Brian Hicks Personal Account Of His Arrest During The Keystone XL Protests in Washington, DC

In his own words...


My story is essentially one of a guy becoming an activist for the first time at age 60.  Maybe call me a “reluctant activist” or an “unlikely activist”? In any case, I’m not ‘one of those.’ No, it turns out that ordinary people can do this stuff.

So how about “Brian Hicks, 60-year-old first time activist” or maybe “reluctant activist”? That’s more like it.

By Brian Hicks, Reluctant Activist?

Over the course of the two-week sit-in 1,252 people were arrested, including top climate scientists, landowners from Texas and Nebraska, former Obama for America staffers, First Nations leaders from Canada, and notable individuals including Bill McKibben, former White House official Gus Speth, NASA scientist Dr. James Hansen, actor Daryl Hannah, filmmaker Josh Fox, and author Naomi Klein.”

…and me.

Today I stood on the other side of the barrier, and clapped for each person being arrested. I waited (many of us did) for the last person and cheered him. This was the last day.

I won’t write about the tar sands or the Keystone XL pipeline. Others have done that better than I can. I will write about one of the protesters, the only one I’m qualified to write about.

I get it, that to do this is out of the ordinary. I get it when I hear or read what some of my friends have said to me. Lovely things. I got it when I was standing on the other side of the barricade this afternoon, looking at the people solemnly submitting to being handcuffed and loaded into police wagons.

That’s the point, I suppose. That it is out of my comfort zone: I do not disobey police orders. The notion of doing so, when I visualized it clearly for the first time a few days before my trip, was deeply unsettling. I had no idea how firm a part of my personality that is. I did not want to get arrested. I did not want to use my vacation time to fly to DC. I have other things I’d rather do with my money. This was a sacrifice.

So maybe that’s the point, then. Yes, that’s getting closer. Taking 30 seconds to sign a petition, or re-using a paper bag – these are not sacrifices. Why me, though?

(I must pause, before I go on, to get this out of the way: I thought often - as I endured my gentle and respectful treatment by the police, my mild deprivations, my inconveniences and moderate expenses - of those others, elsewhere and in other times, who have risked and too often suffered a nightmare version of what we were going through. And I am in awe. Still, what I did was out of the ordinary. It crossed the line into sacrifice.)

I did not think of the word “sacrifice” until just now. But I think it explains what I was doing and why. At the training the night before our action, they asked us to discuss with our buddy how climate change has affected us personally. When they asked for a few to share their experiences with the group, several discussed tangible changes in their own home areas. I have not observed that in the San Francisco Bay Area. But it has impacted me quite profoundly. It has robbed me of the peace of mind I so want to have from knowing that the earth will continue be an exquisite, generous planet long after I’m gone. It has caused me anguish when I think of the suffering that billions will endure as a result of our collective short-sighted and narrow-minded decisions and actions. I am very troubled. That’s been the impact on me. Some might argue that’s not a tangible impact. It is a very tangible impact.

I am privileged. I have enough – health, energy, time, and money - to offer some up as a sacrifice.

Benjamin Jealous, president of the NAACP, came to speak to my group at the training the night before we were to be arrested. It was an unexpected highlight of the event for me. Most memorably, he closed by saying, “Next time, come to us at the very beginning. We’ll help, we’ll stand with you.” It was the gentlest possible chiding of the organizers of this event, about a lost opportunity, and about our habitual ways of thinking. But mostly I felt it as hopefulness, even, in the language of the old Western movie cliché, like I had just heard that the cavalry was going to come riding in.

I responded to Bill McKibben’s invitation because of my deep concern about climate change. Wouldn’t you know it, that the day I am to participate, the focus turns out not to be on climate change but on indigenous rights, and on the harm being done to a small group of First Nations people in remote Alberta.

But wait, I came as an environmentalist, what does this have to do with indigenous rights and the NAACP? I think maybe the answer is that I came on the right day.

