Slaughter & Sustainablility

Introduction: Slaughter & Sustainability
An analysis of “violent” means used to “protect the Earth”, from a variety of lenses (namely logical ones), to determine whether or not it is a valid option.

Disclaimer: This essay is not meant to advocate violence nor to determine the morality of it, but rather to determine if it is an effective or valid option that will help the world in its quest for sustainability.

Sustainability is a characteristic of a process or state that can be maintained at a certain level indefinitely. When applied to the Earth it means that human society is in a state of indefinite survival. With constant “progress” that includes the degradation of the environment, in which we depend on for life, the world is in no state of such sustainability.



Part 1:        “Hands up! Guns out! Represent that world town!”
-Mathangi Arulpragasam aka “M.I.A.”, musician

One of the most notable “ecoterrorist” organizations, the Earth Liberation Front, or ELF, that began in Europe, first caught the world’s attention in 1992 when they boycotted the company Fisions for destroying wetlands. Fisions specifically destroyed peat bogs, found in Siberia, Canada and Northern Europe for peat, which was sold as a fuel to a number of corporations. These wetlands were becoming endangered in Northern Europe and suffered greatly when the peat was extracted. One wonders how a group that starts with such a noble cause and peaceful means of protest becomes so notorious. It was not long since the boycott that the group began to act on the radical policies of direct action that it was established on. In 1994 members of this group vandalized MacDonald’s Restaurants in Germany and Poland. In the mid to late 1990’s the group then began operating on larger missions, such as arsons, tree spikings and assisting the ALF with animal release. The ELF has appeared in countries around the world including Turkey, Mexico, The United States, Britain, Italy, Canada, etc. Although none of these missions have caused death or serious injury to anyone and, according to the magazine Satya, the group has vowed to “take all necessary precautions against harming any animal " human and nonhuman” the United States recognizes this group as terrorist organization. Secretary of Homeland Security, Tom Ridge, even claimed the peaceful Revolutionary Environmentalism conference in Fresno, California to be a “code orange” terrorist alert level (or “High Risk Of Terrorist Attacks”). It’s because of the US response that the ELF is considered a violent organization. As defined by the Oxford American Dictionary violent means, “using or involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.” The ELF minimally meets the description and still the U.S. government goes as far to call it a terrorist organization, giving a severely worse connotation.

Unlike most other Green movements, ELF includes direct action as a part of its tactics, as opposed to the passive tactics more widely used and accepted. For example, if a company were to build a complex somewhere where it wasn’t wanted the passive approach would be to get a petition, vandalize the building, protest outside of the building, request it to be moved, etc.; whereas direct action would include burning the building down, somehow physically moving the building elsewhere, etc. The direct actions that ELF is most infamous for are the burnings of housing developments, cars and establishments that they deem to be non-eco-friendly. The ELF has also put together a number of peaceful protests that law-enforcement has responded to not nearly as peacefully.

The ELF is considered a sister group of the ALF, Animal Liberation Front (also based in western countries) and came before the ELF, which seeks to end animal cruelty by means of direct action. For instance, instead of petitioning a company using animal testing, this group tends to break into the testing facilities and remove the animals. The ALF also does some arson, destruction of the research that uses animals cruelly and vandalism, but focuses on removing animals from cruel environments. The ALF also has the same policy of not harming any living thing as the ELF and is also considered a domestic terrorist threat. While not a group fighting for a more sustainable world they fight for what some would consider a “green” cause.

On another side of the world, one will encounter the Kenyan Wildlife Service (KWS). Started by Richard Leakey in 1990 with some Kenyan Government support, the KWS was the best trained fighting force in the country and adopts a strict policy of shooting poachers on sight to protect the elephants and rhinos, nearing extinction in the area. The poaching danger in Kenya decreased dramatically and Leakey was presented with a $140 million grant from the World Bank. The group also set up 35 National Parks and Reserves, including the Nairobi National Park. Unfortunately, the KWS also forcefully moved the Masai people outside of the Nairobi National Park. As observed by the tone and content of the information concerning Leakey and the KWS found in Wikipedia, the group is clearly not nearly as scrutinized for its blatantly violent actions as the ALF and ELF; at least not by the western world. “When we develop or design a program to protect wildlife in this country it should be people sensitive,” says the chairman of Friends Of Nairobi National Park, Henry Ndede regarding the KWS. Furthermore, discontent has also been expressed by the KWS’s protection of elephants, because now the elephant’s population poses a threat to the lives of some in Kenya.

