You may be concerned about the pending destruction of the world heritage Tasmanian forests. You may be affected by the images of trees being cut down and killed or animals being burned alive because of the industrial firebombing. You may share your views on social media, you may sign a petition. You may want to do more and donate at website of the Bob Brown Foundation. You may even write a letter or an email to Prime Minister Tony Abbott who expressed his frustration about too many of Australia’s forest are locked up in national park hence inaccessible to industrialist, his campaign supporters.
You may attend a demonstration in major city. You may invite your family and friends to that protest. But what if you want to do more? Would you be dissuaded from chaining yourself to a tree knowing that the sentence the courts will no impose will rival the sentences handed down to terrorists? Would you be frightened that big corporations, something the NSA does also) now routinely gather data on “radicals” even their “porn habits”. Would you be afraid to know that you could be watched, isolated, tracked, ridiculed just for standing up for the forests or the whales?
Why would you still choose to do it? Perhaps because you feel and even know, just like the Nordic people, that the souls of our ancestors lived in the trees. This would make it unacceptable to kill trees. You may even consider that all the elements (earth, fire, water, air) are inside you. You can’t draw a line between the air inside your lungs and the air outside you and you may even know that most of your body is water just like the planet we are all part of.
You know all this and you want to do something about it. You have seen that the politicians do not seem to listen to us, even though it is our vote that allowed them to be in the position where they are now. You have seen how fast these politicians betray the people whose interest they should represent. Some are simply mad like Collin Barnett who does not want to listen to scientific evidence and public uproar and goes ahead to order the shark culling in Western Australia. Some are malicious like Tony Abbott.
So we, the community, natural persons not corporate “entities”, have no or very little say in what goes on in our backyard. We see that the laws seem to only change to protect the businesses involved in the exploitation of nature. We are frustrated, since we are losing our fundamental rights such as access to clean air and water, free speech and freedom of expression. If you raise your voice for nature you could be labeled the “enemy” of the economy, a “terrorist”, a “pirate” or simply a “lunatic”. The politicians and these malicious businesses along with the media they use are responsible for the radicalisation of the environmental movement. This is merely a labeling, a PR maneuver they are using. There is no radicalisation.
Throughout history human beings stood up for what they believed in. There is nothing new about people locking arms. It could be to protest for peace or to stop bulldozers in order to protect forests. There is nothing new about boycotting certain corporations if they support war or are responsible for the poisoning of rivers. There is nothing new about painting slogans on the side of buildings. There is nothing new about destroying property used to torture people or animals. There is nothing new about exposing government or corporate cruelty by sneaking in their jails or laboratories to film the atrocities committed by them or to release human or animals persons being kept there. This is not radical, this is the only way ordinary human beings can express themselves since they were left no other opinions. This has been done multiple times throughout history, mostly for humans, but now for the animals, the rivers, the forest and the land.
What do they expect??? Do they think by making laws and using force they can stop all this? They think by making the law the ethical standards and the moral values of the community can be changed? This has always been the other way around. It used to be legal to oppress people based on their skin colour, but it was never morally acceptable or ethical. So the laws had to change to reflect this.