Eco-terrorism

From Free net encyclopedia

(Redirected from Ecoterrorism)

The neutrality of this article is disputed.
Please see the discussion on the talk page.

Terrorism General
Definitions
Conventions
Counterterrorism
Lists
Organizations
Incidents
Types
Nationalist
Religious
Left-wing
Right-wing
State
State sponsored
Racist
Narcoterrorism
Anarchist
Political
Eco-terrorism
Tactics
Hijacking
Assassination
IED (bomb)
Car bombing
Suicide bombing
Kidnapping
Bioterrorism
Nuclear terrorism
Cyber-terrorism
Configurations
Fronts
Lone-wolf
edit this box

The term eco-terrorism is a neologism which has been used to describe threats and acts of violence (both against people and against property), sabotage, vandalism, property damage and intimidation committed in the name of environmentalism. As a pejorative term, "eco-terrorism" has also been used to describe legally-protected forms of nonviolent protest by environmentalists, which is generally seen as an attempt to associate this activity with other more contentious acts that can legitimately be labeled as eco-terrorism.

The term is considered controversial, particularly by those to whom it is applied. Many of the arguments in this respect concern what may be considered violence, and in particular whether acts which are destructive to property but avoid harm to human beings may be considered terrorism.

The term is believed to have been coined by Ron Arnold, an executive at the Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise and author of Ecoterror: The Violent Agenda to Save Nature.

1 Definitions
2 Groups
3 Ecoterrorism in Fiction
4 See also
5 External links

[edit]

Definitions

While there is no consensus on the exact definition of "terrorism", the word is typically used to describe politically motivated acts of violence with the intention to intimidate governments or civilians. Acts meeting these criteria and committed in the name of environmental causes are described as "eco-terrorism" by law enforcement agencies such as the FBI. This should be distinguished from "environmental terrorism", which is more properly described as attacks on (or using) the environment or resources for political purposes.[1] (PDF)

The FBI's Domestic Terrorism Section defines eco-terrorism as "the use or threatened use of violence of a criminal nature against innocent victims or property by an environmentally-oriented, subnational group for environmental-political reasons, or aimed at an audience beyond the target, often of a symbolic nature."

Other acts, which are nonviolent in nature, cannot be properly referred to as "eco-terrorism" even though they might be annoying or disruptive to others. However, some definitions are raising controversy and civil rights issues by using an all-encompassing definition that could be interpreted to include virtually all environmental protests, even those that would otherwise be legal. Another term that is more apt is "eco-sabotage because it involves disruption of society but is directed against things, property or machines that cannot feel terror.

For example, a bill proposed by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) called the Animal and Ecological Terrorism Act [2] begins with the description, "An act relating to criminal offenses involving acts against certain activities involving animals or involving natural resources and to civil consequences arising from convictions of those offenses." The bill defines an "animal rights or ecological terrorist organization" as "two or more persons organized for the purpose of supporting any politically motivated activity intended to obstruct or deter any person from participating in an activity involving animals or an activity involving natural resources."

Some critics of the term "eco-terrorism" have argued that it should mean the opposite of its current accepted meaning. They claim that persons, companies and governments engaging in ecologically irresponsible activies such as pollution are committing "terrorism" against the environment. Some critics further claim that the militant environmental groups are actually "eco-defenders". This "counter-definition" is also sometimes used rhetorically to express the environmentalist point of view, or to justify their actions.

Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki, for instance, has described the Prime Minister of Australia, John Howard, as an eco-terrorist for failing to abide by the Kyoto Protocol on climate change.[3].

On September 12 2005 the New York Times reported that at a conference on terrorism at the University of Georgia in 1997, William S. Cohen, then the Secretary of Defense, spoke of rogue researchers developing "an eco-type of terrorism, whereby they can alter the climate, set off earthquakes, volcanoes remotely, through the use of electromagnetic waves." [4] Using the concept above, however, this last form of terrorism is "environmental terrorism," not "eco-terrorism" since it represents the use of resources or the environment for political purposes.

[edit]

Groups

The three organizations most commonly labeled as “eco-terrorists” within the United States are the Animal Liberation Front (ALF), the Earth Liberation Front (ELF), and sometimes Earth First!. Their websites all openly advocate tactics including arson, graffiti, vandalism and property destruction. Through their actions millions of dollars of homes, equipment, and research (including medical research) have been willfully destroyed by ALF and ELF operations, although they publicly disavow harm to humans or animals.

Despite this, they are labelled "fundamentalist" by some, however ALF, ELF, and Earth First! generally target only large corporations.

The FBI in 2001 named the ELF as "one of the most active extremist elements in the United States", and a "terrorist threat".[5]

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) has been financially linked to eco-terrorist groups[6] and has provided financial support to actions carried out in the name of the ELF and ALF. This connection has been largely in the form of financial help for both convicted activists and "daily activities", and also PETA using footage from ALF raids for their own legal purposes. In addition, several high ranking members of PETA have made statements advocating the use of property destruction. [7] [8].

[edit]