kim kaos

Sentiment without action is the ruin of the soul - Edward Abbey

Many theorists see direct action as appropriate only as a last resort. John Rawls, political philosopher, recognises its relevance in the maintenance of a democratic society: if one is to be truly free to question the laws of such a society, it must sometimes happen that one needs to step outside the law to show its inadequacy. Such is the nature of civil disobedience. It seeks not to overthrow the system in which it finds fault, but to change some part of it, while respecting it in principle. Perhaps Mohandas Gandhi is the most famous proponent of non-violent resistance in the name of justice.

Christopher Manes is an advocate of peaceful direct action. He sees it proper recourse in desperation, after all legal avenues have failed.

Demonstrations “demonstrate” to the culprits, and to the world, that when all our letters are ignored, our arguments mitigated, and our legal appeals denied, we still refuse to accept the accelerating destruction. We put our bodies and our time where our mouths are - on the front lines! We demonstrate our fear, hurt, and rage against the despoilers. [4]Because people engaging in direct action do not seek to reject all laws, but simply the ones they find unjust, then they should adhere to respect for the rights of others as is appropriate. To this end, he talks about a “code” of behaviour that includes “respect toward all beings (and) non-violence” [1]

However, many people see the environmental crisis of such urgency that more direct and effective measures are warranted. ‘Ecotage’, or ‘monkeywrenching’, goes one step further, and a step too far in the eyes of its victims. Ecotage is the wilful destruction of property “to prevent ecological damage” [1] such as disabling bulldozers, digging up roads and spiking trees. The Earth First! Primer describes it thus:

Such actions are not without their risks, and when a mill worker was injured as a result of a spiked tree, critics labelled the action terrorism. However, as advocates point out, “risk to humans hasn’t stopped the timber industry…(who has) the worst safety record of any enterprise in the United States” [Rozelle in 1] Manes sees the ethical inconsistency, which is implied by the condemnation of ecotage, as more important than the damage done to any bulldozer. When property is given higher legal and moral status than living beings, including the trees and animals that are destroyed in the process of logging, there is something seriously wrong in the society that allows it.

Within the Earth First! movement, monkeywrenching is a source of controversy. There are those who say we should renounce all forms of sabotage. Others are against particular tactics, particularly tree spiking, which they say has the potential to injure. Several EF! local groups have renounced tree spiking, others have not. There is no movement consensus at this time, and debate is lively. Ultimately, whether or not to monkeywrench is an individual decision. [4]There is no doubt that monkeywrenching has achieved some great successes. In the eighties an Indian tribe spiked Mare’s island in British Columbia, over a period of months. They sent a letter to the local saw-mill, accompanied by a box of spikes, claiming to have done 400,000 trees. Mare’s Island is now an Indian tribal park.

With its combination of theatrics and political comment, Earth First! (like Greenpeace) capture the attention of the media. In 1985 the Oregon Forest Service planned a huge birthday party for Smokey the Bear to educate kids about playing with fire. The fact is, logging companies start most of the fires! Dave Foreman, of Earth First! shows up in a Bear costume and succeeds in co-opting the Forestry services media, while distributing leaflets proclaiming the facts, much to the chagrin of the rangers who didn’t want to be seen arresting Smokey the Bear at his own birthday party. Pretty tame, but effective. Earth First do not claim to be actively monkeywrenching, though they provide the information for those who wish to, it is ultimately up to the individual. The Environmental Rangers are another group, ex-vietnam vets, who declare their willingness to use weapons, and die if need be, to protect the environment. It is the possibility of violence inherent in a “no compromise in defence of mother earth” stance, that most troubles critics.

Monkeywrenching’s corporate victims claim that violence begets more violence. While Manes concedes that this may be true, he makes the counter-claim that the resource-use industry is rife with lawlessness too. He cites a review by the California Water Resources Control Board, that found more than half of one hundred timber harvest plans violated forestry rules. A recent Australian example was the Gold Coast City Councils plan to cull 4000 protected sacred ibis without a mitigation permit from National Parks and Wildlife. The lawlessness argument, Manes concludes, is an argument for ecotage!

The rule-of-law argument and the ascendancy of property above nature meets a further conflict when one realises that even the “most unregenerate industrialist” could not condone the completely uncontrolled use of private property, for unrestricted pollution would ultimately effect everyone’s rights and thus conflict with the core values of the American Constitution: “justice, tranquillity, general welfare and liberty” [1]. Ecotage, he says, is not challenging property rights, just asking us what kind of property rights are compatible with justice for all beings.

Yet too often the law protects environmental vandals. When the majority of Australian rejected the Jabiluka Uranium mine, our so called democratic system let them down. Political expediency is often the defender of environmental destruction, morality and justice do not provide economic benefits, and the dollar remains the bottom line.

Its perpetrators see ecotage it as a moral act. One of its main advocates and practitioners, Dave Foreman, points out: “it’s a means of self-defense” [1]. Earth First! subscribe to the Deep Ecology ethic which expands the notion of self to include all of nature, which they use to justify property damage and possible injury to humans in the name of “larger self” or the biosphere Whether or not one agrees with this world-view, it remains uncontroversial that species are becoming extinct as a result of human action at an unprecedented rate. Indeed, when the Zimbabwean government enforce the protection from poachers of the endangered black rhino with a “shoot to kill” policy, it is ecotage made legal. And this is the essence of the ecotage moral dilemma.: Should we let human-centred values allow extinctions to continue or use violence to prevent it? Is there any other way?

References:

1. Christopher Manes, 1990 “Ecotage” in Zimmerman, M (ed) 1999 Environmental Philosophy: from animal rights to radical ecology
2. Nash, R 1992 The Rights of Nature, The Wilderness Society Press
3. Vale, V, 1987 “Earth First!” interview with Mike Rozelle, co-founder of Earth First! in RE:Search #11: Pranks! Re/search publications, San Francisco
4. What Exactly is Earth First!: An Introductory Primer (visited July 2000) at http://www.enviroweb.org/ef/primer/
5. Earth First! Australia website (visited July 2000) http://www.green.net.au/ozef_update/