Bill quoted us this: “If you're comfortable with everybody at the table, your coalition is too small.”

The training was long and meticulous. We were there for four hours. A key message was that we were to be solemn and serious, as befits the issues, and that we were to be cooperative and respectful with the police. The point was made that anything one of us did to slow the process, or to aggravate the police, would just make it that much worse for those coming after us, and it is already going to be a very long, uncomfortable day for the last participants. We might even change the local climate enough that the police responded differently, with much larger fines, or jail, all of which is within their legitimate power to do. Of course it was also pointed out that the police were not our enemy and that undoubtedly some would be privately sympathetic to our message. I would add that they were going to be doing exactly what I want them to do.

That is, I want them to enforce our laws – that’s their job. I want them to serve us in that way even if it is me they need to arrest. And civil disobedience is about openly and willingly accepting the consequences of breaking a law.

On Friday, we arranged ourselves on the sidewalk where tourists take the souvenir photo of the White House, in rows, seated in front, standing in the back, some holding signs. And we remained that way. In doing so, we broke the law. We got the first warning from the police. After the second warning, those not willing to risk arrest quietly left. The third announcement from the police was that we were no longer allowed to leave, that we were under arrest.

The barriers and caution tape went up to isolate us. Crossing that line now would have been a significant offense. And then the slow process began. A few of the most frail were taken first, then the older women, then the rest of the women. After an hour and a half, the last woman was removed and they took the older men. I was standing with two ‘buddies’ (the result of a pairing up for us solo travelers that had taken place the evening before) who, like myself, were not young (I am 60). I confess we all three took some satisfaction that we had passed the test and had not been perceived as ‘old’. But it meant we stood longer.

Mostly, we stood quietly. At some point an officer came and advised us that we would be waiting quite a while and that if we’d like to sit, we could. We thanked him and some sat.

But there was some chanting as well, with call and response between us and the supporters in the park, behind the police vehicles and the barricades. I did not always participate, it seemed out of keeping with my intentions and attitude.

There were a few moments where we were to raise our fists, which made me very uncomfortable. Both were led by the group of first nations leaders at the front and center of our group. And when I thought of the immediate threats to them and their families and their land, and the violence done to them, even to the point of death, by the pollutants already in their drinking water, I chanted and even raised my fist once or twice. “If you're comfortable with everybody at the table, your coalition is too small.”

When it was clear that I was next, I said a quick word to my new friend King, who drove from Texas, stood and waited for the officer to motion to me. These were SWAT team police, very menacing and intimidating in their bearing and their attire. I stepped forward, turned and put my hands behind me so that he could put on the cuffs. Turned, I was looking back at my compatriots. A few solemn nods. Perhaps they applauded and maybe there was applause from across the street – as there certainly was the next day when I was on the other side. Oddly, I don’t remember. The cuffs are not police-movie handcuffs, but ‘flexi-cuffs’ a plastic strapping that is just as effective.

The officer held my upper arm and led me toward the processing tent and vehicles, saying “Watch your step”, as we came to the edge of the sidewalk. I said thank you. We stood like that for a few minutes, his hand on my arm, until he handed me off to another officer, a regular park police officer. Someone was holding me at all times throughout the process, until I was in the police van. I suppose that’s standard procedure when a suspect is in custody – you wouldn’t want them running away – but mostly it felt to me that they were there for my safety, because you are quite vulnerable when your hands are lashed behind your back.

A thorough pat-down, and more waiting. The rest is tedious detail that went on for two more hours – photographed while an officer held a sign with my number in front of me, answering questions, sitting in the police van, hands behind us, with the sections separated by wire mesh, the drive to the station, more standing, the relief of having the cuffs removed, more questions, handing over $100 (getting a receipt!), and being released. Although there was nothing noteworthy in all of this, I went through it in something of a state of heightened awareness, as might be imagined. It was all significant to me.

