Red, Green and Blue: Crazy Acts or Civil Disobedience?
Image source: Nature.comEditor's note: This week, Shirley and Jimmy take on the subject of radical environmentalism. Are acts of vandalism, break-ins and civil disobedience always wrong, or do they sometimes serve a greater purpose?
Shirley: Fake blood tossed onto socialites wearing fur coats. Late-night liberation of laboratory animals. Wholesale destruction of Hummers and gas-guzzlers in California parking lots. The lists of exploits by some radical animal-rights and extreme environmental groups reads more like rap sheets than a honorable curriculum vitae. For reasonable stewards of the Earth, breaking and entry, theft, destruction of physical property and other mayhem serve no purpose.
Or do they? I don't condone violence or criminal acts as a means of conveying a message, however well-intended the message might be. But I have to admit that, sometimes — just sometimes — a crazy or even slightly illegal (as if there is such a thing in the eyes of the law) act by a group like, say, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) brings to light a practice that's been kept in the dark largely because it's unpleasant, harmful or cruel. The act of sneaking hidden cameras into poultry processing plants, for example, opened a lot of people's eyes to just how unnecessarily inhumane the methods of turning chickens into wings and nuggets actually are. So is there an argument to be made that maybe, just maybe, the occasional whack attack by radical vegans or Luddites is a justifiable act of civil disobedience? I'd have to say, cautiously, yes.
Tags: activism, civil disobedience, environmentalism, PETA, Red, Green and Blue, vandalism
- Uncategorized
June 5th, 2007 at 4:30 pm
Many actions, I think, should be protected under the First Amendment’s freedom of speech(expression) provisions.
Government is WAAAAYYY more involved in our lives than it needs to be already so I’ll give the radical greenies a bit of grace here.
My dad still refuses to wear a seat belt out of frustration of being told to do so. Now that’s a situation where one moment he was a law abiding citizen and then with a stroke of a pen he’s suddenly a criminal. I believe that when they over regulate various actions and then over-crank the enforcement it actually undermines respect for authority.
Smoking bans come to mind where business owners are told they can’t set about to whom they cater. Absurd.
America has 5% of the world’s population and 25% of the world’s prisoners… I think we can stand a good bit of civil disobedience these days. The problem, though, is that our government has too much power with which to quash it… something for the ‘DO SOMETHING!’ crowd to consider I would say.
June 5th, 2007 at 5:14 pm
PETA was probably a poor choice as an example…their hypocrisy knows no bounds. However, most democracies tend to allow a certain amount of civil disobedience provided their is no danger to people. The burning of medical labs is far beyond civil disobedience and is, in fact, domestic terrorism.
However, the filming of animals in sub-humane conditions is a powerful tool for education. Throwing blood on someones jacket does nothing to further the cause…it simply makes it easier for the general population to dismiss AR people as wing-nuts.
June 5th, 2007 at 6:51 pm
I think it’s a bit too late to care about HOW we do something as long as it gets done. For too long people have acted like the ends justify the means even when said ends were no more (and sometimes even less) noble than the means used to reach them, so it’s about time we apply that saying when the ends actually are worthy of it.
June 5th, 2007 at 7:14 pm
Now that’s what I’m talking about… somebody ready for the revolution!
Actually, Calvary, I don’t agree with your assessment that the state of the environment is so bad that we need an machiavellian revolution of 1776 proportions but I do admire your passion.
When they come after my guns you’ll see a similar sentiment from me.
June 5th, 2007 at 7:15 pm
Re: Unregistered user’s comments (”PETA was probably a poor choice as an example…However, the filming of animals in sub-humane conditions is a powerful tool for education.”)
I do agree that PETA is usually pretty far out there — too radical for my preferences most of the time. However, I chose them as an example for the very reason you cited: their operatives were the ones who slipped hidden cameras into poultry processing facilities to show how horrendous the conditions there are. Again, PETA does more to turn off the public, I think, than it does to enlighten it, but that little bit of film work struck a seriously resonant chord with me. Does it justify all the nutty things the group might do? No, but that one accomplishment, I believe, will have a lasting and positive impact, so the group has done some good, at least in that one case.
