Pennsylvania State Senator Joe Scarnati is trying to equate the very serious issue of terrorism with environmentalists that peacefully protest. The bill, intended to deal with "environmental terrorism," would make protests on environmental issues a criminal activity if they, in the Senator's words, "caused harm to businesses... in an effort to express their misinformed ideas." Certainly, most would agree that destroying other's property, should be punished -- and is already addressed in law. However, the troubling aspect of this bill is that it targets people whose primary purpose is "expressing a perspective on an environmental cause or natural resource issue" and who are "destructive to property or business practices." In essence, the "business practices" wording of the bill is so loosely written that it would make it illegal to protest a business if it is about an environmental issue -- even if it is done peacefully and doesn't violate trespassing statutes or any other laws. For example, this could even be interpreted to mean that if a protest is held on a public sidewalk and it causes any potential customers to voluntarily decide not to enter the business, the protest has been "destructive to business practices," and the protesters would be held criminally liable. This is yet another troubling example of anti-environmentalists attempting to take advantage of the September 11 tragedies to further their own agenda.

Local editorial boards have railed against this bill:

1/9/02 Pittsburgh Post-Gazette editorial excerpts:

"In America's war against terror, some opportunists inevitably will try to take advantage of public anxiety and target behavior that they simply don't like -- even it is covered by existing laws. That is the problem with a bill supported by a state senator who wishes to curb so-called eco-terrorism."

"State Senator Joseph Scarnetti, a Republican representing counties around the Allegheny National Forest, is a friend of the timber industry and no friend of environmental activists who challenge it. Unfortunately, he has lost sight of the larger issue of place of dissent in a democratic society. In short, he cannot see the forest for the trees."

"If environmental protesters trespass or commit vandalism or disorderly conduct, they ought to be persecuted. If lumber companies suffer damages, they should sue. But a new category of terrorism doesn't have to be invented for acts that don't rival the real and dreadful thing."

1/9/02 Warren Times-Observer:

"Suppose a church group concerned about declining family values in entertainment decides to picket the showing of a movie at the local cinema because of its supposed objectionable nature. Because of the picketing and the group's appeal conscience, attendance at the showings drops precipitously even though no one stopped them from entering the theater. Should the protesters be held criminally liable for the loss of business caused by their 'effort to express misinformed ideas'? Should they be forced by the state to make restitution for the lost business at the movie theater? By Scarnati's standards they would."

Ran 11/25/02