I walked up a ramp and opened a door, thinking I was going to the next step in the process, but instead finding myself outside. One of the volunteer organizers was nearby. He handed me my sign(!), the one with the number, and told me where to find the larger group. I caught up with the man in front of me and we approached the group to a small amount of cheering. There was water and a bit of food. I waited for my buddies and after a while we walked to the Metro and the day was over.

So what was that all about? Why did I do that, and so what?

I’ve exchanged emails with my buddies. I forwarded them these words from my daughter, “…this is AWESOME! Good for you. I'm bragging to all my friends about what you're doing!”

It warmed my heart, of course, but was just one example of something I only realized after it was all over: There is a bit of power we individuals gained by doing this: The power to get people to stop and think. It brings people up short when they understand that I flew across the country and got arrested for something I care very much about. It pierces the fog of the ordinary. I’m pretty much Clark Kent to most people. I imagine that people learning this about me would experience a thought something like, “Oh…If Brian is doing this…hmmm.”

That’s how it spreads.

Collectively, we sent a message to Obama, and quite broadly to organizations and people in the United States, Canada, and elsewhere.

Personally, I sent a message to my friends and family, and to 100 people on Facebook. My message was something like this: I care enough to sacrifice something (you might stop and think about that for a minute). I have decided that the time has come to say enough! (when will that point come for you?)

I think I sent a message to myself as well, that went something like this: Look at you! Maybe you aren’t quite who you thought you were. Maybe you have a little something in you that you didn’t know about. You’ve been fretting and hand-wringing, knowing all along that wasn’t really going to help. Maybe you’re becoming the kind of person who will go farther, who will make a sacrifice for the things you believe in and love.

Friday morning, the day I was going to be arrested, I awoke from a dream in which I was late and disorganized. I showed up at the protest location without something essential and said I had to go back for it. But there was no time. The person I was explaining to gave me a stern and doubtful look, and asked in a patronizing tone, “What makes you think you are ready to cross the line?”

I guess I crossed the line.

Monsanto Profits Hit A New High - While Mexican & South American Farmers Protest Against The Invasion of GMOs

By Theodora Filis

Biotech giant Monsanto reported strong results for its first fiscal quarter this year with profits of $339 million; this is up from $126 million last year. The company attributes the strong results to the "continued expansion" of its corn business in Latin American countries, its "early momentum" in US seed and trait sales, and the performance of the company's agricultural productivity division.

This news led the company's stock to rise. Media reports said earlier this week Monsanto's shares were "surging" during pre-market trading after the company reported its healthy earnings and revenues. Reportedly, the company's increase "exceeded" previous estimates figured by analysts, reported Business Insider.

On Wednesday, January 23rd, Leaders of the National Union of Autonomous Regional Peasant Organizations (UNORCA) from more than 20 states began a sit-in and collective hunger strike against the planting of Genetically Modified (GMO) corn in Mexico.

Mexico, the birthplace of corn, contains a broad biodiversity of corn varieties. If allowed to proceed, this will be the first commercial planting of a GMO crop at its center of origin anywhere in the world. The impacts of this decision are critical for the cultural and food sovereignty of Mexico’s small farmers, but also for the health of Mexico’s urban population.

Three biotech giants have applied for permits to grow 6 million acres of GMO corn in the Northern Mexican states of Sinaloa and Tamilaupas. On September 7, 2012, Monsanto requested permission from the National Service of Food and Agriculture Inspection Office (SENASICA)   to plant three GMO corn varieties (MON89034-3, MON88017-3, and MON-00603-6) in 1,729,737 acres in 10 municipalities of Sinaloa state. They hope to begin planting in the next two months to harvest the first commercial crop of GMO corn in Mexico this summer.

And, according to the Wall Street Journal, Monsanto has "traditionally reported a quiet first quarter", with the growth in South America, the company now has stronger sales year-round.

Debates about the pros and cons of GMOs are taking place across the region.