Jimmy, I’ll agree with you that the U.S. is screwed up in terms of its number of prisoners, but I doubt most of the people in jails are there for failing to wear their seatbelts or smoking in a non-smoking restaurant. (Any thoughts on the “war on drugs,” which is probably one of the top reasons we have so many incarcerated?) Also, I respect the libertarian philosophy to a point, although I think some take the “government has no place in my life” position way too far (i.e., “It’s OK to drive without insurance or a seat belt, but if I’m in a wreck that leaves me a vegetable, society will cover my long-term care costs.”)
But back to the civil disobedience thing, in which I’m considering environmentalists who take more drastic actions than the ones you mention. It sounds like you’re willing to give the benefit of the doubt to sincere-minded activists who might break a law or two to make a point. Is there any limit (besides the obvious ones against, say, murder) to those actions in your mind? Is sneaking into a factory under false pretenses to uncover dangerous practices OK? Sabotaging old trees with metal spikes to prevent their being cut down? Trashing a McDonald’s in Europe to protest industrial-style agriculture and junk food? Where would you draw the line, and how?
June 5th, 2007 at 7:48 pm
It’s not an issue of whether you agree with PETA or not – personally, I don’t care if you do or not. We must, on the other hand, look at what drives PETA and other activists to do things that “does more to turn off the public, I think, than it does to enlighten it” – I know from personal experiences that if I go to a radio station, newspaper or any other media outlet and ask them to cover these important issues to show the public the other side of the story, such as what goes on behind closed doors of vivisection labs, slaughterhouses, factory farms, circuses, etc, the media will not cover it.
If I dress up in a costume and do something that most people would consider ‘nutty’ or silly then the media will come running and it gives me a platform to direct people to the investigations that I have filmed, witnessed or whatever. It allows people to contact me to learn more about these issues and in the end helps spread the message of how horrible these animals’ lives really are in circuses, factory farms and so on.
I am only posting my blog site to give reference and credibility to my experience because I have some of my stories of when I was in the situations of filming in these environments. – http://www.zombie-popcorn.com
As always, I am more than happy to answer any questions. (If you have questions please send those to me personally after you post on GreenOptions –to ensure that I see your questions or comments.
Thanks to GreenOptions.com for posting and opening this discussion.
June 5th, 2007 at 8:17 pm
The war on drugs is a ridiculous power-play by America’s for-profit ‘Justice’ system. We’ve created a monster in this country and people just keep on feeding it. That’s why I’m concerned so much about ever-increasing regulatory power that many in the environmental community champion.
Spiking trees is bad because it causes physical harm to people just trying to make a living and it’s usually perpetrated by people brainwashed and ignorant of the macro-economics of forestry management. I think destruction of property like setting a Hummer dealership on fire is certainly something that should be illegal but if the moon-bat whacko group that does it has done a risk and cost-to-benefit assessment of doing the crime vs. the impact of the media then maybe it is a form of expression. I agree with you that they usually end up doing more harm than good.
If (heaven forbid) Hillary wins in ’08 will she raise taxes such that I decide to go underground for my earnings? As Voltaire said “The American Republic will endure until the day government discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.” Will refusal to participate in a system that is inherently flawed be criminal? Will she proceed with her gun control aims and thus make me a criminal against the entrenched and ever-growing government power? Will I be ready for a revolution at such a point? I can’t say but since there’s nowhere else in the world to run it could come to a point where people are forced to fight back.
Is this the sentiment of those who go, shall we say, ‘too far’ for their environmental ideals? Maybe so.
June 5th, 2007 at 9:30 pm
Hi Jason…
I checked out your site http://www.zombie-popcorn.com/.
