BY CAMILLA MORTENSEN
Terror in the Court
Can bunny huggers coerce the government?
T
errorism. The word has been the
center of debate for months, as ac-
tivists awaited Judge Ann Aiken’s
decision on whether a series of environmen-
tally motivated arsons throughout the
Northwest could be called acts of terror.
The acts of arson and other environmen-
tally motivated “direct actions” have been re-
ferred to as eco-terrorism. The term is said to
have been coined by Rob Arnold, author of
EcoTerror: The Violent Agenda to Save
Nature: The World of the Unabomber and ex-
ecutive director of the Center for the Defense
of Free Enterprise (CDFE).
The CDFE calls itself “an educational
foundation for individual liberty, free mar-
kets, property rights and limited govern-
ment.” Corporations such as Exxon, DuPont
and Boise Cascade have funded it. The Boise
Cascade offices in Monmouth were the target
of one of the arsons.
Act and the dates of his participation in one of
the crimes made his acts not subject to the ter-
ror label.
In order justify the enhancement, the gov-
ernment had to provide “clear and convincing
evidence” that the defendant’s act was “cal-
culated to influence or affect the conduct of
government by intimidation or coercion, or to
retaliate against government conduct.”
In a recent opinion piece published in the
Los Angeles Times (reprinted in the 5/27
Register-Guard), defendant Jonathan Paul’s
sister Caroline Paul wrote, “Could it really be
true that the most powerful country in the
world feels ‘coerced’by a bunch of bunny hug-
gers?” Paul is due to be sentenced June 5 for
the Cavel West horse slaughterhouse arson.
For several of the crimes, the “clear and
convincing” evidence has been the commu-
niqués issued by the defendants, attributed to
the Earth Liberation Front (ELF) or Animal
‘Meaningful discourse cannot be forced
and fear cannot replace discussion.’
– Convicted ‘terrorist’ Stan Meyerhoff
Many see the label “eco-terror” and the
effort to target environmental crimes as ter-
rorism as setting a dangerous political prece-
dent. It is a precedent that, like the recently
passed Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act
(AETA) that prevents interference with ani-
mal businesses ranging from rodeos to fur
farms, begins to turn civil disobedience into
terrorism.
When AETA passed in the House, Rep.
Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) said of the bill,
“This legislation will have a real and chilling
effect on people’s constitutionally protected
First Amendment rights.”
In her decision about whether the terror-
ism enhancement could be applied to the ar-
sonists’ prison sentences, Aiken wrote it “is
not whether the defendants are ‘terrorists’ as
the word commonly is used and understood
in today’s political and cultural climate. Nor
is it appropriate for the court to speculate
whether the government seeks to promote a
particular political agenda or to punish a par-
ticular form of activism in requesting the ter-
rorism enhancement.”
A “federal crime of terrorism” she wrote,
“does not require that the offense create a
substantial risk of injury or transcend na-
tional boundaries.”
The word terrorism originally comes from
the French terrorisme and referred not to acts
against the government but to acts of the gov-
ernment itself during the French Revolution.
Aiken’s ruling and subsequent sentences
have caused controversy among environmen-
tal and civil rights activists as well as the
friends and families of the eco-saboteurs.
Four of the defendants have been sen-
tenced so far. Three of them received terror-
ism enhancements on portions of their sen-
tences: Stanislas Meyerhoff, Kevin Tubbs
and Chelsea Gerlach.
Darren Thurston did not receive the en-
hancement because there was some question
as to whether the wording of the PATRIOT
Liberation Front (ALF). The communiqué
for the second Romania Chevrolet SUV deal-
ership arson referred to Jeff “Free” Luers’
court case for the first Romania arson, thus
attempting to influence government — Lane
County Circuit Court. The Jefferson Poplar
Farm arson communiqué said it intended to
affect pending legislation.
In the case of the Eugene Police
Department West University substation
arson, which involved Meyerhoff, Tubbs and
Gerlach, the fact that the building was a po-
lice building was ruled enough to deem the
attempted arson “terrorism.”
Though the prosecution detailed the pos-
sible affects of the arson, claiming it could
have endangered a nearby Starbucks and
Sacred Heart Medical Center, the fire was un-
successful, scorching a wall and breaking a
window.
It was so unsuccessful that it appears there
were no media reports on the attempted fire at
the time it occurred. Yet according to the cur-
rent interpretation of the federal statutes, the
crime is still “terrorism” due to its coercion of
a government entity.
The defendants so far have all decried
their use of arson as a tactic while expressing
their desire to help humanity and save ani-
mals and the environment. Each defendant,
when asked to make a statement to the judge,
has spoken with sorrow and in a voice choked
with tears.
Before being sentenced to nine years in
prison for her roles in the crimes, Gerlach
read her statement to Judge Aiken:
“Fundamental changes are needed in our so-
ciety to achieve peace and sustainability. We
all need to take personal responsibility for
healing our relationship with the land and
with each other.”
The crimes “cut off discussion,”
Meyerhoff said in his statement. “Meaningful
discourse cannot be forced and fear cannot
replace discussion.”
ew
MAY 31, 2007 13