“Whoever defines the issue controls the debate.†— Timothy Cummings, a clinical professor and poultry veterinarian at Mississippi State University.
That quote is from an article in Farmed Animal Watch on combating animal and environmental advocates. Cummings advises farmers to use terms like “exsanguinated†rather than “bled to death,†and “knifer operator†instead of “killer.â€
Such euphemisms may seem silly, but Cummings knows that they work: one of the first things any high school debater (and, nerd alert, I was one) learns is to control the definitions used in the debate. In other words, don’t let your opponent define you into a corner.
I’d argue that this is exactly the tactic behind the “eco-terrorism†rhetoric. Defining someone as a “terrorist†is an automatic trump card. By default, anything that the “non-terrorists†are doing pales in comparison.
For instance, remember the Sea Shepherd activists that were held hostage by Japanese whalers, and the hostageswere called “terroristsâ€? Well, the saga continues. Sea Shepherd crew members have vowed to board the whaling ships again and make a citizens arrest. But opponents are saying that would be an act of “terrorism.” That helps shift the scrutiny away from the illegal whalers and onto the nonviolent activists.
Or check this out, from “Gamefowl and Cockfighting†(for only the best in cockfighting journalism):
Domestic terrorism has long been a thorn in the sides of all Americans, in many cases a very deadly thorn. Groups such as Animal Liberation Front (PETA’s financial foster child), and Earth Liberation Front now must take a back seat to the newest terrorist supergroup. This group has coffers that are bursting at the seams and boasts enough members to effectively populate a small nation, this supergroup is, of course, none other than the Humane Society of the United States.
It’s not the first time industry groups said HSUS was “consorting with terrorists.”
Calling the Humane Society a “terrorist supergroup†almost makes cockfighters seem warm and cuddly by comparison.
This tactic doesn’t always come cloaked in “eco-terrorism†rhetoric, though. Sometimes it’s just plain bait and switch. Like when a HSUS investigation of cruelty on factory farms led to a historic recall of beef, and the USDA blamed HSUS (not the criminals) for not acting sooner.
Or when an undercover investigation by KIRO TV showed researchers boiling a primate alive, and researchers question the motivations of the journalists.
All of this has tactical implications for activists, of course, but that’s really not my main concern here. Activists can figure out their own tactics. My main concern is what this sweeping terrorism language means for all of us: if we let these groups label people as “terrorists,†even if it is just in soundbites to win cheap public opinion points, it slowly expands the meaning of the word. It helps create a political climate that allows for legal and legislative crackdowns, in the name of fighting “terrorism,†that put the First Amendment rights of everyone at risk.