Natural gas foe opposes anti-domestic terrorism bill
Breach Collective, the nonprofit leading the charge to ban natural gas in Oregon, opposes bill that would increase penalties for infrastructure destruction and mass poisonings.
A self-described “climate justice” group leading the effort to prevent Oregonians from using natural gas to heat their homes has staked out a position against a domestic terrorism bill pending in the Oregon legislature.
The group, Breach Collective, says it “partners with communities on the front lines of the climate crisis to advance justice.” It is a key supporter of the City of Eugene’s ban on natural gas connections for new residences, a ban that other cities in Oregon may copy.
The bill, HB 2772, sponsored by State Representative Paul Evans (D-Monmouth), would create a new crime of domestic terrorism in Oregon, to punish two types of conduct when undertaken “with the intent to cause widespread sickness, contagion, serious physical injury, death or the disruption of services provided by critical infrastructure:”
“Intentionally destroy[ing] or substantially damag[ing] critical infrastructure,” defined as a utility system, data center, dam, bridge, road, marina, airport or rail line; or
“Intentionally introduc[ing], releas[ing] or dispers[ing] a toxic substance [defined as any radiological, biological, pathogenic or chemical substance that may cause death or serious physical injury if ingested, inhaled, consumed or absorbed by a human being] into widespread contact with human beings.”
The bill categorizes the commission of those acts as a Class B felony, punishable with up to 10 years imprisonment and a $250,000 fine. The possession of a toxic substance, destructive device with the intent to commit domestic terrorism is a Class C felony, with lesser prison and monetary consequences.
Rep. Evans and a bipartisan cast of cosponsors introduced HB 2772 to combat Oregon’s high rate of domestic terrorism, as documented in a 2022 report by Oregon Secretary of State Shemia Fagan (D). The state has seen mass poisonings by the followers of Baghwan Shree Rajneesh in the 1980s and more recently outbreaks of political violence, and suspicion that white supremacist groups may be targeting electrical infrastructure. According to the report, Oregon is one of only 16 states that lacks a criminal statute punishing domestic terrorism.
While much of the coverage of HB 2772 has focused on its potential to counter right-wing violence, the bill punishes criminal conduct regardless of the political motivations of the perpetrator. The Oregon and U.S. constitutions require as much.
As a result, Breach Collective, along with other left-wing groups including the once-estimable American Civil Liberties Union, is concerned the domestic terrorism bill might interfere with its stated goal of “advancing justice.”
Nick Caleb, climate and energy attorney for Breach Collective, told The Oregonian the group fears law enforcement will unfairly tarnish “communities that are over-policed, such as Black, Indigenous and other Oregonians of color” by charging them with domestic terrorism under the bill. Caleb is concerned HB 2772 could cause people “to avoid participating in common forms of protest, including blocking traffic on major roadways or bridges,” according to The Oregonian.
The bill in no way criminalizes common, or for that matter uncommon but still non-violent, forms of protest even if those forms of protest include blocking traffic on major roadways or bridges. In fact, it doesn’t criminalize destroying or substantially damaging infrastructure unless those acts are undertaken with “the intent to cause widespread sickness, contagion, serious physical injury, death or the disruption of services provided by [the] infrastructure[.]” (Destroying or substantially damaging property, including infrastructure, with intent of a different variety is criminalized by existing statutes).
HB 2772 would in no way affect climate protestors’ right to block the I-5 bridge in its entirety during rush hour; it would increase penalties for doing so by using, or threatening to use, a bomb. Perhaps more to the point, it would increase penalties against someone who destroys a natural gas pipeline with the intent of preventing 50 or more Oregonians from burning its contents.
Breach Collective can’t exactly come out and oppose the bill on those grounds, now can it? People rely on the infrastructure they use every day, including natural gas, and while they may be open to making different choices eventually if they believe doing so would help the environment, they prefer that decision not be left to the whim of saboteurs. Oregon remains, mostly, anti-sabotage.
Hence climate and energy attorney Caleb’s claim that HB 2772 would deter the peaceful speech of would-be protestors worried about being accused - wrongly, of course- of domestic terrorism. This is nonsensical. There are all kinds of very serious (and very serious-sounding) crimes on the books that would ruin a protester’s life if leveled against him or her.
Murder, for example. It is unlawful to murder someone. At least one person has been the subject of an arrest warrant for allegedly committing murder while involved in a protest in Oregon. Protests continue unabated because the vast majority of protesters have no intention of killing someone and there are very significant disincentives for police and prosecutors to accuse someone of murder if they lack probable cause. The same would apply to the crime of domestic terrorism, if HB 2772 were to become law.
Right-wing groups have joined Breach Collective in opposing HB 2772 too, some on the grounds the bill’s definitions are inadequately precise. They are not. The bill is straightforwardly drafted and targeted at conduct that, unfortunately, Oregonians have reason to fear.
Presumably, that’s why the House Judiciary Committee approved HB 2772 by a vote of 8-1. All Republicans and all but one Democrat on the panel voted yes.
Oregonians deserve a fair fight over climate policy, including whether they will be allowed to continue to use natural gas in their homes. Mass poisonings and destruction of infrastructure with widespread harm to people are, by definition, not part of a fair political fight.
Oregonians would do well to wonder why one side of the natural gas wars objects to calling domestic terrorism what it is.
Even as a prosecutor for 30 years, this bill makes me nervous. I have no wish to ally myself with either eco-terrorists or right wing extremists, but I wonder what actual good this law would do.
I was very dubious about so-called "hate crime" laws that were passed in the early 80s. If someone is targeted with criminal behavior a judge can take that into account in sentencing. I recall times when I charged (and convicted) someone with murder which was apparently motivated by hatred for the victim's sexual orientation or gender, but the idea of having to prove a relatively minor charge when murder meant a life sentence seemed performative.
In American law we rarely require the state to prove WHY someone did a bad thing, just that they DID it. My concern is that this will make whatever group is not in favor with the majority the potential target of what could be politically-based prosecutions.
I don’t have an opinion one way or another on this law, but I wonder how it would apply to an earlier case regarding the Earth Liberation Front. If it’s a federal crime it wouldn’t apply.
Lacey Phillabaum was a reporter/writer at Bend’s alternative newspaper, the Source Weekly. She became a fugitive following her participation in an ELF act that destroyed a University of Washington horticulture lab. She was later apprehended by the FBI and agreed to help locate others involved in the crime in exchange for a lighter sentence.
The botanist whose lab was destroyed was not doing the research, genetically-engineering trees, that the ELF was so worked up about. The thing I wonder about is how does someone with an obvious set of skills, fail to do the simple task of verifying that the thing they oppose is actually occurring.