GMOs are becoming increasingly prominent in South America, yet they continue to face strong resistance. One-third of the 134 million hectares of GMOs planted globally in 2009, were in South America. Brazil and Argentina are the main producers, with 21.4 and 21.3 million hectares respectively. Of the 25 countries in the world that are planting genetically modified crops, seven are in South America. Between 2008 and 2009, world production of GM crops increased by eight percent, while in Brazil it rose by 35 percent.

GMOs are associated with a loss of biodiversity, as well as increasing social exclusion and economic dependency, especially for small farmers and native communities. Some experiences indicate that GM crops are sold to farmers as the only option.

The crops have three main characteristics:

1. they do not produce new seeds, thus the seeds must be bought anew every crop season;

2. they survive herbicides, which are usually provided by the same producers of the crop seeds;

3. property rights are held by the seed providers.

Some of the consequences of these commercial seeds are; soil degradation, because single crop farming, resistance to herbicides, and extinction of insects are linked to plants’ reproduction; GM species have the potential to mix and reproduce with non-GM species, without knowing the impact of these combinations; and economic and social dependence of farmers on GM-crops, herbicides, and high-cost machinery.

There are no international regulations to control the use and spread of GMOs. International organizations have proposed protocols to implement international food codes (FAO and WHO) and to adopt bio-security regulations at national borders (Protocol of Cartagena), to avoid the risk that GMOs affect other products or reproduce genetic material.

However, none of these protocols have been widely accepted. Some countries have proposed regulations on tagging and commercialization of GM products, but without taking into account the impacts that commercialization and use can have.

"This is not just an issue for peasant farmers. The coming GMO maize invasion would impact all people as consumers and would aggravate the terrible food dependency that our country suffers from. We respectfully ask you to join our struggle with a one-day solidarity fast, and join our sit-in if you can, or from the place where you live and work, by speaking out publicly to express your support for our actions, sending a message to us and/or to the news media. We are enormously grateful for your support." - UNORCA

Animal Activists and Journalists Who "Violate" the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act Will Be Labeled "Terrorists"

By Theodora Filis

The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA) of 2006, was passed by Congress late at night, with inadequate notice, and with only a fraction of Congresspersons present to vote on it. Pushed through Congress by wealthy biomedical & agri-business industry groups such as the Animal Enterprise Protection Coalition (AEPC), the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), and the Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF).

“Under AETA it is no longer just the radical underground activists that are targeted for harming the corporate agenda, but also the law–abiding, above–ground activists. AETA is so broad and vague that ordinary citizens may not know that they are acting outside the vast boundaries of this new law. Under AETA, it doesn't take much to be labeled an “animal enterprise terrorist. ” Techniques that have been used for years in various social movements are now acts of terrorism if they cause profit loss, including increased security costs, to an animal exploitation business. Those who peacefully protest or engage in undercover investigations can be deemed a terrorist precisely because these actions are purposefully enacted to cause economic loss to a business so that it can no longer engage in the exploitation of animals.” --   Civil Liberties Defense Center

Proving, Congress would prefer to lock away all animal and environmental rights activists rather than bring attention to the horrible treatment of animals, the environment, and our health... or to consider legislation in response to our concerns.

Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) are animal feeding facilities that confine animals for more than 45 days in an area that does not produce vegetation during the growing season. Animals are crammed by the thousands or tens of thousands, unable to breathe fresh air, see the light of day, walk outside, peck at plants or insects, scratch the earth, or eat a blade of grass.

Notorious breeding grounds for disease, overuse antibiotics, and pollute the environment – CAFOs have the right to treat animals cruelly – as long as the animal is intended for the sale of food – these actions are considered common practice. Farmers are protected by “common farming exemptions” (CFEs) that vary from state to state but all serve the same purpose – to legalize the horrors of battery cages, veal crates, and gestation crates, and allow cruel practices such as castration without anesthetic, beak searing, and the deliberate withholding of lifesaving veterinary care.

According to a document uncovered through the Freedom of Information Act, the FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force has kept files on activists who expose animal welfare abuses on factory farms and recommended prosecuting them as terrorists.