Other violent government actions meant to create a more sustainable world have also been criticized for not being people sensitive. In India, 1976, the fourth prime minister, Indira Gandhi, adopted the “National Population Policy” originally the plan encouraged families to limit their number of children to three children. According to the biography, Indira: The Life of Indira Gandhi by Katherine Frank, free medical care and other benefits were kept from families who did not undergo sterilization. The plan was to reduce the annual birth rate from 35 to 25 per 1,000 by 1984 and when this did not appear plausible the program adopted stricter policies, most infamously forced vasectomies. These vasectomies were at times brutally performed, making this program, arguably, a violent one. Although those forced to get vasectomies were rewarded with money, cooking oil and radios most men in the rural areas of the country resisted and a number of violent confrontations with these men have been recorded. Also, there were incidents where individuals (i.e. rural schoolteachers) who were responsible for producing a quota of vasectomy volunteers were physically abused and assaulted when they did not reach it. Although the program “undermined [Gandhi’s] credibility among her strongest supporters " the minorities such as Muslims, Harijans and other oppressed castes” the program was successful in sterilizing 3.7 million Indians within the first five months. Despite its short-lived term this program was so hated that protesters yelled “END DICTATORSHIP, DETHRONE THE QUEEN!” It is believe to be the cause for Gandhi losing the election in 1977 and public anger towards the policy lasts to this day.

It is clear that when designing a plan to make the world more sustainable or that will protect the environment it should be people sensitive, but shouldn’t the plan also be animal sensitive? There are some plans for sustainability that encourage the trophy hunting of animals. In Tanzania money obtained from shooting the lions is given back to local and poor communities to help them thrive. Trophy hunters, such as Simon Evans, argue that this way of hunting keeps the numbers of lions steady. But statistics, courtesy of the IUCN (International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources), display a drastic dropping in the population of lions. Other conversationalists will argue:

“That in terrestrial systems hunting has been a part of human management of those systems for millennia and as long as that hunting is consistent with protecting the essential integrity of those systems, it ought to be allowed.”
-James Leape, Director General of WWF International

One factor in the opposing arguments is that hunting is very different now than what it was millennia ago. Other conversationalists will argue that the thought of doing such a thing is, morally, the antithesis of conservation. Should morality even be taken into account, though? In a world that needs drastic change that is necessary for future human survival, shouldn’t humanity ignore morality and dismiss being animal or even human sensitive?



Part 2: “In violence we forget who we are.”
-Mary McCarthy, novelist

This appears particularly true in the cases of the ELF and ALF. These groups have constantly been attacked on seeming counterproductive, unethical, terrorists, etc. Some of these judgments are based on truth; others based on ignorance. One should first examine why these groups decide to use forms of direct action. In his book Burning Rage of a Dying Planet, Chris Rosenbraugh, a spokesperson for the ELF quotes the IDOC’s When All Else Fails: Christian Arguments on Violent Revolution;

“He (God) knows very well that the poor are the first and worst sufferers from violence, because the order of the powerful never hesitates to augment its violence when the ‘little ones’ lift their heads. The violence of the poor is sacrificial. They spill their blood for a common liberation from injustice, for love of their fellows. It is a resistance of the spirit, an explosion of their dignity that has been left no other means for expressing itself... Nothing remains to them other than organized refusal, the deliberate will to die rather than continue living in slow motion”

This passage can be translated to the Earth, making Earth the poor, who has suffered from the worst violence and apathy towards its disposition. The ELF and ALF mean to speak on behalf of the Earth and sacrifice themselves for the Earth’s and animal’s liberation. One may consider this a particularly noble cause, for it is considered noble fight for a country or an idea. This seems even nobler in that the Earth is tangible and something that has supported the humanity from the beginning of its existence.

This isn’t to say that the ELF isn’t like most organizations and contradicts itself. For instance, the fact that the ELF burns down places that will supposedly put out pollution seems to be the antithesis of their intent. Most will argue that the pollution put out by the burning of the building is more destructive than the building itself. As some have come to understand this- the mindset of the ELF is that the fire is one relatively short event in history, whereas the building will stay there continually polluting the area. Even so - the places burnt down tend to be rebuilt and the ELF is then accused of wasting resources. As true as this is, what is more important, the resources or the statement made and money lost by the corporations? Another example is the group’s use of spray paints to get their message across; the chemicals released into the environment from the paints couldn’t possibly benefit the environment. Again, which is more important, the short term damage or long term message?

The ELF also does not always seem consistent with what it burns down. Regarding the 2008 arson of multimillion-dollar houses in Detroit, the houses were claimed to be “eco-friendly.” The ELF did not think so and mocked the claims with the phrase, “Built Green? Nope black!” spray-painted on the site. The reason the ELF did not agree with the building’s “green-ness”, perhaps, is the fact that the houses built on this street, including the acclaimed eco-friendly house, were built to showcase the latest housing trends and not for actual residence- a complete waste of resources. So although this was not an inconsistency from the ELFs perspective, the general public considers it one.

Another part to the ELF is that it is mostly composed of green anarchists and anarcho-primitists, who believe that the world should return to hunting and gathering societies and who focus more on attacking large corporations, capitalism and society. According to Martin Durkin’s documentary, The Great Global Warming Swindle, it is argues that environmental extremism (groups like ELF, ALF Earth First! and Greenpeace) is the result of the fall of communism. It claims that the progressive communist leaders moved into the environmental movement and use “green language” to attack globalization and capitalism.

In the cases of the KWF and Indira Gandhi their tactics have only been counterproductive in gaining support for their causes. This statement is even arguable when regarding the KWF.

