School is literally cancelled on Friday across all of Ontario and no one is going to go to jail for that. Cancelling school is definitely at best a hardship for a lot of people
Apples and Oranges. Both fruit, yes, But different. Strikes by a Union are not the same as protesters blocking rail access.
Teachers in Ontario are giving notice to the affected parties and are a first party to the conflict. They are using all of their socially approved paths to resolution (bargaining) as well as these rotating strike actions that affect only their own jobs. They're not out picketing in front of Walmart or Canadian Tire, denying the public access to those stores.
The protesters, in Ontario anyway, are only tangentially related to the aggrieved parties. Allegedly involving professional protesters and other groups piggybacking on the issue in BC and are affecting people and industries with little connection to the conflict at hand.
I'm not passing judgement on one side or the other. I just don't think the comparison is an equal one.
School is literally cancelled on Friday across all of Ontario and no one is going to go to jail for that. Cancelling school is definitely at best a hardship for a lot of people
Apples and Oranges. Both fruit, yes, But different. Strikes by a Union are not the same as protesters blocking rail access.
Teachers in Ontario are giving notice to the affected parties and are a first party to the conflict. They are using all of their socially approved paths to resolution (bargaining) as well as these rotating strike actions that affect only their own jobs. They're not out picketing in front of Walmart or Canadian Tire, denying the public access to those stores.
The protesters, in Ontario anyway, are only tangentially related to the aggrieved parties. Allegedly involving professional protesters and other groups piggybacking on the issue in BC and are affecting people and industries with little connection to the conflict at hand.
School is closed because there is no one there to teach.
This is absolutely not the same ballpark. Not even the same sport.
This is a perfectly legal action done by a unionized group.
If Albertan's held the railway to protest the federal governments stance on let's say Tek there would be instant arrests.
We live in a country of laws. The chiefs have an issue? Let them sue.
I feel like this is a bit disingenuous. We're in an explicitly treaty-less situation, yes? Which means, since this is un-ceded land, this isn't really subject to those laws, no? Telling a small, financially underpowered group, whom we are colonizing, to petition *our* courts for relief doesn't seem appropriate.
That may be true but We don't settle disputes by paralyzing parts of the country either.
Sure we do. We do it all the time.
Paralyzing parts of nations is one of the traditional methods disadvantaged groups have used to coerce the powers that be into giving them a seat at the table.
Please show me one example of this in recent years that are done by a non native group.
Because I am 100% confident that any other group that would block our cross country train network would be arrested.
We really don't want another OKA crisis in any way but rewarding this behavior just makes it happen again.
I may be one of the odd ones out but I have zero sympathy for this.
It’s a good thing that you don’t have any say in it then.
The Wet’suwet’en don’t need us questioning what they and their supporters are doing, they need our support.
Garry: I know you gentlemen have been through a lot, but when you find the time I'd rather not spend the rest of the winter TIED TO THIS FUCKING COUCH!
If Albertan's held the railway to protest the federal governments stance on let's say Tek there would be instant arrests.
We live in a country of laws. The chiefs have an issue? Let them sue.
I feel like this is a bit disingenuous. We're in an explicitly treaty-less situation, yes? Which means, since this is un-ceded land, this isn't really subject to those laws, no? Telling a small, financially underpowered group, whom we are colonizing, to petition *our* courts for relief doesn't seem appropriate.
That may be true but We don't settle disputes by paralyzing parts of the country either.
Sure we do. We do it all the time.
Paralyzing parts of nations is one of the traditional methods disadvantaged groups have used to coerce the powers that be into giving them a seat at the table.
Please show me one example of this in recent years that are done by a non native group.
Because I am 100% confident that any other group that would block our cross country train network would be arrested.
We really don't want another OKA crisis in any way but rewarding this behavior just makes it happen again.
I may be one of the odd ones out but I have zero sympathy for this.
I get that, though maybe Canada should stop being shitbags with impunity when it comes to First Nations, that is another behavior that shouldn't be rewarded. Yea it sucks because rail is massive in Canada, but after years of crap, broken promises, deaf ears, dead family etc they know that resolving issues through our system isnt going to work.. at least not work without them forcing the issue.
If Albertan's held the railway to protest the federal governments stance on let's say Tek there would be instant arrests.
We live in a country of laws. The chiefs have an issue? Let them sue.
I feel like this is a bit disingenuous. We're in an explicitly treaty-less situation, yes? Which means, since this is un-ceded land, this isn't really subject to those laws, no? Telling a small, financially underpowered group, whom we are colonizing, to petition *our* courts for relief doesn't seem appropriate.
That may be true but We don't settle disputes by paralyzing parts of the country either.
Sure we do. We do it all the time.
Paralyzing parts of nations is one of the traditional methods disadvantaged groups have used to coerce the powers that be into giving them a seat at the table.
Please show me one example of this in recent years that are done by a non native group.
Because I am 100% confident that any other group that would block our cross country train network would be arrested.
We really don't want another OKA crisis in any way but rewarding this behavior just makes it happen again.
I may be one of the odd ones out but I have zero sympathy for this.
It’s a good thing that you don’t have any say in it then.
The Wet’suwet’en don’t need us questioning what they and their supporters are doing, they need our support.
Except I don't support illegal actions.
i don't support vandalism, car theft or violence either.
This "they can't be questioned" attitude is nonsense.
Non-violent protest through civil disobedience is an effective way for a minority to work for change.
Something being illegal doesn't make it immoral, and something being legal doesn't make it moral. Almost any political cause we now celebrate was won in part through illegal activity, when the law was on the wrong side. Sometimes illegal activity is necessary.
More pragmatically, if the country were definitively, clearly opposed to these protests, the government wouldn't hesitate long before taking police action to clear them. The fact is that these protests enjoy significant popular support to some degree, and direct action of this kind is a useful way to pressure officials to enact popular change when they fail to do it through normal channels
Isn't it arguable that RCMP action against the Wet'suwet'en on the disputed land is extralegal as well? That kind of state violence against vulnerable minorities is what we should be worried about, I think
+16
Options
ArcticLancerBest served chilled.Registered Userregular
If Albertan's held the railway to protest the federal governments stance on let's say Tek there would be instant arrests.
We live in a country of laws. The chiefs have an issue? Let them sue.
I feel like this is a bit disingenuous. We're in an explicitly treaty-less situation, yes? Which means, since this is un-ceded land, this isn't really subject to those laws, no? Telling a small, financially underpowered group, whom we are colonizing, to petition *our* courts for relief doesn't seem appropriate.
That may be true but We don't settle disputes by paralyzing parts of the country either.
Sure we do. We do it all the time.
Paralyzing parts of nations is one of the traditional methods disadvantaged groups have used to coerce the powers that be into giving them a seat at the table.
