Canadian Protests

[MigL]

Seems the Politics forum has 'stalled'.
I know ranger and JC will appreciate this, but I'm hoping the larger group finds it interesting.

A gas pipeline has been approved for northern BC, with agreements signed by the ELECTED Native tribal chiefs of the affected lands.
The HEREDITARY chiefs, however are opposed.

https://www.ecowatch.com/pipeline-protests-canada-indigenous-2645171362.html?rebelltitem=2#rebelltitem2

Protests by natives, and sympathizers  have been going on for quite some time and have spread across the country.
The main form of protest has been the disruption of transportation, mostly rail, as far as eastern Ontario.
Our Government refuses to take any action, and would rather wait for 'dialogue' to settle the situation; meanwhile close to 85,000 train trips have been cancelled since Feb 6. And the RCMP and various Police forces will not restore law and order as they have been 'burned' by Governments before ( Oka and Ipperwash ).
Also, to be clear, I don't wish to discuss the pipeline, its benefits or problems; I wish to discuss valid/legal/accepted forms of protest in a lawful, ordered society, without people running others over, as in Charlottesville

So what do polite Canadians do ?
Obviously everyone has the right to protest what they see as an unfair/unjust action.
But does my right to protest trump your right to go to work, on vacation, visit sick friends or go to a hospital ?

I always thought it was fairly simple...
Everyone has rights.
But my rights stop when they start infringing on the rights of others.

[iNow]

Where, however, is the boundary between one persons right to unlimited personal profit and the collective right to clean air and a stable climate?

Like in Hong Kong, at some point we need to realize the protestors have a poor and that its worth fighting for. 

[John Cuthber]

4 hours ago, MigL said:

I always thought it was fairly simple...
Everyone has rights.
But my rights stop when they start infringing on the rights of others.

Too simple.

That rule means nobody can do anything (for fear that someone else objects).

All rights granted to any individual or group constitute an infringement of the rights of others.

Your right to walk down the street without fear of being killed infringes on my right to kill you.

My right to have a barbecue infringes on your right to enjoy fresh air

But your right to enjoy fresh air infringes on my right to enjoy a barbecue.

In the end, it comes down to compromise.

Is the right to protest more important than the right to easy holiday travel?

Well: you only get to have a holiday because, in the past, people protested about not getting one.

 

 

 

[J.C.MacSwell]

My right to do something everyone recognizes as illegal starts when I claim I'm protesting...

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

My right to do something everyone recognizes as illegal starts when I claim I'm protesting...

... and might end with an unjust law being changed. I don't know about Canadian law, but in the US, the courts don't overturn bad laws on their own, they need people to break them and then argue in court why it was the right thing to do.

[MigL]

Just to throw more clichés into the mix, does the end justify the means ?
If something is perceived by some, to be for the greater good, does it justify removing/modifying some people's rights ?
Or to put it in an easily understood context, did G W Bush have the right to remove some privacy rights in order to ensure the safety of society ( WRT terrorism ) ?

Getting back to the Canadian situation, these laws ( that could be unjust ) are currently in place.
The government is allowing people to break these laws, occupy publically funded services that people rely on ( not just for vacations ), and waiting for a 'meaningful dialogue' to resolve the matter.
Since I now consider our taxation laws, which fund these publically owned services, to be unjust, as I can't make use of them, do I have the right to withhold some of my taxes in protest ?
Do you think Revenue Canada will consider 'meaningful dialogue', or will I get a visit from the RCMP ?

[J.C.MacSwell]

2 hours ago, Phi for All said:

... and might end with an unjust law being changed. I don't know about Canadian law, but in the US, the courts don't overturn bad laws on their own, they need people to break them and then argue in court why it was the right thing to do.

This would be my argument, in part, why felons should get to vote. (One of the few areas I would agree with Bernie Sanders)

Pretty hard though, to find a description for civil disobedience, generally, that we will all agree is appropriate

An extreme example:

Debatably, the US 2nd amendment sees gun ownership as essential to potentially necessary overthrow of an oppressive government.

[CharonY]

6 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Pretty hard though, to find a description for civil disobedience, generally, that we will all agree is appropriate

That is almost by design, civil disobedience is conducted in the context of some governmental elements (including laws). These were obviously constructed because sufficient (or powerful) folks thought that they should be in place.

So in any given context, civil disobedience is bound to be contentious. However, from a historic perspective one could judge them as appropriate, typically when they lead to different laws (and generally accepted value system) that are now considered to be right and just (until someone else overturns it further down the road). An example could be the civil rights movement in the US, where nowadays probably only a small margin think that it was not justified. Or going further back civil disobedience related to slavery, considering that slavery is outlawed now.

[J.C.MacSwell]

37 minutes ago, CharonY said:

That is almost by design, civil disobedience is conducted in the context of some governmental elements (including laws). These were obviously constructed because sufficient (or powerful) folks thought that they should be in place.

So in any given context, civil disobedience is bound to be contentious. However, from a historic perspective one could judge them as appropriate, typically when they lead to different laws (and generally accepted value system) that are now considered to be right and just (until someone else overturns it further down the road). An example could be the civil rights movement in the US, where nowadays probably only a small margin think that it was not justified. Or going further back civil disobedience related to slavery, considering that slavery is outlawed now.