The 2003 FBI file details the work of several animal rights activists who used an undercover investigation to document repeated animal welfare violations. According to the FBI report, “The animal activists caused “economic loss” to businesses, and they also openly rescued several animals from the abusive conditions.” This was not done covertly in the style of underground groups like the Animal Liberation Front — it was an act of non-violent civil disobedience and, as the FBI agent notes, “the activists distributed press releases and conducted media interviews taking responsibility for their actions."

Based on these acts (trespassing in order to photograph and videotape abuses on factory farms) the agent concludes there “is a reasonable indication” that the activists “have violated the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, 18 USC Section 43 (a).

ABC News reported Florida Bill SB 1246 would make it a first-degree felony to photograph a farm without first obtaining written permission from the owner. Farmers say the bill is needed “to protect the property rights of farmers and the ‘intellectual property’ involving farm operations.”

Adding to an already troubling situation, a proposed amendment to the $1 trillion federal farm bill, passed in the House earlier this year – The Protect Interstate Commerce Act – introduced by Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), would amend the farm bill by limiting states’ power to supervise their own farming standards. Under the legislation, states would be banned from enacting farm product regulations stricter than what other states mandate.

Looking into the future, I imagine there will be many different industries scrambling to have similar laws passed to protect them from the watchful eye of reporters and activists.

Why are we not allowed to know where our food comes from? To include GMOs on our food labels? The right to food safety, and a healthy lifestyle, that includes organic and local farming? And why should those who strive to protect the humane treatment of animals be arrested for doing so?

Of course, we all know the answer to those questions – the old mighty dollar. I say, as I always do, the best way to send a clear message to Congress and to those who produce our food – stop buying these products until they change their policies and practices.

Cloned Cows' Milk My Someday Replace Baby Formula

By Theodora Filis

Babies could someday drink human-like milk derived from herds of genetically modified dairy cows, which scientists say could supplement breast milk and replace baby formula.

Research, published in PLoS One, claims to be the first study to result in the production of a herd of cloned transgenic cattle expressing recombinant human lysozyme (rHLZ) in their milk.

Lysozyme, a bactericidal protein that protects human infants from microbial infections, and is found in only trace amounts in cow milk. The researchers said that the new transgenic milk may allow for the transfer of the nutritional aspects of human lysozyme in human milk to bovine milk.

“Our study not only describes transgenic cattle whose milk offers similar nutritional benefits as human milk but also reports techniques that could be further refined for production of active human lysozyme on a large scale,” said the authors, led by Professor Ning Li, the China Agricultural University, China.

Writing in the journal Public Library of Science One, Prof Li’s team said they used cloning technology to introduce human genes into the DNA of Holstein dairy cows. One variety of GM cows produced milk containing lysozyme – an antimicrobial protein found in breast milk that protects babies from infection. They also created cows that produced human lactoferrin, a protein that boosts the immune system.

A third human milk protein called alpha-lactalbumin was also expressed in the milk. Prof Li claims his team has boosted the milk’s fat content by a fifth and changed the levels of solids to make it close to the composition of human milk.

But campaigners said the creation of GM cattle was bad for animal welfare. In two experiments by the Chinese in which 42 GM calves were born, just 26 survived. Ten died soon after birth and six died within six months.

However, Professor Ning Li, insists GM milk would be as safe to drink as milk from ordinary dairy cows.

"The milk tastes stronger than normal milk. We aim to commercialize some research in this area in the coming three years. For the “human-like milk”, 10 years or maybe more time will be required to finally pour this enhanced milk into the consumer’s cup.” said Ning Li

The move was condemned by campaigners who question its safety. Human milk differs from cows’ milk in several important ways. It contains high quantities of nutrients beneficial to a baby’s growth and immune system. Cows’ milk is much harder for a baby to digest, has less fat and fewer carbohydrates, and contains no antibodies that protect against disease.