Please show me one example of this in recent years that are done by a non native group.
Because I am 100% confident that any other group that would block our cross country train network would be arrested.
We really don't want another OKA crisis in any way but rewarding this behavior just makes it happen again.
I may be one of the odd ones out but I have zero sympathy for this.
It’s a good thing that you don’t have any say in it then.
The Wet’suwet’en don’t need us questioning what they and their supporters are doing, they need our support.
Except I don't support illegal actions.
i don't support vandalism, car theft or violence either.
This "they can't be questioned" attitude is nonsense.
I feel like there are a lot of things I want to say to this, but ... Power to the people. is about all I have the time or energy for. We need more activism, not more reasons to call on an increasingly militarized police force. There's a lot of grey area here and you know it.
If Albertan's held the railway to protest the federal governments stance on let's say Tek there would be instant arrests.
We live in a country of laws. The chiefs have an issue? Let them sue.
I feel like this is a bit disingenuous. We're in an explicitly treaty-less situation, yes? Which means, since this is un-ceded land, this isn't really subject to those laws, no? Telling a small, financially underpowered group, whom we are colonizing, to petition *our* courts for relief doesn't seem appropriate.
That may be true but We don't settle disputes by paralyzing parts of the country either.
Sure we do. We do it all the time.
Paralyzing parts of nations is one of the traditional methods disadvantaged groups have used to coerce the powers that be into giving them a seat at the table.
Please show me one example of this in recent years that are done by a non native group.
Because I am 100% confident that any other group that would block our cross country train network would be arrested.
We really don't want another OKA crisis in any way but rewarding this behavior just makes it happen again.
I may be one of the odd ones out but I have zero sympathy for this.
It’s a good thing that you don’t have any say in it then.
The Wet’suwet’en don’t need us questioning what they and their supporters are doing, they need our support.
Except I don't support illegal actions.
i don't support vandalism, car theft or violence either.
This "they can't be questioned" attitude is nonsense.
I feel like there are a lot of things I want to say to this, but ... Power to the people. is about all I have the time or energy for. We need more activism, not more reasons to call on an increasingly militarized police force. There's a lot of grey area here and you know it.
Of course I do.
So when the pipeline falls through and Tek get denied you are 100% ok with albertans doing the same thing, yeah? Because many (not me) feel like they are being ignored federally and our provincial well being is in jeopardy. Because it seems like there seems to be 2 sets of rules here.... Many of the rail protest are not by the Wet’suwet’en but people that don't want the pipeline built. since that is the case should a counter protest using the same terms be ok?
QC is running out propane and I can tell you it's given many here the urge to do pull this next year. If we normalize this it opens so many slippery slopes and I am truly nervous that this will now become a regular thing.
Teck just seems like a bad idea all around, the numbers were run when oil was quite a bit better priced and based on today's pricing and the cost of cleanup etc, the thing doesn't make sense. When Kenney starts chirping about how it should just be rubber stamped, I want Trudeau to just slap him in the mouth and tell him to sit down.
If Albertan's held the railway to protest the federal governments stance on let's say Tek there would be instant arrests.
We live in a country of laws. The chiefs have an issue? Let them sue.
I feel like this is a bit disingenuous. We're in an explicitly treaty-less situation, yes? Which means, since this is un-ceded land, this isn't really subject to those laws, no? Telling a small, financially underpowered group, whom we are colonizing, to petition *our* courts for relief doesn't seem appropriate.
That may be true but We don't settle disputes by paralyzing parts of the country either.
Sure we do. We do it all the time.
Paralyzing parts of nations is one of the traditional methods disadvantaged groups have used to coerce the powers that be into giving them a seat at the table.
Please show me one example of this in recent years that are done by a non native group.
Because I am 100% confident that any other group that would block our cross country train network would be arrested.
We really don't want another OKA crisis in any way but rewarding this behavior just makes it happen again.
I may be one of the odd ones out but I have zero sympathy for this.
It’s a good thing that you don’t have any say in it then.
The Wet’suwet’en don’t need us questioning what they and their supporters are doing, they need our support.
Except I don't support illegal actions.
i don't support vandalism, car theft or violence either.
This "they can't be questioned" attitude is nonsense.
I feel like there are a lot of things I want to say to this, but ... Power to the people. is about all I have the time or energy for. We need more activism, not more reasons to call on an increasingly militarized police force. There's a lot of grey area here and you know it.
Of course I do.
So when the pipeline falls through and Tek get denied you are 100% ok with albertans doing the same thing, yeah? Because many (not me) feel like they are being ignored federally and our provincial well being is in jeopardy. Because it seems like there seems to be 2 sets of rules here.... Many of the rail protest are not by the Wet’suwet’en but people that don't want the pipeline built. since that is the case should a counter protest using the same terms be ok?
QC is running out propane and I can tell you it's given many here the urge to do pull this next year. If we normalize this it opens so many slippery slopes and I am truly nervous that this will now become a regular thing.
I'm just curious where you all draw the line.
I think when your land gets colonized, your people killed then systemically marginalized with the explicit goal to eradicate your culture, and even when you try to make changes and cry for help within the system that was placed upon you nothing happens.. then I'll cut that group some slack when it comes to how they protest. I don't want to see violence and would rather for things to remain peaceful. But it looks like blocking rail lines gets you heard. With all the history they have with Canada I think they are being pretty damn restrained.
If Albertan's held the railway to protest the federal governments stance on let's say Tek there would be instant arrests.
We live in a country of laws. The chiefs have an issue? Let them sue.
I feel like this is a bit disingenuous. We're in an explicitly treaty-less situation, yes? Which means, since this is un-ceded land, this isn't really subject to those laws, no? Telling a small, financially underpowered group, whom we are colonizing, to petition *our* courts for relief doesn't seem appropriate.
That may be true but We don't settle disputes by paralyzing parts of the country either.
Sure we do. We do it all the time.
Paralyzing parts of nations is one of the traditional methods disadvantaged groups have used to coerce the powers that be into giving them a seat at the table.
Please show me one example of this in recent years that are done by a non native group.
Because I am 100% confident that any other group that would block our cross country train network would be arrested.
We really don't want another OKA crisis in any way but rewarding this behavior just makes it happen again.
I may be one of the odd ones out but I have zero sympathy for this.
It’s a good thing that you don’t have any say in it then.
The Wet’suwet’en don’t need us questioning what they and their supporters are doing, they need our support.
Except I don't support illegal actions.
i don't support vandalism, car theft or violence either.
This "they can't be questioned" attitude is nonsense.
I feel like there are a lot of things I want to say to this, but ... Power to the people. is about all I have the time or energy for. We need more activism, not more reasons to call on an increasingly militarized police force. There's a lot of grey area here and you know it.
Of course I do.
