WELCOME

"The government solution to a problem is usually as bad as the problem."
-Milton Friedman

Anyone who made it to the sixth grade probably remembers thrilling to the account of the Boston Tea Party in their history books. That night in 1773 when American colonists invaded a ship in the Boston Harbor, and dumped 45 tons of tea in protest of unfair taxes and tea restrictions by the British, remains a shining example of our forefathers’ bravery and patriotism. This stirring chapter in our past taught us that certain principles, in this case liberty and independence, are so fundamental and incontrovertible that they naturally trump others lower down the scale---like the sanctity of public and personal property. This lesson in social values and protest seems newly relevant in the current debate on environmental protest in America, as our government implements an increasingly hard line on acts of sabotage and vandalism committed by eco-activists.

Like those angry colonists who destroyed a boatload of British-sponsored tea at the dawn of our nation’s history, today’s radical environmentalists target property and interests that have symbolic meaning for their larger struggle. SUVs, suburban sprawl, the logging industry and bioengineering labs are some of the more iconic objects of their disaffection. This writer does not condone their actions---but like others cites this historical precedent in the face of the federal government’s stepped up attacks on the eco-radical movement since 9/11 and the passage of the Patriot Act.

The concerted persecution of green activists is playing out in the media and courtrooms with a shocking intensity and bias. Environmentalists refer to it as Green Scare, citing frightening parallels with the Communist-baiting, McCarthy-era Red Scare. They object to the government’s definition of crimes against property, with no loss of life, as “terrorism.” As Jeffrey St. Clair wryly notes,

Even the feds can’t cite a single death resulting from an alleged act of eco-terrorism. But that doesn’t matter. After the horrors of New Orleans, it should be clear to all that it’s the protection of property, not people, that really gets the feds going.

The court’s application of a “terrorism enhancement” statute to crimes of vandalism committed as social protest, but defined as terrorism, can multiply a prison sentence six-fold. As St. Clair laments,

Destruction of property in the name of a political cause is now deemed an act of terrorism that can carry with it prison terms equivalent to first degree murder…

Green advocates point out the irony of the government specifically targeting environmental protest:

The same arson or sabotage that would get anyone else a mischief charge and a suspended sentence is considered domestic terrorism if committed by people who care about the environment. (Emerald City Scion)

Vandalism and arson are wrong and deserve to be punished by law, but a double-standard of justice is blatantly undemocratic. Having failed spectacularly at combating genuine political and religious terrorism, the government’s witch hunt of environmental activists comes off as a misplaced and desperate attempt to appear tough on “domestic terrorism.” But it’s a trumped up war it’s fighting. This blog examines some of the battles being waged in this war…

Image by Judith Lewis