Last Wednesday I had the chance to attend the documentary screening of If a Tree Falls at the Cornell Cinema with Q & A afterward with the director, Marshall Curry. Before watching the movie, I read a brief description and was surprised to find out it was about the ELF (Earth Liberation Front). Which… I knew nothing about other than hearing the name before. So going in, I wasn’t really sure what to expect.
As I was watching the film, the experience was kind of surreal because while I knew things like this were going on when I was younger, I had absolutely no exposure to it. That being said, I feel like I learned a lot from this film.
One phrase they mentioned a lot in the film was eco-terrorism. The film raised a lot of questions for what exactly should be defined as eco-terrorism, or if the term should even be used. I think it is important that this question be answered, since it affects how people who participate in these crimes are classified. For example, one of the subjects in the film, participated in some of the ELF activities, including setting fire to private property. Even though he did not harm any people he was classified as a terrorist, and had to spend his jail time in a special facility.
Typically when I think of a terrorist act, I think of something that causes terror to people. Which his acts certainly did. However, some people say that an act is only a terrorist act if it causes harm to people. Since this is up in the air, I think we need to define what exactly is a terrorist act, and probably add different classes of acts instead of simply saying a terrorist act is a terrorist act. Since the main subject was classified as a terrorist, he was placed in a facility in that handles them. But he (who never harmed any people/ has no intent to) was placed amongst many many others who do want to harm people and have done horrible things to humans.
So was it fair? Should he have been classified as a terrorist for the rest of his life? Even though he only damaged property?
It seems as though eco-terrorism further blurs the boundary between “good” and “bad.” On one hand, the goal of helping to preserve the Earth is “good” and seemingly honorable. However, it may not always be the case that the end justifies the means. Moreover, using violence in the name of saving the planet could potentially negatively impact public opinion on the matter and thus make it more difficult to effect large scale changes (i.e. new laws and policies).
I think it all depends on the point of view. From the point of view of the people who’s property was damaged, it was classified as eco-terriosm. From the ELF participates they felt like it was a necessary act. I think that being classified as a terrorist for the rest of his life is extreme, but we also have to consider the consequences if everyone with a cause, took actions such as this. In addition to this, even though he never harmed anyone and has never had the intention, what if he unintentionally harmed someone?