by Deep Green Resistance News Service | Mar 6, 2012 | Agriculture, Repression at Home
By Tom Philpott
On Friday, Iowa governor Terry Branstad signed a bill that will make it much more difficult for animal-welfare advocates to sneak cameras into Iowa’s factory livestock farms. The bill’s fate is being watched nationwide, because Iowa’s factory farms grow more hogs and keep more egg-laying hens than those of any other state.
The news got me to thinking of my own attempt, years ago, to peer inside of an animal factory.
I was on a tour of a rural Iowa county, given by some farmers who were angry that massive hog-raising facilities had been plunked down in their community (I wrote about it here). At one point, we got out of the van so I could gape at two rows of such low-slung buildings, each holding thousands of hogs. A vast manure cesspool separated the two rows.
Even more repellent than the smell—which nearly dropped me to my knees—was the large man who came barreling out of one facility to demand to know what we were up to. When we informed him that we were citizens standing on a public road, he reminded us that just beyond that road lay private property, and we’d be well-advised not to set foot on it. I asked him if I could have a look inside one of the buildings. He shot me a glare and turned on his heel, barking into his cellphone as returned to his lair. I took the response as a “no,” and we moved on.
The scene neatly encapsulated the terms of factory meat farming. The industry insists on its right to impose its excesses on society—the unspeakable buildup of toxic manure, which pollutes air and streams—but refuses to let society peer in to see what’s going on behind the walls. We are forced to smell, in other words, but refused the right to see.
For several years now, animal-welfare groups like the Humane Society of the US and Mercy for Animals have pursued a kind of guerrilla watchdog strategy for combating this state of affairs. They plant undercover agents to seek jobs at the facilities, and when they’re hired, the agents eventually sneak in cameras and document the scene. As the regulatory agencies like USDA, EPA, and FDA have shown little appetite to inform the public about factory farm practices—much less rein them in—these groups have become our shadow regulators, our eyes on the factory-farm floor.
Read more from Mother Jones: http://motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2012/03/will-agribiz-tied-governor-keep-iowas-factory-farms-shielded-view
by Deep Green Resistance News Service | Feb 27, 2012 | Colonialism & Conquest, Indigenous Autonomy, Lobbying, Noncooperation
By Gale Courey Toensing / Indian Country Today
While Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper was holding his first Crown-First Nations summit with indigenous leaders at the Old Ottawa City Hall last month, the Algonquins of Barriere Lake gathered outside to rally against what members say is an unwanted and illegitimate council imposed on their community by the Canada government.
The Algonquins of Barriere Lake (ABL) have been protesting the imposed council since August, 2010 when the Canadian government’s Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC), the ministry that oversees indigenous issues, announced that a new chief and council had been elected by “acclamation” according to Section 74 of Canada’s colonial-era Indian Act of 1876. (To put the Indian Act in historical context, Canada became the Dominion of Canada in 1867 as part of the British Empire during Queen Victoria’s reign from 1837–1901. A year after the Indian Act was passed, Queen Victoria became the Empress of India.)
An unknown number of ABL members traveled approximately three hours from their rural community in Quebec to Ottawa on January 24 for the protest.
“We’re here to show that our community is still united in asking the government to retract the imposition of Section 74 on our community,” ABL spokesperson Michel Thusky told the Leveller. “We want the federal government to rescind its decision on imposing Section 74 on our customary selection process.”
Section 74 says that the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development can impose an electoral system on First Nations with customary leadership selection processes: “Whenever he deems it advisable for the good government of a band, the minister may declare by order that after a day to be named therein the council of the band, consisting of a chief and councilors, shall be selected by elections to be held in accordance with this Act.”
The ABL are among just two dozen First Nation bands that follow a customary leadership selection process. Members say that their inherent right to do so is protected not only by Canada’s Constitution, but also by the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. They attribute the strength of their community, language, knowledge and protection of the land to the endurance of their customary governance system and say losing it will have devastating consequences on their way of life.
The federal government-run “election” in 2010 yielded fewer than a dozen ballots, but it announced nonetheless that a new chief and council were elected. A overwhelming majority of the community members had boycotted the so-called election. Of Barriere Lake’s total population of about 500 people, including children, nearly 200 members signed a resolution rejecting the entire process, even Casey Ratt, the “acclaimed” chief declined to accept the position. The ABL have protested and held demonstrations calling for their traditional governance and treaty rights for the past two years, but the imposed council remains in place.
