By Robert Anderson – Anderson Valley Advertiser, August 22, 1990
First, a political disclaimer of sorts: I’ve supported the politics of Redwood Summer from the start. The continuing devastation of the timberland of the north coast is a scandal and a tragedy, and Earth First! filled a necessary political vacuum with direct action protests of the ongoing strip-logging of our forests. The polite, legalistic objections of groups like the Sierra Club, though they play an important role, were—and are—an inadequate response to an economic and environmental crime of this magnitude. An angry, politically aggressive movement to challenge the timber corporations and their local spear-carriers was, and is, a worthy political project. Redwood Summer, as I understand it, was never intended to actually stop logging for any significant length of time, but, rather, to use carefully planned protests to call attention to both the ongoing moonscaping of the north coast and the shockingly poor logging practices which are the norm in the area and the industry.
The Lorax trial is an offshoot of Redwood Summer, since the Lorax affinity group is composed of those who were arrested for blocking the passage of logging trucks in Samoa, the inaugural demo of the summer. While it’s good news that the Lorax affinity group (Learning From The Lorax Trial, by Evelyn Keye[1], Anderson Valley Advertiser, August 15) has been acquitted of the charges, I find some of the implications of the article disquieting and worth further examination.
I have no quarrel with the affinity group theory and practice as outlined by Keye…the affinity group concept is clearly superior politically to the undemocratic, Leninist “democratic centralism,” of an earlier generation of radicals and seems similar to the old SDS concept of “participatory democracy.” Yet Keye seems oblivious to the danger of self-righteousness. While earlier generations of radicals claimed to represent “the People,” or “the workers,” the Lorax environmentalists claim to represent the trees (the epigraph of Keye’s article: “I am the Lorax. I speak for the trees. Take direct action against corporate greed.”).
Nor do I have a quarrel with either the idea of civil disobedience or of going to trial with a political defense and political objectives in mind. But, on the other hand, Humboldt County isn’t in much better financial condition than Mendocino County. Hence, the decision to go to trial, forcing a financially strapped Humboldt County to spend scarce funds ($40,000 is the number mentioned by Keye) on a lengthy jury trial should have been a close call politically, but we get no indication from Keye that there was even a debate on the issue. Both the lucid exposition of the theory and practice of affinity groups and the account of the trial are useful and interesting, but an analysis and justification of the original decision to go to trial would have been even more interesting.
The Lorax group’s political agenda is unexceptionable: revealing Louisiana-Pacific’s ongoing, flagrant violations of their effluent discharge permit. They hoped to use the trial to indict L-P politically as criminally negligent, since the corporation knowingly and repeatedly violated the law. The Lorax group’s legal defense involved State Penal Code sections 692 and 694, which, Keye tells us, maintain that “reasonable actions taken to prevent a public offense are not criminal, but legally justified.” Hence, their civil disobedience was actually an attempt to prevent a greater crime.
Keye tells us: “The Lorax Affinity Group wanted to reach both the jury and the public with the L-P issues, as well as to jam up the courts.” They evidently reached most of the jury, since the verdict was 7-5 for acquittal. They also reached some of their lawyers, several of whom were “radicalized” by the trial. (Why, by the way, eight defense lawyers were necessary is also unexplained.) Whether they reached the public is questionable: “Whether Humboldt County residents follow through with what the Lorax helped start remains to be seen. Several Lorax have moved to Arcata, in part to help locals…” continue the fight. The implication seems to be that Humboldt County was languishing in political darkness until the Lorax came along to turn on the lights.
The most questionable goal of the Lorax, however, was “to jam-up the courts,” which is mentioned once with no elaboration or justification. Most county justice systems are already jammed, and a tactic designed to jam them even more needs some justification, especially in light of the aforementioned financial burden on an already financially strapped county government…
There are hints of elitism and arrogance in the Lorax approach. The Lorax group dismisses the lawyers’ suggestion that the defendants should dress “appropriately,” while, on the other hand, makes a point of recycling legal papers and chastising the lawyers for drinking coffee from styrofoam cups.
The Lorax might consider this bit of wisdom from the sixties: There’s often a fine line between being Politically Correct and simply being a pain in the ass.
Notes:
[1] It’s not at all clear how Robert Anderson derived Evelyn Keye from Anne R. Keye, unless one of the Lorax 10 or Samoa 44 was actually named Evelyn Keye.