Despite the groups reasoning, violence (in the eyes of the public at large) tends to be a negative thing and hardly wins over a favorable public opinion. Not only could one lose oneself in violence but one will be lost in the eyes of the public as well. Violence, however, also gains plenty of media attention. During 1968, violence was constantly used as a tactic to attract the media and a protest with media attention was considered a successful one. Therefore, violence can be considered a median to put out a message but once one has delivered the message one has no control of how the message will be percieved by the rest of the world.



Part 3: “Don’t let them get away with it!”

“So-called ‘global warming’ is just a secret ploy by wacko tree-huggers to make America energy independent, clean our air and water, improve the fuel efficiency of our vehicles, kick-start 21st-century industries, and make our cities safer and more livable. Don’t let them get away with it!”
- Chip Giller, founder of Grist.org

Most “green movements”-whether to counteract global warming, ride your bike or liberate the Earth and animals-are constantly attacked by the media, politicians and the like. Because of these so-called “extreme” actions for these “leftist” causes the government and media have cracked down on those being too green and progressive. The result of this media and political control over the public’s perception of the environmental activism has been coined “the Green Scare” alluding to the red scare of the 1950’s. This has come to a point where the Cybercast News Service has called the film of the critically acclaimed book Hoot, by Carl Hiaasen, “soft core eco-terrorism for kids.” Less radical groups such as Earth First! and Greenpeace have been targeted by the green scare- just recently when Greenpeace activists illegally and peacefully boarded Japanese whaling ships they were charged with terrorism on a plethora of news shows. For the ELF and ALF this media attention has been, for the most part, very negative and is filled with plenty of biases, misconceptions, misrepresentations and misquotations. Even more extreme, on national television, when the Colorado representative, Scott McInnis, was asked about the ELF he directly compared any form of civil disobedience to the terrorism seen on 9/11.

The U.S. government views the ELF and ALF as terrorist organizations and the recent FBI agency, Operation Backfire, and policy, Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, defines them as such and labels anything from arson to sending an email as terrorist actions. According to Washington reporter, Will Porter, Operation Backfire and the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act have curbed civil liberties. Operation Backfire focuses on uprooting destructive acts in the name of animal rights and environmental causes. The agency has attacked groups such as Earth First! whose actions are certainly not destructive. It’s attempts to attack the ELF and ALF have, for the most part been in vain, on most news shows those speaking on behalf of Operation Backfire complain about the difficulty of stripping down such a decentralized group with anonymous members. This isn’t to say that Operation Backfire hasn’t made their fair share of arrests, the agency has brought down a total of 18 activists including Jeff Luers who has been sent to prison for 23 years for burning an SUV in a car dealership and for a suspected arson which he was unconnected to.

With the two forces of the media and politicians combined, the “violent” groups ALF and ELF have graduated to “terrorist” status and, therefore, have an incredibly infamous perception in the eyes of the world at large. This is an interesting contrast to the KWS who actually employed blatant violent actions that have killed poachers, but started off with some government support. The public opinion of this group is drastically different; it is not condemned for its violent actions but rather suggested to be more people sensitive. The same is true for Gandhi, despite the lack of support in India, she is seen as a revolutionary in western culture and her aggressive policies are not dwelled upon. Furthermore more radical rightist groups that have kill abortion doctors, bombed the Oklahoma City building and Olympic Park in Atlanta and admittedly attempted to create “weapons of mass destruction” are not treated with the same attention as these leftist groups by the media and government. This is all related to the economy, for these rightist groups are not targeting corporations and the rich.

 

Part 4: Odds And Ends
"We don't disagree with the need to improve fuel efficiency but vandalism doesn't get the message across."
-Mike Miller, West Covina City Councilman

This is clearly a fact when concerning the ELF and ALF; the groups have been virtually unsuccessful at gaining support for their cause. Could violence, however, be the most effective way to get the job done? If organizations would disregard messages and expectations and, instead, directly get things done by any means necessary, would one see a more productive world? How important does public opinion become when problems are being solved? According to the examples of the Richard Leakey and Indira Gandhi, they have been very effective in meeting their goals and at times at the expense of global affection. The ALF too has been successful in rescuing animals but has not changed anything for animals in the laws. The ELF, which seems more focused on spreading a message, has failed in doing so.

Consider the effectiveness of a genocide aimed towards those who are apathetic towards humanity’s future- those who do not seek to better the world in any way under any standards. The world would be rid of those who are the hardest to sway and gain support from and could focus on fixing problems while concurrently solving population pressures and the drain on resources. Although not a likely nor peaceful solution-it would be effective, the hardest part of it would be in determining what the standards for “apathetic” are. Although genocide sounds disgusting and the whole idea is unrealistic, it would be effective were it to happen.

Next time you see a “violence is not the answer” sticker, think of Indira Gandhi, the Kenyan Wildlife Service, the ALF or even the ELF; consider all the events and organizations today and throughout history that do and have employed violence. Depending on the circumstances, the groups were effective.

Reviews

[The Rock And Roll Cowbo..]

Wow this is certainly very insightful and eye opening for me... to tell the truth don't know much about these groups until now, thanks for sharing this intelligent piece.