“We have been campaigning against this, reminding people that our custom is who we are, our identity, our language, our way of life. We don’t accept to be in this system of colonization,” community spokesperson Norman Matchewan told the Leveller.
The community also continues to protest the federal and provincial Quebec governments’ violation of the 1991 Trilateral Agreement, a resource-use accord that was supposed to create a sustainable development plan for the community’s traditional approximately 4,000 square miles that would include revenue sharing, resource co-management and economic independence for Barriere Lake.
The agreement was highly acclaimed as an innovative environmental treaty at the time of its signing, but ABL members say that federal and provincial governments have refused to implement the plan.
Tony Wawatie, a former ABL spokesman, told ICTMN that the Crown-First Nations summit was “a big scam” to distract attention from the crisis at Attawapiskat.
“But we’re still stuck with the Harper government for another three years and it’s for sure they’re doing everything they can to undermine the collective rights of First Nations peoples across Canada,” Wawatie said. “Their agenda is about assimilation and extinction of our rights. It’s sad that it’s happening all over and they’re trying to have a public campaign by bringing in a process for economic development but undermining people who want to protect their Indian-ness, if you will, their identity. That’s what I see happening.”
From Indian Country Today:
by Deep Green Resistance News Service | Feb 26, 2012 | Repression at Home
By Watertown Daily Times
Coming soon to the skies above you — drones, drones and more drones.
And all giving police and who knows who else the chance to peek into your backyard.
Legislation just signed by President Obama directs the Federal Aviation Administration to open the skies to remotely controlled drones within the next three years. It will begin in 90 days with police and first responders having authority to fly smaller drones of less than 4.4 pounds at altitudes under 400 feet. Gradually, all drones are to be allowed by Sept. 30, 2015.
The use of drones had been restricted out of civilian aviation safety concerns created by a sky full of drones flown by untrained operators in the same space as aircraft. But that was overridden by successful lobbying of drone makers and customers who will reap the financial benefits for commercial purposes. “The market for drones is valued at $5.9 billion and is expected to double in the next decade,” the New York Times reported.
They can be used by real estate agents to snap aerial photos. But then, given costs and ease of use, what will stop a member of the paparazzi or any other prying photographer from using them to get more personal snapshots? The Times report said a $300 drone can be flown from an iPhone.
The planned expansion extends the militarization of law enforcement that has been going with the adaptation of military technology and strategies to civilian law enforcement. Police see several advantages to drones over other surveillance.
The pilotless craft cost less, are cheaper to operate and can remain airborne longer. They can be used as a crimefighting tool to patrol from the skies. Authorities can monitor traffic, search remote areas for missing persons or watch criminal suspects. But, then, police can watch a political rally, silently from 30,000 feet overhead.
But also alarming is the danger of escalating their use to include weapons. Drone builders are researching the use of nonlethal weapons such as tear gas, tasers and stun guns fired from a drone, and lethal weaponry can be an easy next step on the slippery slope.
The drones will add to the erosion of privacy that has come with the ubiquitous cameras and global positioning systems that can monitor our whereabouts.
The new law is concerned with safety in establishing guidelines and training requirements for operators. It will be up to governments and even the courts to enact constitutional safeguards on their use.
From Watertown Daily Times: http://www.watertowndailytimes.com/article/20120226/OPINION01/702269975/1036/opinion
For another source, see the New York Times, “Drones With an Eye on the Public Cleared to Fly“
by Deep Green Resistance News Service | Feb 26, 2012 | Protests & Symbolic Acts, Repression at Home
By Will Potter / Green is the New Red
More than 70 cities will be protesting corporations that are part of a secretive lobby group called the American Legislative Exchange Council, or ALEC, that helps corporate interests literally write our laws.
Occupy Portland has called for a national day of protest on February 29. The protests will focus on corporations that pay tens of thousands of dollars to be part of ALEC, in exchange for the power to draft model legislation which is then introduced in state legislatures across the country — all the while, most state lawmakers have no idea the bills were actually written by corporations.
Corporations have used ALEC to draft model “eco-terrorism” legislation that classifies civil disobedience as terrorism. Other bills drafted by corporations attack union rights, environmental protections, and any attempt to restrict corporate profits. Here is a closer look at how ALEC stealthily drafts legislation.
In other words: ALEC is a trojan horse used by corporations to sneak legislation into statehouses across the country.