That’s terrible what those guys were doing in the Bowfishing Tournament.
I like fishing but I cook what I catch or either set them loose. I really like shooting but I don’t get into hunting at all. Not that I have anything against responsible hunters it’s just not my thing.
Your bowfishing story was awful though. Think of the people all of those fish could have fed but they just went to waste… and the needless suffering.
Terrible.
June 5th, 2007 at 9:39 pm
Wow, great discussion. Very timely, too, as we see the whole “eco-terrorists” get sentenced.
I love it when I can agree with Jimmy–totally agree with your war on drugs comment. Eric Schlosser’s Reefer Madness takes a good look at marijuana as a targeted black market, along with analysis of two other “black markets”: strawberries (i.e. the illegal labor used to produce them and the porn industry. Very interesting.
If you want an interesting commentary on “eco-terrorism” T.C. Boyle wrote a great work of fiction called A Friend of the Earth, about a member of a Earth First!-like group, reflecting on his involvement in said group.
Finally, I really have a problem with the government using the Patriot Act to prosecute these so-called eco-terrorists, as though they were suicide bombers taking out innocent civilians, without a hint of irony. Many of the targets of direct-action environmentalists are the real terrorists, but corporations seem to get a free pass in terrorizing the environment, exploiting workers, etc. Don’t get me wrong, I think there are oftentimes better ways to go about raising awareness, but I can empathize with those who are frustrated with traditional activism…there’s only so much futile protesting one can do.
Anyway, I’m all over the place in my thoughts on this topic, so I’ll cut myself off now.
June 5th, 2007 at 9:44 pm
Jason (Unregistered User), you raise a good point: one reason some radical groups do crazy things for a cause is that they know it will get them more media attention than a well thought-out press kit or media report. The mainstream media are more event-focused than issue-focused, and they've only gotten worse in recent years. Thank goodness there are alternatives like this blog and others where more meaningful discussions can take place (I hope!)
Wow, Jimmy! Is your bunker complete yet? Sounds like you're ready to hole up in the woods with a supply of water-purification tablets and a Bowie knife if certain Dems make it to the White House. (Or is that just "I'm leaving the country if W wins"-type talk like we heard from some in 2000/2004?) I'm actually not a huge fan of Hillary, though I find it odd so many have essentially handed her the nomination after eight-plus years of branding her everything short of the devil incarnate.
An interesting take you have on environmental radicals, though. I'll agree with you that spikes in trees only risk harming innocent workers who are just trying to make a living, rather than greedy CEOs and executives who reap obscene profits from environmental degradation.
You ask, "Will refusal to participate in a system that is inherently flawed be criminal?" That's a tough question, one that's plagued Quakers, conscientious objectors, Michael Vick and other dog-fighting enthusiasts (allegedly), pacifists, gun-owners, followers of Santeria, Native Americans, Jah-worshippers and many more for centuries. Some quietly practice their beliefs in private, hoping not to be discovered; others "opt out," either in Unabomber-style or more peacably; most accommodate, realizing that a democratic Republic requires all to abide by existing laws but offers the mechanisms to change those laws if enough others agree.
For more humble concerns, though, I'll say this: if someone trespasses, assumes a false identity or secretly records an audiotape or videotape to bring to light something heinous, something that — if it knew it was taking place — the public would be appalled and revolted by, I'm ready to say that act, however illegal it might be on paper, is justified for the greater good.
Just as I concluded last week during our discussion about fair trade, I believe an informed public will tend to do the right thing environmentally. It's easy to blithely devour a basket of fried chicken in ignorance; it's much harder to do when informed of the environmental damage wrought by CAFOs (confined animal feeding operations), the practice of debeaking chickens, the regular transport of chickens to slaughter in overcrowded, unheated (or uncooled) trucks for hundreds of miles, and the sometimes cruel abuse that overworked (and themselves abused) slaughterhouse workers aim at the birds they're about to kill.