Since the devastating 9/11 attack, civil liberties have taken a strain to the different definitions of what consititues as terrorism. Individuals or groups can't address their governmnet with issues like the environment without being labelled a unpatriotic, or at the worst a terrorist. This is the complete opposite from when the term first appeared during the French Revolution, it had a positive connotation, and terror was thought to have a functional purpose for the state. One of the resons why Eco-Terrorim has taken such a hit is that it has made its way inot the media, and the way that it is being portrayed is with a suspence. Which of course is how they get their readers.
Eco-Terrorism shouldn't be confused with environmental terrorism. when I first started reading about Eco-Terrorism I thought that it was the same thing, just that environmental had been shortedned down to Eco-. However, both groups have different targets and motives. Environmental terrorism is defined as "unlawful use of their benefit(s) and/or destroy other property". To sum environmental terrorism up, their actions are so natural resources can't be used. On the other hand Eco-Terrorism is the "violent destruction of property on the behalf on individuals or environmental groups in the name of saving the environment from further human encroachment and destruction". The aim for Eco-Terrorists is to bring public attention to the issues that are surrounding the environment.
Environmental Terrorism can be defined even further, with resource-as-tool terrorim and resource-as-target. For resource-as-tool it is when environmental resources are used (such as crops, livestock and water supplies) are used as a delivery vechile as a ploy to carry destructive material to a large number of people. Whereas, resource-as-target terrorism occurs when the environment and/or resources are targeted for destruction. With these damages, the impact is felt by people the terrorists wanted to impact.
An organisation which has brought forward the debate of Eco-Terrorism is Earth First! The members of Earth Fisrt! believe that they are a group concerned about the environment and aren't terrorostic in nature. The group itself does not condone violent acts, or the destruction of property. Tactics employed by Earth First! are "tree-spiking", which involves jamming metal spikes through trees. This allows the trees to live, however, it creates dangerous work environment to loggers. Furthermore, they pull survey stakes out to confuse developers, disable powerlines and heavy equipment. Earth First!ers defend their practices as non-violent; an effective threat; doesn't harm living things; and above all else, it is defending the Earth.
In my opinion, Earth First! are committing acts of violence, and may be considered to be Eco-Terrorists. An example of things gone wrong for the supposedly harmless group was when a 23 year man was severly injured. During his working day his saw blade came into contact with an 11 inch spike that had been put through a tree. This caused the blade to shatter and send shrapnel inot the man's face, he suffered the loss of several of his teeth, and the tearing away of his cheek and jaw.
Are there penalties for "saving the environment"?
Recently (in Calofornia), there has been new legislation put in place that enables law enforcement to fine Eco-Terrorists who are caught destroying crops. Eco-Terrorists can be found liable for souble the amount of the crop, also, the cost of related testing research, and crop development. California is the only state which has legislation of this kind.
Not only is there new legislation, but the FBI have also come out publically stating that environmental activists are starteing to pose a threat, in the form of terrorism in the United States. Rising suspicions that environmental activists may be on the verge of killing innocent suvillians, all in the name of saving the environment. Moreover, Eco-Terrorism is not only present, but is an appealing temptation to some activists.
Now they are on the internet....
A worry about all of this, is that these groups are now utilising the Internet to get their message across. Earth First! Australia have a site, looking through it, it seems pretty harmless, they provide a list of fruit and veg, with the prices and so on. I believe that it will be a matter of time before their sites turn from harmless to harmful. I guess we will have to wait and see.....
References:
Brown, CS 2007, '5 Beyond Intrinsic Value: Undermining the Justification of Ecoterrorism', American Journal of Economics & Sociology, 66, 1, pp.113-125, EBSCOhost, viewed 17th April 2012
Chalecki, EL 2002, 'A New Vigilance: Identifying and Reducing the Risks of Environmental Terrorism' Global Environmental Politics, 2, 1, pp. 46-64, EBSCOhost, viewed 17th April 2012
Eagan, SP 1996, 'From Spikes to Bombs: The Rise of Eco-Terrorism', Studies In Conflict & Terrorism, 19, 1, pp. 1-18, EBSCOhost, viewed 17th April 2012
Lange, JL 1990, 'Refusal to Compromise: The Case of Earth First!', Western Journal of Speech Communication: WJSC, 54, 4, PP.473-494, EBSCOhost, viewed 17th April 2012
Miller, D, Rielera, J & Yelin, J 2008, 'Civil Liberties: The line Dividing Environmental Protests and Ecoterrorists', Journal For The Study of Radicalism, 2, 1, pp.109-123, EBSCOhosy, viewed 17th April 2012.
Niller, E 2000, 'Eco-Terrorism Penalties', Nature Biotechnology, 18,6, p. 582, EBSCOhost, viewed 17th April 2012.
No comments:
Post a Comment