To send a copy of any BLOG to a friend, click on the BLOG Title, Then click on “mail this” button below BLOG.
Enter the information requested and any comments you wish and click send.

Send other comments to: Info@NorthPacificResearch.com

 

Terrorism and Activism

Nature Magazine May 24, 2007 page 353: An editorial titled –Unwise Branding – Makes the statement, “Equating animal-rights activism with terrorism increases the penalties for offenders and will please many of their victims. But it is not in the interest of science.” I am sorry but I do not agree with that statement. So I and a few of my friends who believe the same way will show up next week at your office with a bomb. We will then see how calmly you speak. I sure your defense of my actions will please your widow.

The author states that the law somehow enshrines “…the idea that destructive activists are terrorists.” How unfair. The author then makes the Statement “But a terrorist is, in practice, a person who fights for a cause we do not believe in using methods that we do not approve of. Calling someone a terrorist is a value judgment.” The editors definition of a terrorist is not everybody’s definition of a terrorist. The inclusion of the phrase “…a cause we do not believe in,” is not necessary. The Crux of the definition is in the clause “…using methods that we do not approve of.”

Certainly calling someone a terrorist is NOT a judgment call. It is based on how that person acts. If you bomb, burn, and terrorize people, you are a terrorist.

Does this editor support activists in a conference who disagree with a presenter to shout him down, or burn that scientist’s notes. Terrorists are those who renounce objectivity and normally accepted means of disagreement. If an activist crosses that line they should be called terrorist. The author is afraid that by calling them terrorist that will prevent them form coming to the table for a friendly discussion of the problem. Why would anyone invite someone to table that does not have the common decency to behave according to socially acceptable practice. These people are not great thinkers. Why are they invited at all? The only difference between them and millions of other people on the planet who have an opinion on the issue is that they perform violent acts.

Why does this editor want to exclude people who perform violent acts from being criminals? Because he is an activist and believes in a cause, we do not believe in, like stopping all environmental change! Activist by definition have closed minds. Nothing the opposition says that challenges their beliefs can possibly be true. If by some chance, the activists did agree with an opinion different that theirs, their funding would disappear. The sixties ended 40 years ago, get over it. Marching in protest is mob rule. Mob rule is anarchy.

Science and society could do much better without activism or terrorism.


C. Blume

http://northpacificresearch.com/blog/

Comments

 
To send a copy of any BLOG to a friend, click on the BLOG Title, Then click on “mail this” button below BLOG.
Enter the information requested and any comments you wish and click send.

Send other comments to Info@NorthPacificResearch.com