On to other matters

Congratulations to the U.K. on their efforts on dealing with the terrorists among them, and now let's move on to other topics. That is, of course, until some other incident occurs that causes near 24-hour coverage.

Anyone ever hear of Eco-terrorism before? It is not new - although the most destructive efforts seem to appear in the 1970's (Animal Rights) and 1980's (Environmental) - but it is not often addressed. Why? Who knows exactly. Just ask a few people and the wide variety of answers says it all. We just don't seem to take the problem seriously as a nation. I sincerely hope no one feels that I don't think other domestic extremists are as serious a problem, or even more so. I don't tend to find too many individuals that are sympathetic to such causes as racial supremacy, racial separatists, religious militants - and that would be any that espouse violence as an acceptable means to convert or cleanse anyone else - or any other groups that can fall into categories that are often referred to in the media as hate groups. Oh by the way, there are quite a few good resources on the topic of hate (groups, violence, crime, etc.) but my favority is the Southern Poverty Law Center. They really do an excellent job of tracking activities and groups. Their Hatewatch newsletter is a free service that delivers convenient links to via email on hate activities in the news. Anyway the reason I brought them up specifically is a recent report concerning the current (and real threat) of "right-wing" domestic terrorism. So extremism of all kinds can be a threat, but back to the Eco stuff.

Although we can treat them separately, the Environmental Movement and the Animal Rights movement have drifted ever closer together in their efforts. So here's a snapshot at understanding their beliefs and motivations. Why is this important? Well, quite frankly, no one ever seems to call themselves a 'terrorist.' Instead this is a label that is applied externally. There are Jihadists (not Muslim terrorists), Animal Liberators rather than terrorists - you get the point. Understanding motivation goes a long way to understanding the "randomness" of any attack. This is not to say that it becomes any easier to predict the next target, but it does become possible to identify a class of targets. So off we go, first with two key terms for comprehending this are Biocentrism and Speciesism. In short, these terms state that humans are just one life form among many; standing no higher or lower than any other, and treating other species as other than equals is ethically wrong. This is a very simplistic way to look at this but the origins of this can, arguably, be traced back to Darwin and his writings on the Decent of Man. Peter Singer's book, Animal Liberation offers philosophical discussion on the topic, but for quite possibly the most interesting writing on the justifications for Animal Liberation by violent means there is Terrorists or Freedom Fighters and The Logic of Political Violence. To make a long argument short - Those that destroy property, threaten people and "liberate" animals are not terrorists because the animals our not ours to subjugate, and therefore it is morally correct to take action to free them in the face of illegal laws. These folks liken their efforts to the Nazi Resistance and the Underground Railroad. So there is their justification. Believe what you wish.

We can discuss this at some length - and you are probably getting bored with the topic as well - so we will come back a later time and look at the Animal Liberation and Environmental activities separtely. But if in the meantime take a look at just how many "direct actions" take place around the world.

Rob
/