So when the pipeline falls through and Tek get denied you are 100% ok with albertans doing the same thing, yeah? Because many (not me) feel like they are being ignored federally and our provincial well being is in jeopardy. Because it seems like there seems to be 2 sets of rules here.... Many of the rail protest are not by the Wet’suwet’en but people that don't want the pipeline built. since that is the case should a counter protest using the same terms be ok?
QC is running out propane and I can tell you it's given many here the urge to do pull this next year. If we normalize this it opens so many slippery slopes and I am truly nervous that this will now become a regular thing.
I'm just curious where you all draw the line.
The true sin of keeping you from going back to quietly not giving a shit.
I mean, the point is less the validity of the project and more that activism feels a lot less okay when it's not politically aligned with you, which is true!
But this kind of non-violent disruption activism really trends left, and also trends toward urgent social issues that history generally looks back on pretty kindly?
Like, the opposition tends to be violent, rather than non-violent, which often undermines its legitimacy
That or opposition simply follows the channels of existing power. You don't need to protest for the RCMP to vacate your land when the police already tend to be on your side
Non-violent protest through civil disobedience is an effective way for a minority to work for change.
Something being illegal doesn't make it immoral, and something being legal doesn't make it moral. Almost any political cause we now celebrate was won in part through illegal activity, when the law was on the wrong side. Sometimes illegal activity is necessary.
More pragmatically, if the country were definitively, clearly opposed to these protests, the government wouldn't hesitate long before taking police action to clear them. The fact is that these protests enjoy significant popular support to some degree, and direct action of this kind is a useful way to pressure officials to enact popular change when they fail to do it through normal channels
Isn't it arguable that RCMP action against the Wet'suwet'en on the disputed land is extralegal as well? That kind of state violence against vulnerable minorities is what we should be worried about, I think
I don't think you can assume these protests have much if any public support. I would bet they have little personally. You don't need much public support though to cause a media shitstorm the government just doesn't feel like dealing with. And that calculus tilts more and more towards just dealing with the shitstorm every day it goes on because of economic pressure.
I'm kinda torn. Is a sample size of 1500 actually significant? They asked just over 100 people in the Atlantic provinces combined. But at the same time, that much support is almost surprising. I never expected a clear majority or anything, but ~40% support with a 10% fudge factor in "haven't been paying attention; don't know" is nothing to sneeze at for an issue surrounding O&G and First Nations.
I'm kinda torn. Is a sample size of 1500 actually significant? They asked just over 100 people in the Atlantic provinces combined. But at the same time, that much support is almost surprising. I never expected a clear majority or anything, but ~40% support with a 10% fudge factor in "haven't been paying attention; don't know" is nothing to sneeze at for an issue surrounding O&G and First Nations.
Yes, with caveats.
Assuming the sample is actually random, for 38 million people (roughly the population of Canada, definitely aiming on the high side) and a margin of error of +/-5%, you can be 95% confident in your results with a sample size as low as like 400 people.
Getting a truly random sample is the problem and so you aim high and there's some educated fudging involved and such.
But 1500 does not sound crazy to me, at least off the top of my head.
I wonder how many of you folks are old enough to remember the "War in the Woods" Clayoquout sound protests. I was pretty young then, but I skew towards the older end of forumers here I think. There seem to be a lot of parallels to what is going on today.
The media and protest section of the wiki article might be worth a read to think about how media frames these sorts of issues.
I also see a lot of parallels and having lived on VI my entire life it's common to come up in conversation around these topics.
Whether the outcome was good or bad varies by the individual and breaks along the usual lines.
I support people's right to protest and I also support arresting people who are causing harm to individuals and thought there are shortages and some economic impact I don't think we're at that state yet.
I don't support the protest itself but thankfully we can disagree with each other without being arrested or shot (at least right now)
Their supporters in this case aren't necessarily supporting them, they just don't want a pipeline built so there they are.
There are a lot of protests in support of the Wet'suwet'en, so it's difficult to decide, just which bit of information you should be made aware of first, so I hope you will forgive that I came up with only this interview from 2 days ago where the tracks are being blocked in Ontario so far for our viewing:
Not trying to make Canada and the world at large feel bad, it’s understandable to wonder “wait, how the hell does a Liquid Natural Gas pipeline being protested for nearly a decade have anything to do with another issue elsewhere in Canada like whose lands a rail road was built over in the past?” if that’s the main point of contention has seen this framed as in the media and repeated in comments and wonder why what was just BC politics is now gaining supporting protest right across the province and the rest of the country and internationally^[1].
Its more than the pipeline, it could have been anything to be honest being built there, like say a resort^[2], before a treaty is settled and there would be distrust that would be garnered by such events. That the BC Supreme Court Judge Injunction was issued not once but twice while ignoring Canada's Supreme Court Ruling [1997] 3 SCR 1010^[3] was bad enough, but the mishandling of this by sending an operation that has to cost millions to forcibly remove people from a remote northern BC forest road in the dead of winter with the RCMP who are doing that instead of keeping the peace, well...
The sad truth is, to get to this point of these kinds of protests, the country was already hurting as revealed by the Truth And Reconciliation Commission of Canada^[4], this is just the rest of Canada becoming aware of it in a manner that can not be ignored like all the other protests that peacefully gathered, marched down a road, held a speech in a public place of some prominence or influence, and dispersed, only to make page 5 of the local rag if they were lucky. Plenty of those kinds of protests over the past decades that had their issues insufficiently addressed helped make this necessary as a protest to even realize it exists, let alone receive goodwill.
It doesn’t seem right that so many news articles’ titles and even protester signs are framing this as an anti-pipeline movement, if it was just about the approval of Liquid Natural Gas and fracking, these protests wouldn’t be anywhere near as far reaching as they are. We have had anti-pipeline and oil & gas protests before, like TMX expansion, but they were for the most part contained to BC.
This was kindled with the promise of Truth & Reconciliation not having sufficient follow through and sparked by the declarations that “Reconciliation Is Dead”. Canadians have high hopes for Reconciliation after learning Truth after having been denied it for so long under Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s and BC Premier Christy Clark’s time in government. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and BC Premier John Horgan have failed Canada in this matter of resolving a modern treaty BEFORE development approval to fix the stage their recalcitrant predecessors had set up in their greed and corruption for those that came after to fail upon.
Their combined governance is the reason our lives have been disrupted as your fellow Canadians have taken on the responsibilities of effectively protesting the abuses of charter rights and land & resource title rights. Do the right thing Canada, go back to the negotiating tables of your people before the negotiations of development keeps getting involved in unresolved colonial annexations of First Nations territory without a treaty of any kind, let alone a modern treaty like is just to the North-West of the Wet'suwet'en with the Nisga'a^[5].
“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly.”
― Martin Luther King Jr., Letter from the Birmingham Jail
Oh and here are some beautiful pictures to end off on:
This one is from Victoria
Victoria again
This is from Toronto
Edit: Realized I should say where the pictures are from to avoid confusion.
CanadianWolverine on
+6
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
The Wet'suwet'en hereditary chiefs proposed several alternate routes through their territory. The builder rejected all of them. They had many reasons, but the only one I buy is that they would increase the cost of the pipeline. The hereditary chiefs aren't against the pipeline itself, they just don't want it built where the company wants to build it.
But more basically, I am in Birmingham because injustice is here. Just as the prophets of the eighth century B.C. left their villages and carried their "thus saith the Lord" far beyond the boundaries of their home towns, and just as the Apostle Paul left his village of Tarsus and carried the gospel of Jesus Christ to the far corners of the Greco Roman world, so am I compelled to carry the gospel of freedom beyond my own home town. Like Paul, I must constantly respond to the Macedonian call for aid.
Moreover, I am cognizant of the interrelatedness of all communities and states. I cannot sit idly by in Atlanta and not be concerned about what happens in Birmingham. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. Never again can we afford to live with the narrow, provincial "outside agitator" idea. Anyone who lives inside the United States can never be considered an outsider anywhere within its bounds.
You deplore the demonstrations taking place in Birmingham. But your statement, I am sorry to say, fails to express a similar concern for the conditions that brought about the demonstrations. I am sure that none of you would want to rest content with the superficial kind of social analysis that deals merely with effects and does not grapple with underlying causes. It is unfortunate that demonstrations are taking place in Birmingham, but it is even more unfortunate that the city's white power structure left the Negro community with no alternative.
In any nonviolent campaign there are four basic steps: collection of the facts to determine whether injustices exist; negotiation; self purification; and direct action. We have gone through all these steps in Birmingham. There can be no gainsaying the fact that racial injustice engulfs this community. Birmingham is probably the most thoroughly segregated city in the United States. Its ugly record of brutality is widely known. Negroes have experienced grossly unjust treatment in the courts. There have been more unsolved bombings of Negro homes and churches in Birmingham than in any other city in the nation. These are the hard, brutal facts of the case. On the basis of these conditions, Negro leaders sought to negotiate with the city fathers. But the latter consistently refused to engage in good faith negotiation.
...
You may well ask: "Why direct action? Why sit ins, marches and so forth? Isn't negotiation a better path?" You are quite right in calling for negotiation. Indeed, this is the very purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. My citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent resister may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word "tension." I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth. Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, so must we see the need for nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood. The purpose of our direct action program is to create a situation so crisis packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation. I therefore concur with you in your call for negotiation. Too long has our beloved Southland been bogged down in a tragic effort to live in monologue rather than dialogue.
One of the basic points in your statement is that the action that I and my associates have taken in Birmingham is untimely. Some have asked: "Why didn't you give the new city administration time to act?" The only answer that I can give to this query is that the new Birmingham administration must be prodded about as much as the outgoing one, before it will act. We are sadly mistaken if we feel that the election of Albert Boutwell as mayor will bring the millennium to Birmingham. While Mr. Boutwell is a much more gentle person than Mr. Connor, they are both segregationists, dedicated to maintenance of the status quo. I have hope that Mr. Boutwell will be reasonable enough to see the futility of massive resistance to desegregation. But he will not see this without pressure from devotees of civil rights. My friends, I must say to you that we have not made a single gain in civil rights without determined legal and nonviolent pressure. Lamentably, it is an historical fact that privileged groups seldom give up their privileges voluntarily. Individuals may see the moral light and voluntarily give up their unjust posture; but, as Reinhold Niebuhr has reminded us, groups tend to be more immoral than individuals.
We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct action campaign that was "well timed" in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word "Wait!" It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This "Wait" has almost always meant "Never." We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that "justice too long delayed is justice denied."
...
Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality. It gives the segregator a false sense of superiority and the segregated a false sense of inferiority. Segregation, to use the terminology of the Jewish philosopher Martin Buber, substitutes an "I it" relationship for an "I thou" relationship and ends up relegating persons to the status of things. Hence segregation is not only politically, economically and sociologically unsound, it is morally wrong and sinful. Paul Tillich has said that sin is separation. Is not segregation an existential expression of man's tragic separation, his awful estrangement, his terrible sinfulness? Thus it is that I can urge men to obey the 1954 decision of the Supreme Court, for it is morally right; and I can urge them to disobey segregation ordinances, for they are morally wrong.
Let us consider a more concrete example of just and unjust laws. An unjust law is a code that a numerical or power majority group compels a minority group to obey but does not make binding on itself. This is difference made legal. By the same token, a just law is a code that a majority compels a minority to follow and that it is willing to follow itself. This is sameness made legal. Let me give another explanation. A law is unjust if it is inflicted on a minority that, as a result of being denied the right to vote, had no part in enacting or devising the law. Who can say that the legislature of Alabama which set up that state's segregation laws was democratically elected? Throughout Alabama all sorts of devious methods are used to prevent Negroes from becoming registered voters, and there are some counties in which, even though Negroes constitute a majority of the population, not a single Negro is registered. Can any law enacted under such circumstances be considered democratically structured?
Sometimes a law is just on its face and unjust in its application. For instance, I have been arrested on a charge of parading without a permit. Now, there is nothing wrong in having an ordinance which requires a permit for a parade. But such an ordinance becomes unjust when it is used to maintain segregation and to deny citizens the First-Amendment privilege of peaceful assembly and protest.
I hope you are able to see the distinction I am trying to point out. In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law, as would the rabid segregationist. That would lead to anarchy. One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.
Of course, there is nothing new about this kind of civil disobedience. It was evidenced sublimely in the refusal of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego to obey the laws of Nebuchadnezzar, on the ground that a higher moral law was at stake. It was practiced superbly by the early Christians, who were willing to face hungry lions and the excruciating pain of chopping blocks rather than submit to certain unjust laws of the Roman Empire. To a degree, academic freedom is a reality today because Socrates practiced civil disobedience. In our own nation, the Boston Tea Party represented a massive act of civil disobedience.
We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was "legal" and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was "illegal." It was "illegal" to aid and comfort a Jew in Hitler's Germany. Even so, I am sure that, had I lived in Germany at the time, I would have aided and comforted my Jewish brothers. If today I lived in a Communist country where certain principles dear to the Christian faith are suppressed, I would openly advocate disobeying that country's antireligious laws.
I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.
The Wet'suwet'en hereditary chiefs proposed several alternate routes through their territory. The builder rejected all of them. They had many reasons, but the only one I buy is that they would increase the cost of the pipeline. The hereditary chiefs aren't against the pipeline itself, they just don't want it built where the company wants to build it.
From that article, the alternate proposed route went through 4 other First Nations area instead, including areas more ecologically sensitive than the proposed route. While I have no doubt that the company wants to keep costs down, I also have no doubt that there is some NIMBYism at play too.
But more basically, I am in Birmingham because injustice is here. Just as the prophets of the eighth century B.C. left their villages and carried their "thus saith the Lord" far beyond the boundaries of their home towns, and just as the Apostle Paul left his village of Tarsus and carried the gospel of Jesus Christ to the far corners of the Greco Roman world, so am I compelled to carry the gospel of freedom beyond my own home town. Like Paul, I must constantly respond to the Macedonian call for aid.
Moreover, I am cognizant of the interrelatedness of all communities and states. I cannot sit idly by in Atlanta and not be concerned about what happens in Birmingham. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. Never again can we afford to live with the narrow, provincial "outside agitator" idea. Anyone who lives inside the United States can never be considered an outsider anywhere within its bounds.
You deplore the demonstrations taking place in Birmingham. But your statement, I am sorry to say, fails to express a similar concern for the conditions that brought about the demonstrations. I am sure that none of you would want to rest content with the superficial kind of social analysis that deals merely with effects and does not grapple with underlying causes. It is unfortunate that demonstrations are taking place in Birmingham, but it is even more unfortunate that the city's white power structure left the Negro community with no alternative.
In any nonviolent campaign there are four basic steps: collection of the facts to determine whether injustices exist; negotiation; self purification; and direct action. We have gone through all these steps in Birmingham. There can be no gainsaying the fact that racial injustice engulfs this community. Birmingham is probably the most thoroughly segregated city in the United States. Its ugly record of brutality is widely known. Negroes have experienced grossly unjust treatment in the courts. There have been more unsolved bombings of Negro homes and churches in Birmingham than in any other city in the nation. These are the hard, brutal facts of the case. On the basis of these conditions, Negro leaders sought to negotiate with the city fathers. But the latter consistently refused to engage in good faith negotiation.
...
You may well ask: "Why direct action? Why sit ins, marches and so forth? Isn't negotiation a better path?" You are quite right in calling for negotiation. Indeed, this is the very purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. My citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent resister may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word "tension." I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth. Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, so must we see the need for nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood. The purpose of our direct action program is to create a situation so crisis packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation. I therefore concur with you in your call for negotiation. Too long has our beloved Southland been bogged down in a tragic effort to live in monologue rather than dialogue.
One of the basic points in your statement is that the action that I and my associates have taken in Birmingham is untimely. Some have asked: "Why didn't you give the new city administration time to act?" The only answer that I can give to this query is that the new Birmingham administration must be prodded about as much as the outgoing one, before it will act. We are sadly mistaken if we feel that the election of Albert Boutwell as mayor will bring the millennium to Birmingham. While Mr. Boutwell is a much more gentle person than Mr. Connor, they are both segregationists, dedicated to maintenance of the status quo. I have hope that Mr. Boutwell will be reasonable enough to see the futility of massive resistance to desegregation. But he will not see this without pressure from devotees of civil rights. My friends, I must say to you that we have not made a single gain in civil rights without determined legal and nonviolent pressure. Lamentably, it is an historical fact that privileged groups seldom give up their privileges voluntarily. Individuals may see the moral light and voluntarily give up their unjust posture; but, as Reinhold Niebuhr has reminded us, groups tend to be more immoral than individuals.
We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct action campaign that was "well timed" in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word "Wait!" It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This "Wait" has almost always meant "Never." We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that "justice too long delayed is justice denied."
...
Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality. It gives the segregator a false sense of superiority and the segregated a false sense of inferiority. Segregation, to use the terminology of the Jewish philosopher Martin Buber, substitutes an "I it" relationship for an "I thou" relationship and ends up relegating persons to the status of things. Hence segregation is not only politically, economically and sociologically unsound, it is morally wrong and sinful. Paul Tillich has said that sin is separation. Is not segregation an existential expression of man's tragic separation, his awful estrangement, his terrible sinfulness? Thus it is that I can urge men to obey the 1954 decision of the Supreme Court, for it is morally right; and I can urge them to disobey segregation ordinances, for they are morally wrong.
Let us consider a more concrete example of just and unjust laws. An unjust law is a code that a numerical or power majority group compels a minority group to obey but does not make binding on itself. This is difference made legal. By the same token, a just law is a code that a majority compels a minority to follow and that it is willing to follow itself. This is sameness made legal. Let me give another explanation. A law is unjust if it is inflicted on a minority that, as a result of being denied the right to vote, had no part in enacting or devising the law. Who can say that the legislature of Alabama which set up that state's segregation laws was democratically elected? Throughout Alabama all sorts of devious methods are used to prevent Negroes from becoming registered voters, and there are some counties in which, even though Negroes constitute a majority of the population, not a single Negro is registered. Can any law enacted under such circumstances be considered democratically structured?
Sometimes a law is just on its face and unjust in its application. For instance, I have been arrested on a charge of parading without a permit. Now, there is nothing wrong in having an ordinance which requires a permit for a parade. But such an ordinance becomes unjust when it is used to maintain segregation and to deny citizens the First-Amendment privilege of peaceful assembly and protest.
I hope you are able to see the distinction I am trying to point out. In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law, as would the rabid segregationist. That would lead to anarchy. One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.
Of course, there is nothing new about this kind of civil disobedience. It was evidenced sublimely in the refusal of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego to obey the laws of Nebuchadnezzar, on the ground that a higher moral law was at stake. It was practiced superbly by the early Christians, who were willing to face hungry lions and the excruciating pain of chopping blocks rather than submit to certain unjust laws of the Roman Empire. To a degree, academic freedom is a reality today because Socrates practiced civil disobedience. In our own nation, the Boston Tea Party represented a massive act of civil disobedience.
We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was "legal" and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was "illegal." It was "illegal" to aid and comfort a Jew in Hitler's Germany. Even so, I am sure that, had I lived in Germany at the time, I would have aided and comforted my Jewish brothers. If today I lived in a Communist country where certain principles dear to the Christian faith are suppressed, I would openly advocate disobeying that country's antireligious laws.
I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.
Thank god someone quoted MLK, I was afraid the Americans wouldn’t be able to make this about themselves.
Please show me one example of this in recent years that are done by a non native group.
Annnnnd there it is, with a dose of "protesting is okay as long as people have Official Permission and don't inconvenience anybody."
Wow.
I never said that.
Non-violent protest is vital to democracy. Violence is truly never an option. That being said...
I also thought the student protests in QC a few years back were the height of stupidity and those chuckleheads should have been arrested as well.
People's right to protest has a limit when it affects peoples lives and especially livelihoods. The train workers and manufacturing employees are being laid off. Can they let's say shut down downtown Toronto in protest of the protests?
Where do we draw the line? I'm not being facetious.... I deal with a lot of O&G companies & contractors.... Think wexit/PPC people. They are discussing more and more every day how to organize cross canada disruptive protests. While these are still very much ideas and not actions yet every day this goes on and they see the media attention it motivates folks to make it so.
Thank god someone quoted MLK, I was afraid the Americans wouldn’t be able to make this about themselves.
I'm amazed you're unaware the issue of modern treaties has impacts on the USA. Here is their leading candidate in their Democratic Nomination contest from last year, there is are reasons he brings up Native Americans in every speech about trying to bring everyone together, why like at the Tacoma speech he just gave he gets American Indian singers and dancers:
More than just border crossings and Amtrak cancellations are being impacted by these protests that are in response to BC and Canada trying to ignore its obligations to have a treaty. Its encouraging that when say Occupy happened, Canadians protested in support of US protestors, that today a few of them support us in kind and recognize how Canadians coming out to support the rights of others is similar to their own history and also that we must be diligent to continue to defend our Charter Rights and seek a more unified Canada through modern treaties that have been shown to be successful.
Please show me one example of this in recent years that are done by a non native group.
Annnnnd there it is, with a dose of "protesting is okay as long as people have Official Permission and don't inconvenience anybody."
Wow.
I never said that.
Non-violent protest is vital to democracy. Violence is truly never an option. That being said...
I also thought the student protests in QC a few years back were the height of stupidity and those chuckleheads should have been arrested as well.
People's right to protest has a limit when it affects peoples lives and especially livelihoods. The train workers and manufacturing employees are being laid off. Can they let's say shut down downtown Toronto in protest of the protests?
Where do we draw the line? I'm not being facetious.... I deal with a lot of O&G companies & contractors.... Think wexit/PPC people. They are discussing more and more every day how to organize cross canada disruptive protests. While these are still very much ideas and not actions yet every day this goes on and they see the media attention it motivates folks to make it so.
"People's right to protest has a limit when it affects peoples lives and especially livelihoods."
Does that apply to striking workers because that effects the lives and livelihood of folks who depend on that work being done.
That is what gives power to the workers... unless you work for Canada Post, then you get forced back to work whether or not a solution is achieved.
Once again in regards to First Nations they have had been screwed and ignored countless times by the system. A peaceful protest in a park with chanting and drum circles asking for change or going through the very system that routinely fucks them over gets them nothing. Disrupting rail and hitting the country in the pocketbook does. Will it turn people against them, maybe but how many of those same people gave a fuck about them in the first place.. I don't think they care either way.
Wexit/PPC not a whole lot you can do when they get fed bullshit information... and once again.. where was all the cries for pipelines when Harper was in power or when Alberta was still on its 40+ year Conservative streak. I get some of the concern, sucks that since most of Canada's population being in Ontario and Quebec that the federal election usually swings in whatever direction those provinces voted. ... and... well thats the only one I really get. In Alberta we rode the boom bust wave over and over again and didn't diversify ever, and the UCP still wants to continue that trend at the expense of every Albertan. Let them protest i'd be curious on what they decide to disrupt.
Well voting for a government that will actually do things to help would be a good idea and for that you need voters.
Creating passionate voters for the other side sure is a strategy though.
Well voting for a government that will actually do things to help would be a good idea and for that you need voters.
Creating passionate voters for the other side sure is a strategy though.
Yea that is another point to the whole thing, getting folks to start siding with the Cons will certainly not be helpful either.
Mohawks are blockading their own band office because the grand chief said he thought they'd had the rail blockades up long enough and had made their point and should bring them down.
No word on blockadception of the aforementioned blockaders.
Please show me one example of this in recent years that are done by a non native group.
Annnnnd there it is, with a dose of "protesting is okay as long as people have Official Permission and don't inconvenience anybody."
Wow.
I never said that.
Non-violent protest is vital to democracy. Violence is truly never an option. That being said...
I also thought the student protests in QC a few years back were the height of stupidity and those chuckleheads should have been arrested as well.
People's right to protest has a limit when it affects peoples lives and especially livelihoods. The train workers and manufacturing employees are being laid off. Can they let's say shut down downtown Toronto in protest of the protests?
Where do we draw the line? I'm not being facetious.... I deal with a lot of O&G companies & contractors.... Think wexit/PPC people. They are discussing more and more every day how to organize cross canada disruptive protests. While these are still very much ideas and not actions yet every day this goes on and they see the media attention it motivates folks to make it so.
"People's right to protest has a limit when it affects peoples lives and especially livelihoods."
Does that apply to striking workers because that effects the lives and livelihood of folks who depend on that work being done.
That is what gives power to the workers... unless you work for Canada Post, then you get forced back to work whether or not a solution is achieved.
Once again in regards to First Nations they have had been screwed and ignored countless times by the system. A peaceful protest in a park with chanting and drum circles asking for change or going through the very system that routinely fucks them over gets them nothing. Disrupting rail and hitting the country in the pocketbook does. Will it turn people against them, maybe but how many of those same people gave a fuck about them in the first place.. I don't think they care either way.
Wexit/PPC not a whole lot you can do when they get fed bullshit information... and once again.. where was all the cries for pipelines when Harper was in power or when Alberta was still on its 40+ year Conservative streak. I get some of the concern, sucks that since most of Canada's population being in Ontario and Quebec that the federal election usually swings in whatever direction those provinces voted. ... and... well thats the only one I really get. In Alberta we rode the boom bust wave over and over again and didn't diversify ever, and the UCP still wants to continue that trend at the expense of every Albertan. Let them protest i'd be curious on what they decide to disrupt.
There are laws on the books limiting wildcat or sympathy strikes as well as limiting the ability of essential services to strike.
So blockading provinces would generally fall on the wrong side of what people will consider “fair play”.
Though in the past the government has too frequently abused these provisions to my mind, blockading railways and airports or blocking roads and not allowing emergency vehicles past are something I consider going too far in the other direction.
Thank god someone quoted MLK, I was afraid the Americans wouldn’t be able to make this about themselves.
I'm amazed you're unaware...
I’m really not sure this is the path forward you want to pick considering your posting style. hth
Would it help if you PM'ed me to be more specific if you like, because I am not sure what you are getting at here or ... even after googling, not sure which meaning your hth is, is it "hope that helps"? Which path am I taking, I was just genuinely surprised, I thought it was to some degree even more well known how the US has treated someone of their protests, like Standing Rock IIRC the last one that set things off.
And I would guess its not just First Nations relations we get some Americans looking our way trying to learn what they can, we get brought up about Universal Healthcare a lot in recent years too.
Edit: Augh, double click produced two quotes, sorry.
Posts
Apples and Oranges. Both fruit, yes, But different. Strikes by a Union are not the same as protesters blocking rail access.
Teachers in Ontario are giving notice to the affected parties and are a first party to the conflict. They are using all of their socially approved paths to resolution (bargaining) as well as these rotating strike actions that affect only their own jobs. They're not out picketing in front of Walmart or Canadian Tire, denying the public access to those stores.
The protesters, in Ontario anyway, are only tangentially related to the aggrieved parties. Allegedly involving professional protesters and other groups piggybacking on the issue in BC and are affecting people and industries with little connection to the conflict at hand.
I'm not passing judgement on one side or the other. I just don't think the comparison is an equal one.
School is closed because there is no one there to teach.
This is absolutely not the same ballpark. Not even the same sport.
This is a perfectly legal action done by a unionized group.
It’s a good thing that you don’t have any say in it then.
The Wet’suwet’en don’t need us questioning what they and their supporters are doing, they need our support.
I get that, though maybe Canada should stop being shitbags with impunity when it comes to First Nations, that is another behavior that shouldn't be rewarded. Yea it sucks because rail is massive in Canada, but after years of crap, broken promises, deaf ears, dead family etc they know that resolving issues through our system isnt going to work.. at least not work without them forcing the issue.
Except I don't support illegal actions.
i don't support vandalism, car theft or violence either.
This "they can't be questioned" attitude is nonsense.
Something being illegal doesn't make it immoral, and something being legal doesn't make it moral. Almost any political cause we now celebrate was won in part through illegal activity, when the law was on the wrong side. Sometimes illegal activity is necessary.
More pragmatically, if the country were definitively, clearly opposed to these protests, the government wouldn't hesitate long before taking police action to clear them. The fact is that these protests enjoy significant popular support to some degree, and direct action of this kind is a useful way to pressure officials to enact popular change when they fail to do it through normal channels
Isn't it arguable that RCMP action against the Wet'suwet'en on the disputed land is extralegal as well? That kind of state violence against vulnerable minorities is what we should be worried about, I think
Power to the people. is about all I have the time or energy for. We need more activism, not more reasons to call on an increasingly militarized police force. There's a lot of grey area here and you know it.
Perhaps I can interest you in my meager selection of pins?
Of course I do.
So when the pipeline falls through and Tek get denied you are 100% ok with albertans doing the same thing, yeah? Because many (not me) feel like they are being ignored federally and our provincial well being is in jeopardy. Because it seems like there seems to be 2 sets of rules here.... Many of the rail protest are not by the Wet’suwet’en but people that don't want the pipeline built. since that is the case should a counter protest using the same terms be ok?
QC is running out propane and I can tell you it's given many here the urge to do pull this next year. If we normalize this it opens so many slippery slopes and I am truly nervous that this will now become a regular thing.
I'm just curious where you all draw the line.
I think when your land gets colonized, your people killed then systemically marginalized with the explicit goal to eradicate your culture, and even when you try to make changes and cry for help within the system that was placed upon you nothing happens.. then I'll cut that group some slack when it comes to how they protest. I don't want to see violence and would rather for things to remain peaceful. But it looks like blocking rail lines gets you heard. With all the history they have with Canada I think they are being pretty damn restrained.
Annnnnd there it is, with a dose of "protesting is okay as long as people have Official Permission and don't inconvenience anybody."
Wow.
The true sin of keeping you from going back to quietly not giving a shit.
But this kind of non-violent disruption activism really trends left, and also trends toward urgent social issues that history generally looks back on pretty kindly?
Like, the opposition tends to be violent, rather than non-violent, which often undermines its legitimacy
That or opposition simply follows the channels of existing power. You don't need to protest for the RCMP to vacate your land when the police already tend to be on your side
I don't think you can assume these protests have much if any public support. I would bet they have little personally. You don't need much public support though to cause a media shitstorm the government just doesn't feel like dealing with. And that calculus tilts more and more towards just dealing with the shitstorm every day it goes on because of economic pressure.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/wet-suwet-en-coastal-gaslink-pipeline-protests-support-1.5462864
I'm kinda torn. Is a sample size of 1500 actually significant? They asked just over 100 people in the Atlantic provinces combined. But at the same time, that much support is almost surprising. I never expected a clear majority or anything, but ~40% support with a 10% fudge factor in "haven't been paying attention; don't know" is nothing to sneeze at for an issue surrounding O&G and First Nations.
Perhaps I can interest you in my meager selection of pins?
Yes, with caveats.
Assuming the sample is actually random, for 38 million people (roughly the population of Canada, definitely aiming on the high side) and a margin of error of +/-5%, you can be 95% confident in your results with a sample size as low as like 400 people.
Getting a truly random sample is the problem and so you aim high and there's some educated fudging involved and such.
But 1500 does not sound crazy to me, at least off the top of my head.
The media and protest section of the wiki article might be worth a read to think about how media frames these sorts of issues.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clayoquot_protests#Media_and_protest_attention
Whether the outcome was good or bad varies by the individual and breaks along the usual lines.
I support people's right to protest and I also support arresting people who are causing harm to individuals and thought there are shortages and some economic impact I don't think we're at that state yet.
I don't support the protest itself but thankfully we can disagree with each other without being arrested or shot (at least right now)
There are a lot of protests in support of the Wet'suwet'en, so it's difficult to decide, just which bit of information you should be made aware of first, so I hope you will forgive that I came up with only this interview from 2 days ago where the tracks are being blocked in Ontario so far for our viewing:
Not trying to make Canada and the world at large feel bad, it’s understandable to wonder “wait, how the hell does a Liquid Natural Gas pipeline being protested for nearly a decade have anything to do with another issue elsewhere in Canada like whose lands a rail road was built over in the past?” if that’s the main point of contention has seen this framed as in the media and repeated in comments and wonder why what was just BC politics is now gaining supporting protest right across the province and the rest of the country and internationally^[1].
Its more than the pipeline, it could have been anything to be honest being built there, like say a resort^[2], before a treaty is settled and there would be distrust that would be garnered by such events. That the BC Supreme Court Judge Injunction was issued not once but twice while ignoring Canada's Supreme Court Ruling [1997] 3 SCR 1010^[3] was bad enough, but the mishandling of this by sending an operation that has to cost millions to forcibly remove people from a remote northern BC forest road in the dead of winter with the RCMP who are doing that instead of keeping the peace, well...
The sad truth is, to get to this point of these kinds of protests, the country was already hurting as revealed by the Truth And Reconciliation Commission of Canada^[4], this is just the rest of Canada becoming aware of it in a manner that can not be ignored like all the other protests that peacefully gathered, marched down a road, held a speech in a public place of some prominence or influence, and dispersed, only to make page 5 of the local rag if they were lucky. Plenty of those kinds of protests over the past decades that had their issues insufficiently addressed helped make this necessary as a protest to even realize it exists, let alone receive goodwill.
It doesn’t seem right that so many news articles’ titles and even protester signs are framing this as an anti-pipeline movement, if it was just about the approval of Liquid Natural Gas and fracking, these protests wouldn’t be anywhere near as far reaching as they are. We have had anti-pipeline and oil & gas protests before, like TMX expansion, but they were for the most part contained to BC.
This was kindled with the promise of Truth & Reconciliation not having sufficient follow through and sparked by the declarations that “Reconciliation Is Dead”. Canadians have high hopes for Reconciliation after learning Truth after having been denied it for so long under Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s and BC Premier Christy Clark’s time in government. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and BC Premier John Horgan have failed Canada in this matter of resolving a modern treaty BEFORE development approval to fix the stage their recalcitrant predecessors had set up in their greed and corruption for those that came after to fail upon.
Their combined governance is the reason our lives have been disrupted as your fellow Canadians have taken on the responsibilities of effectively protesting the abuses of charter rights and land & resource title rights. Do the right thing Canada, go back to the negotiating tables of your people before the negotiations of development keeps getting involved in unresolved colonial annexations of First Nations territory without a treaty of any kind, let alone a modern treaty like is just to the North-West of the Wet'suwet'en with the Nisga'a^[5].
“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly.”
― Martin Luther King Jr., Letter from the Birmingham Jail
^[1] http://communitynewsblog.com/2019/01/rallies-supporting-wetsuweten-anti-pipeline-camps-expected-across-canada/
^[2] https://aptnnews.ca/2012/12/06/bc-first-nation-steps-up-protest-against-planned-ski-resort/
^[3] https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/1569/index.do
^[4] http://www.trc.ca/
^[5] https://www.nisgaanation.ca/about-accomplishments-and-benefits-nisgaa-treaty
Oh and here are some beautiful pictures to end off on:
Victoria again
This is from Toronto
Edit: Realized I should say where the pictures are from to avoid confusion.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/wetsuweten-coastal-gaslink-pipeline-alternative-path-1.5464945?fbclid=IwAR0b3C8hbh8-LF3AfotHOzD9XpYqbuzoL7AYprjnd2mi8Msg1J0ujCNjlHk
Random American person here
But this, as depressingly always, seems relevant:
From that article, the alternate proposed route went through 4 other First Nations area instead, including areas more ecologically sensitive than the proposed route. While I have no doubt that the company wants to keep costs down, I also have no doubt that there is some NIMBYism at play too.
Thank god someone quoted MLK, I was afraid the Americans wouldn’t be able to make this about themselves.
MWO: Adamski
I never said that.
Non-violent protest is vital to democracy. Violence is truly never an option. That being said...
I also thought the student protests in QC a few years back were the height of stupidity and those chuckleheads should have been arrested as well.
People's right to protest has a limit when it affects peoples lives and especially livelihoods. The train workers and manufacturing employees are being laid off. Can they let's say shut down downtown Toronto in protest of the protests?
Where do we draw the line? I'm not being facetious.... I deal with a lot of O&G companies & contractors.... Think wexit/PPC people. They are discussing more and more every day how to organize cross canada disruptive protests. While these are still very much ideas and not actions yet every day this goes on and they see the media attention it motivates folks to make it so.
I'm amazed you're unaware the issue of modern treaties has impacts on the USA. Here is their leading candidate in their Democratic Nomination contest from last year, there is are reasons he brings up Native Americans in every speech about trying to bring everyone together, why like at the Tacoma speech he just gave he gets American Indian singers and dancers:
More than just border crossings and Amtrak cancellations are being impacted by these protests that are in response to BC and Canada trying to ignore its obligations to have a treaty. Its encouraging that when say Occupy happened, Canadians protested in support of US protestors, that today a few of them support us in kind and recognize how Canadians coming out to support the rights of others is similar to their own history and also that we must be diligent to continue to defend our Charter Rights and seek a more unified Canada through modern treaties that have been shown to be successful.
"People's right to protest has a limit when it affects peoples lives and especially livelihoods."
Does that apply to striking workers because that effects the lives and livelihood of folks who depend on that work being done.
That is what gives power to the workers... unless you work for Canada Post, then you get forced back to work whether or not a solution is achieved.
Once again in regards to First Nations they have had been screwed and ignored countless times by the system. A peaceful protest in a park with chanting and drum circles asking for change or going through the very system that routinely fucks them over gets them nothing. Disrupting rail and hitting the country in the pocketbook does. Will it turn people against them, maybe but how many of those same people gave a fuck about them in the first place.. I don't think they care either way.
Wexit/PPC not a whole lot you can do when they get fed bullshit information... and once again.. where was all the cries for pipelines when Harper was in power or when Alberta was still on its 40+ year Conservative streak. I get some of the concern, sucks that since most of Canada's population being in Ontario and Quebec that the federal election usually swings in whatever direction those provinces voted. ... and... well thats the only one I really get. In Alberta we rode the boom bust wave over and over again and didn't diversify ever, and the UCP still wants to continue that trend at the expense of every Albertan. Let them protest i'd be curious on what they decide to disrupt.
Creating passionate voters for the other side sure is a strategy though.
Yea that is another point to the whole thing, getting folks to start siding with the Cons will certainly not be helpful either.
No word on blockadception of the aforementioned blockaders.
I'm gonna go out on a limb and say someone's residence is off limits.
https://globalnews.ca/news/6563771/john-horgan-home-protest/
I’m really not sure this is the path forward you want to pick considering your posting style. hth
MWO: Adamski
There are laws on the books limiting wildcat or sympathy strikes as well as limiting the ability of essential services to strike.
So blockading provinces would generally fall on the wrong side of what people will consider “fair play”.
Though in the past the government has too frequently abused these provisions to my mind, blockading railways and airports or blocking roads and not allowing emergency vehicles past are something I consider going too far in the other direction.
MWO: Adamski
Would it help if you PM'ed me to be more specific if you like, because I am not sure what you are getting at here or ... even after googling, not sure which meaning your hth is, is it "hope that helps"? Which path am I taking, I was just genuinely surprised, I thought it was to some degree even more well known how the US has treated someone of their protests, like Standing Rock IIRC the last one that set things off.
And I would guess its not just First Nations relations we get some Americans looking our way trying to learn what they can, we get brought up about Universal Healthcare a lot in recent years too.
Edit: Augh, double click produced two quotes, sorry.
And people in this thread were saying I was overreacting calling MacKay an alt-righter who will only continue the CPC's descent into extremism.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/wet-suwet-en-coastal-gas-link-pipeline-lng-1.5469401
Like no agreement will ever bring the 2 sides together