OPINION & EDITORIAL
Letter to editor: Environmental labels inaccurate
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Guest Columnist:
- Stop America's 'green scare' (December 10, 2007)
- Greek sexuality misconceptions unfair (December 6, 2007)
- Security fee shows UWPD's prejudice (December 6, 2007)
- Vote Democrat, vote equal LGBT rights (December 6, 2007)
- Free trade stagnates upward mobility (December 6, 2007)
Related Stories:
- U.S. government missing honesty (March 20, 2007)
- Gonzales' conduct merits resignation (April 24, 2007)
- Stop America's 'green scare' (December 10, 2007)
- Green movement missing key link (November 16, 2007)
- Attorneys general lose place, purpose (November 8, 2007)
by Guest Columnist
Monday, January 23, 2006
I've noticed a disturbing trend lately in the media. The very charged word "eco-terrorist" is increasingly being used to describe environmental activists and convict them in print before any sort of trial.
Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales attempted to make the 11 environmental activists arrested recently look like a cult by saying they referred to themselves as "the family." The New York Times added to the mystique by describing the group they belonged to, the Animal Liberation Front, as "shadowy."
Robert S. Mueller III, FBI director, had his priorities seriously out-of-whack when he said the bureau is placing the highest importance on prosecuting activists who break the law "in the name of animal rights or the environment."
Mueller's attention would be better placed if he put as much zeal into stopping Osama bin Laden, who just let Americans know that he's planning more attacks in the heart of the United States.
Whether or not you agree with their tactics, the FBI's mission to conflate protecting the environment and stopping animal research with the most well-known terrorist's goal to bring down the American government is destructive to all groups working for social change.
Sarah Turner is a graduate student studying life sciences communications.
Anonymous (January 23, 2006 @ 10:48am):
Um... Ms. Turner, you didn't answer the question raised by the title to you article. Who are they labelling as eco-terrorists? Are they labelling people who throw red paint on people who wear fur? I'd believe that would be more an eco-vandal, and definitely not an eco-terrorist. Are they trying to severely damage research facilities that do animal research or oil companies to prevent drilling in Alaska, risking human life and severe property damage in the process? That would be eco-terrorism. So what did these people do? And just because people aren't as bad as Osama doesn't mean they aren't terrorists.
Anonymous (January 23, 2006 @ 4:04pm):
The real terrorists are corporations who pollute our air and water, kill off species of flora and fauna because they aren't profitable, rape and pillage the land, all the while using working class Americans to do their bidding, only to exploit them and then leave them and their families with nothing, and the politicians who not only allow this behavior to continue, but encourage it by loosening environmental standards, handing land out for free to their buddies, and even give them tax credits.
This is the real eco-terrorism. How many people must die from man-made pollution, how many inner-city children must get asthma, how many people must be malnurished because their sole supply of drinking water is polluted? How many dead lakes, abandoned mines, and cleared forests must there be? The American government-sponsored corporation "risks human life and severe property damage" every single day.
Anonymous (January 23, 2006 @ 8:46pm):
"The real terrorists are corporations who pollute our air and water, kill off species of flora and fauna because they aren't profitable, rape and pillage the land, all the while using working class Americans to do their bidding, only to exploit them and then leave them and their families with nothing, and the politicians who not only allow this behavior to continue, but encourage it by loosening environmental standards, handing land out for free to their buddies, and even give them tax credits.
This is the real eco-terrorism. How many people must die from man-made pollution, how many inner-city children must get asthma, how many people must be malnurished because their sole supply of drinking water is polluted? How many dead lakes, abandoned mines, and cleared forests must there be? The American government-sponsored corporation "risks human life and severe property damage" every single day."
You've never been out in the real world, have you?