As organizers explain in their collective statement:
There has been a theft of our democratic ability to shape and form the society in which we live. The corporations, which run our government, place profit over people, self-interest over justice, and domination over equality. This situation stems from our society’s obsession with profit, consumption and greed, which corporations only take to its logical and frightening conclusion. In this obsessive pursuit of profit above all else, our voices have been drowned out…
I think this is a sentiment shared by countless Americans, whether they identify as part of any movement or not. It’s quite common even in apolitical crowds to hear people talk about the power that corporations have over the political process. However, the omnipresence of this corporate influence in our culture can make it difficult to identify the specific mechanisms that allow it to exist.
That’s what is so inspiring to me to see the Occupy Movement focus on ALEC. It demonstrates an increasingly sophisticated movement willing to engage complicated political processes, and merge widely-held public sentiments with concrete strategies that aim for the wheels of the trojan horse.
From Green is the New Red: http://www.greenisthenewred.com/blog/occupy-protests-alec-f29/5781/
by Deep Green Resistance News Service | Feb 20, 2012 | Biodiversity & Habitat Destruction
By Steve Pedery, Oregon Wild
Oregon Wild, the state’s leading public lands and wildlife conservation organization, today voiced strong opposition to H.R. 4019, the “Federal Forests County Revenue, Schools, and Jobs Act of 2012”. The bill, which received a hearing in Congress this morning, would legally mandate that the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) log no less than 33.2 billion board feet per year—15 times greater than 2010 levels—to generate funds to support county budgets.
“Apparently, the leadership of the U.S. House of Representatives believes we can clear-cut our way to prosperity,” observed Steve Pedery, Conservation Director for Oregon Wild. “It is like the DeFazio, Schrader, and Walden clear-cut logging plan on steroids.”
The brainchild of Chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee Rep. Doc Hastings (R-WA), H.R. 4019 mandates intensive logging, grazing, and oil and gas production in order to hit unrealistic revenue targets. To meet the mandated county funding goals, environmental laws such as the Endangered Species Act and Clean Water Act would not apply to projects carried out under the legislation. Additionally, the right of American citizens to challenge the decisions of their government in court for these projects would be suspended.
Also released today, but notably missing from H.R. 4019 was the much-hyped proposal by Reps. Peter DeFazio, Kurt Schrader, and Greg Walden to put approximately 1.2 million acres of publicly-owned BLM land into a dedicated logging “trust”, where it would be similarly managed for industrial logging to generate revenue for some western Oregon counties. This proposal – titled the “O&C Trust, Conservation, and Jobs Act” – was developed in secret over the last six months and has generated intense opposition from Oregonians opposed to clear-cut logging and the likely effects on salmon and clean water.
Conservationists observed that neither plan would actually do much to solve the impasse over county funding.
“Under the Hastings bill, we would need to see a 1,500 percent increase in logging on America’s public lands,” said Pedery. “To generate the money needed to bail out county budgets in western Oregon at current timber prices, Reps. DeFazio, Schrader, and Walden would need to increase logging on public BLM lands by 400 to 500 percent. The public won’t stand for that kind of rampant clear-cutting, and Congress knows it. The House of Representatives seems more interested in posturing and creating false hope than in actually solving the problem.”
Both measures seek to re-frame the House of Representatives failure to consider a temporary extension of important county funding legislation as a “logging problem” rather than a failure of leadership. Sen. Ron Wyden and Sen. Jeff Merkley have been working to advance such a measure in the U.S. Senate.
During the logging epidemic that swept across America’s public forestlands in the 1970s and 1980s, county budgets received a share of logging sale revenues. While this generated an enormous windfall, it also polluted thousands of miles of rivers and severely damaged fish and wildlife habitat. Strong public opposition finally brought an end to rampant clear-cutting in the 1990s – and the money going to counties from timber sales shrank. Congress cushioned the fall by instituting Secure Rural Schools legislation, first passed in 2000, to help transition the counties away from dependence on federal timber receipts. These county payments expired this January.
Earlier this month, a coalition of six local, state, and national conservation organizations unveiled a balanced, three-pronged strategy to solve the looming county funding crunch. This “shared responsibility” approach, where county governments, the State of Oregon, and the federal government would each take responsibility for resolving a portion of the county funding problem, stands in stark contrast to the Hastings and DeFazio proposals being debated in committee today.
From Oregon Wild:
