Following on from my previous piece on the thin skins of minorities and the deliciously sharp biscotti of propaganda, I now present to you the perspective from another minority … environmental activists. I haven’t had as much time to devote to reading in this area as I’d like, but there are enough rumblings around for me to feel somewhat uncomfortable with the current state of law enforcement regarding animals and the environment.

Firstly, the USA and the Patriot Act. I’m not sure how many of you are aware of this, but the Act — ostensibly passed to fight terrorism in a post-9/11 world — is being used to also pursue animal and environmental activists. The rub lies in the term “domestic terrorism”, which the Act defines as when a person engages in activity:

that involves acts dangerous to human life that violate the laws of the U.S. … and appear to be intended: to intimidate or coerce a civilian population [or] to influence the policy of government by intimidation or coercion.

Note the dove-grey shaded “appear to be intended”, as well as the similarly-hued “influence the policy of government”. Note also that there is a lack of definition surrounding, not only these words, but also “intimidate” and “coerce”. But wait, there’s more. Harbouring, aiding, concealing or lending material support to groups designated by the Attorney-General and Secretary of State as being terrorist organisations is also enough to get you arraigned under the Act. As the ACLU points out:

Such groups as the World Trade Organization protesters, the Vieques protestors and even People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), would, on the basis of minor acts of violence or vandalism [by only one or two hotheaded individuals, I may add], meet this overbroad definition. Non-citizens who provide assistance to such groups — such as paying membership dues — will run the risk of detention and deportation.

Sign a petition. Buy a t-shirt. Get kicked out of the country. The potential for entrapment is also enormous with such fuzzy legislation. And, for environmental activists, that’s even before we bring up the 2006 Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act. Merely threatening “an animal enterprise” (you might tell a lazy and cruel slaughterhouse owner that you’ll be proceeding with criminal charges against the establishment, or you may try to stop a cock fight) is enough to get you jailed. Whistleblowers might legitimately be prosecuted by the companies they expose under this legislation.

For some background on this whole area, read the Guardian report. And here’s a link to a strange little two-step about a retracted 9 November article from the UK’s Observer newspaper that was obviously trying to beat on the eco-terrorism drum itself. If you want to read what the article actually said, this blog seems to have a fair chunk of it quoted, as The Observer deleted its original report.

I’ll admit, I was happy to just keep such trivia in the back of my mind. After all, I’m an avowed carnivore. I’m also still trying to think through the whole global warming argument … and it hasn’t got me completely convinced, to be honest. So don’t get the idea I’m a vegetarian tree-hugger here. This is the blog of a mere observer of the action.

So there I was, happily skipping along, until I read some news from Tasmania, Australia. It appears that an avowed police “terror exercise”, carried out last week, involved the scenario of “a forest activist hijacking a plane and threatening to crash it into a pulp mill” (article here). There has always been a rather antagonistic dynamic between Australian logging activists and the Tasmanian business establishment, and I see this exercise as the latest salvo in a propaganda war between the two sides. Of course, the scenario was slammed as being offensive, unnecessary and irresponsible, especially as no activists have ever carried out any violent action in the history of Tasmanian anti-logging activities. And the police didn’t help their case with their own statements. (Where do they get these spokesmen?)

Assistant Commissioner of Police, Steve Bonde, went on record to say that the training exercise “which [was] designed to test the capabilities and co-ordination of various police agencies — [was] designed around the most unlikely scenario envisaged by Tasmania Police so that the community would not be alarmed.”

Huh? What was that? You were training your police to respond to a terror exercise that was deliberately unrealistic? Surely I must have misread something?

“We deliberately draw up a scenario unconnected with events in history, unconnected with current events or what police expect in the future,” Mr Bonde said. “They are not based on police intelligence or threat assessments.”

Ah, Tasmania is the gift that keeps on giving. So, Mr Bonde (James Bonde … sorry, couldn’t resist), why even have an exercise at all if it’s not modelling anything that police expect to happen? Or am I missing something here? On the chance I’m not, may I suggest that, next time, the Tasmanian Police Force act out a giant invasion by insectoid aliens in huge metal flying saucers? According to your criteria, it would give the same net result, but the special effects (lots of fireworks please) would be awesome. And I’m convinced the kiddies, and a fair few adults, would love it.

Actually, while it’s very easy to make fun of the police force, there is deeper inculcation afoot, and that is the training of law enforcement officers across the globe to regard activists as terrorists. And the training of the general public (that’s you!) through media channels to equate activists with terrorists. And those, gentle reader, are never laughing matters.