ecoterrorist. ‘I see that calling an environmentalist a terrorist sets up a fear dynamic. It makes the police and pri-
vate security firms begin to worry,’ she says. ‘It sets the stage for counter-reaction and makes anti-environmental vi-
olence seem like an acceptable response."

The FBI defines terrorism as ‘the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or co-
erce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.’
Ongoing attempts to silence environmentalists through intimidation and violence would seem to fit this definition
more readily than declining incidents of sand-in-the-crankcase vandalism against logging and mining equipment.
However, federal law enforcement agencies continue to pursue ‘ecoterrorists' and spin out low-grade intelligence
date on ‘Earth First! spinn-offs; while refusing to address more violent and potentially deadly attacks against green
activists.

David Helvarg, in his The War against the Greens (Sierra Club books, 1994) devoted two whole chapters to violence
and harassment against environmentalists; the book still remains the most detailed analysis of violence against US
greens. It is impossible to quantify the specific level of violence against environmental activists in America, because
violence is designed to silence. There will be hundreds of acts of intimidation that will go unreported because they
have succeeded their aim, simple intimidation to ‘chill the person concerned. What we can tell is that is coming from
Companies, workers, the Right, the Wise Use movement, and increasingly the militia. The cross-over between these
latter movements is increasingly becoming stronger. Moreover the government are also implicated. ‘I think the inter-
ests that are threatened are corporate, and | see the federal government supporting those interests,’ says Sheila
O'Donnell. ‘Given what we know, | can't imagine that the federal intelligence agencies are not involved at some level.’
What we also know is that it is mainly grassroots activists, miles from the safety of big cities who are suffering the
most. The majority of these activists are women, who are involved in local environmental problems. Activists who
live in remote areas or in blighted neighbourhoods are also singled out for attack. Furthermore, the support these
‘front-line’ activists are receiving from the mainstream environmental movement has been verging on non-existent.
‘Ithink we isolate people when we don't speak out against violence and we make it safer to attack them, says Sheila
O'Donnell. ‘| think denial plays a very big part of it. if an environmental organisation's office blew up in a city, every-
one would jump, | think it would be quite clear that there was a major problem. It's the question that if a tree falls in
a forest and no-one is there, does it make a sound.’ This process of denial and the ruraV/urban split ‘are very impor-
tant in why it is not being solved,’ alleges Sheila O'Donnell. 'I certainly do not think it is a bad heart or lack of in-
terest, because if you ask any of the leadership of the major environmental organisations what they think about this,
they would be horrified, but because it does not immediately threaten their self-interest, so to speak, they don't pay
attention. Most of them would not be able to cite the kind of cases that are going on, if asked."

ACTIVISTS ARE USING THE INTERNET TO FIGHT
LARGE COMPANIES OVER ETHICAL ISSUES.
YET MANY MAJOR BRAND-OWNERS LACK A

CLEAR COUNTER-STRATEGY.

Earlier this month a group of environmental activists staged a sit-in at Shell's London offices. Although Shell turned the
power off and cut the phone lines, activist Roddy Mansfield broadcast the protest live to the internet and e-mailed the
press, using a digital camera, laptop computer and mobile phone. (http:/Awww.kempton.org/shell/actions. html)

YW HW HW OW og