce joining the campaign on one side or the other -- an essentially "political" objective.

I rather suspect that the upcoming trials of SHAC people are going to concentrate on the "c" and "d" type cases with the prosecution arguing that the defense not be allowed to introduce evidence about the worthiness or lack thereof of the original target. In other words that in the "c" and "d" type situations only the immeidate intent be considered.

Now back as I promised to the "violence" issue (is proprty damage violence). Well that depends on the jurisdiction, the local laws and just as important, customs. It depends on WHERE you are when you throw a brick through somebody's window and whether that somebody is present or absent at the time. So far the actions seem to have been taking place where by local law and custom the attacked PERSON (assuming in the building) is expected to cower in a corner and dial 911 and wait for help to arrive. In such jurisdictions I would consider the action to be simple "property damage", not "violence". But in other jurisdictions the person inside by law and local custom is expected to take a more active role in their own defense. The same action in such juridictions (bricks through window, person present inside)I would consider "violence" because it is a call to "kill or be killed" as the person inside(perhaps after calling 911) comes out with their shotgun.

PLEASE -- that was NOT intended to start a discussion about the rightness or wrongness of each areas choice of law and custom --- just a recognition that we DO have local differences about things like that, not overall societal agreement. That therefore arguments about whether property damage is "violence" depends upon those differences.

Your steps are unwanted and destructive 19.May.2005 06:54

watching the "detectives"

If someone never threw a brick through a window, then it is N/A to them, correct?

It's because PETA gave money to a defense fund of *accused* ALF members 19.May.2005 10:20


Even though a suspect is "innocent" until proven guilty, you're not supposed to contribute to their legal expenses to ensure a fair trial. That's what PETA did. So now they're being punished. Note that Pro-life groups are never targeted for donating funds to abortion-provider-killers' legal defense funds? Guess you're guilty and then proven guilty. Welcome to the New World Order in the USA.

. 20.May.2005 16:24



yikes 30.Jun.2005 13:10

animal rights activist

The sad thing is, in the article they actually throw animal rights/enriromental groups into the same category as the KKK.

"John Lewis, the FBI's deputy assistant director for counterterrorism, said animal and environmental rights extremists have claimed credit for more than 1,200 criminal incidents since 1990. The FBI has 150 pending investigations associated with animal rights or eco-terrorist activities, and ATF officials say they have opened 58 investigations in the past six years related to violence attributed to the ELF and ALF. In the same period violence from groups like the Ku Klux Klan and anti-abortion extremists have declined, Lewis said."