Patti Rundall, of Baby Milk Action, said: “We need to have rules in place to safeguard human health. There could be incredible risks with these products that we don’t know about. Cows’ milk is never going to be like breast milk. It’s never going to be a living product like breast milk. Breast milk is species-specific – there is no element of risk.”

Prof Keith Campbell, a biologist at Nottingham University and a member of the team that cloned Dolly the sheep in 1996, said GM animals were not a threat to health unless scientists deliberately gave them a gene that made their milk toxic.

The modified milk could help boost sales of dairy products in Asia, where more than nine in ten people are lactose intolerant and cannot consume cows’ milk without suffering stomach upsets and cramps.

China’s rules on GM food are more relaxed than those in Europe. GM milk would not be allowed on sale in the UK unless it was approved by the European Union and passed stringent safety tests.

Considered an "Act of Terrorism" - Laws That Silence American Citizens

By Theodora Filis

The most effective way to keep American citizens silent and under control is through fear. The "spiral of silence theory" describes the process by which one opinion becomes dominant as those who perceive their opinion to be in the minority do not speak up because they fear isolation from society, or in this case, being prosecuted as a terrorist.

The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA) hopes to accomplish just that by making it an "act of terrorism” for anyone to investigate animal cruelty, food safety, or environmental violations on corporate-controlled farms producing the bulk of US meat, eggs, and dairy products.

The Animal and Ecological Terrorism Act, designed to protect Big Ag and Big Energy, was written by lawyers for the Energy, Environment, and Agriculture Task Force, which is funded by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). That in itself should send red flags through the earth's atmosphere...

This new information comes as the Center for Constitutional Rights has filed a lawsuit challenging the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA) as unconstitutional because its vague wording has had a chilling effect on political activism. This document adds to the evidence demonstrating that the AETA goes far beyond property destruction, as its supporters claim.

The 2003 FBI file details the work of several animal rights activists who used an undercover investigation to document repeated animal welfare violations. The FBI special agent who authored the report said they "illegally entered buildings owned by [redacted] Farm  and videotaped conditions of animals."

This new information comes as the Center for Constitutional Rights has filed a lawsuit challenging the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA) as unconstitutional because its vague wording has had a chilling effect on political activism. This document adds to the evidence demonstrating that the AETA goes far beyond property destruction, as its supporters claim.

The 2003 FBI file details the work of several animal rights activists who used an undercover investigation to document repeated animal welfare violations. The FBI special agent who authored the report said they "illegally entered buildings owned by [redacted] Farm  and videotaped conditions of animals."

The 2003 FBI file details the work of several animal rights activists who used undercover investigation to document repeated animal welfare violations. The FBI special agent who authored the report said they "illegally entered buildings owned by [redacted] Farm  and videotaped conditions of animals."

(Read Will Potter's full article here:  http://www.greenisthenewred.com/blog/fbi-undercover-investigators-animal-enterprise-terrorism-act/5440/)

Rosa Parks became a leading figure in the Black Civil Rights Movement in America, but she was not an intellectual, a radical or a preacher. She was a woman who worked as a seamstress. She said she acted as a private citizen that was 'tired of giving in'.

The main issue with civil disobedience is that it is breaking the law. Gandhi, Martin Luther King, and many other intellectuals put into action the theory that it is people's duty to resist unfair laws.

Because something is a law it does not make it just. Brave people who take action against unjust laws and unjust situations are the real guardians of democracy.

Sometimes the only way the will of the people will be heard by a government is through protest. Most recently this has been the case in Egypt, Libya, and Tunisia. For too long the people complained, but their protests fell on deaf ears. Many were imprisoned and tortured for their comments. Eventually, enough was enough and mass protests ensued.
What is the true meaning of the word democracy? 'demos' means People and 'crazy' means Rule.

An article written by Will Potter for Green Is The New Red states, "The FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force has kept files on activists who expose animal welfare abuses on factory farms and recommended prosecuting them as terrorists, according to a new document uncovered through the Freedom of Information Act."