Also by default. If you are within the bounds of legally acceptable protest you are not being civilly disobedient.

By "them" of course you can't mean all of them. Your examples are from those of the good ones. I hate to invoke Goodwin here but 1930's German disobedience lead to different laws (and generally accepted value system). 

[John Cuthber]

18 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

This would be my argument, in part, why felons should get to vote. (One of the few areas I would agree with Bernie Sanders)

Pretty hard though, to find a description for civil disobedience, generally, that we will all agree is appropriate

An extreme example:

Debatably, the US 2nd amendment sees gun ownership as essential to potentially necessary overthrow of an oppressive government.

That escalated quickly.

[J.C.MacSwell]

3 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

That escalated quickly.

No waitin' around for a Boston tea party...

[dimreepr]

34 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

No waitin' around for a Boston tea party...

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter; it depends, in general, on which side of the poverty line he resides.

Well fed and content people don't tend to riot.

[MigL]

21 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Well fed and content people don't tend to riot.

Or, they live in an authoritarian/dictatorial society where they are not allowed.

I don't recall any protests/rioting in Stalinist USSR,  S Hussain's Iraq or KJU's N Korea.
But I guarantee they are/were NOT well fed or content.

But That's not what I'm asking for...
If I have nothing to do with your 'cause', why does your protest need to inconvenience, distress or even hurt me ?
Has our 'me' society degenerated to the point where only our own personal wants, needs and goals matter, and to hell with common curtesy and things that may be important to others ?

[dimreepr]

9 minutes ago, MigL said:

Or, they live in an authoritarian/dictatorial society where they are not allowed.

Where are riots allowed?

9 minutes ago, MigL said:

If I have nothing to do with your 'cause', why does your protest need to inconvenience, distress or even hurt me ?
Has our 'me' society degenerated to the point where only our own personal wants, needs and goals matter, and to hell with common curtesy and things that may be important to others ?

I'm sure (some of) the white folks in South Africa would have agreed during apartheid.

13 minutes ago, MigL said:

I don't recall any protests/rioting in Stalinist USSR,  S Hussain's Iraq or KJU's N Korea.
But I guarantee they are/were NOT well fed or content.

Are you suggesting that is a better system of governance?

Edited February 21, 2020 by dimreepr

[MigL]

And while I'm on a roll...

Isn't that the argument always used against the US when they impose sanctions on a country like Iran ?
The US ( and others ) withholds supplies, which may cause hunger/starvation or even deaths, in the case of medical supplies, in an effort to get the Iranian people to change the way their ( oppressive ) Government does things.
That is almost exactly the same.
Inconveniencing and holding a group of people "hostage' in an effort to influence another group.

Does anyone actually think that the 'just' cause is worth it to the family that loses a child because of lack of medication ?
( which couldn't get there by ViaRail, our shut down rail system; did you think I was still referring to Iran ? )

 

14 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Are you suggesting that is a better system of governance?

No, Im suggesting there are nuances and blanket statements don't cut it.
A lot of the Canadian protesters are affluent and well fed.
 

Edited February 21, 2020 by MigL

[dimreepr]

5 minutes ago, MigL said:

Isn't that the argument always used against the US when they impose sanctions on a country like Iran ?
The US ( and others ) withholds supplies, which may cause hunger/starvation or even deaths, in the case of medical supplies, in an effort to get the Iranian people to change the way their ( oppressive ) Government does things.
That is almost exactly the same.

And what do you think creates a terrorist? 

“My name is Ozymandias, king of kings: Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!”

11 minutes ago, MigL said:

A lot of the Canadian protesters are affluent and well fed.

Then they're protesting an injustice.

[MigL]

So then you agree...
Inflicting inconvenience/harm on one group in an effort to affect another separate group, IS unethical and wrong ?

 

Thanks Dim, I just hit 5000 posts. WHOOHOO ! 
( that was my mission for this morning )

Edited February 21, 2020 by MigL

[iNow]

39 minutes ago, MigL said:

If I have nothing to do with your 'cause', why does your protest need to inconvenience, distress or even hurt me ?

Because that’s the only way enough people will begin paying the required attention to actually change things. 
 

If the status quo is too comfortable for you, you’ll act as an obstacle to the change

[dimreepr]

13 minutes ago, MigL said:

So then you agree...
Inflicting inconvenience/harm on one group in an effort to affect another separate group, IS unethical and wrong ?

If by inconvenience you mean your commute is affected, then NO.

If by inconvenience you mean all the bullets turned to bread, then DUH...

Edited February 21, 2020 by dimreepr

[J.C.MacSwell]

25 minutes ago, MigL said:

So then you agree...
Inflicting inconvenience/harm on one group in an effort to affect another separate group, IS unethical and wrong ?

 

 

I don't think this is something you can generalize. Is it?

 

 

[CharonY]

15 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

By "them" of course you can't mean all of them. Your examples are from those of the good ones. I hate to invoke Goodwin here but 1930's German disobedience lead to different laws (and generally accepted value system). 

I meant relative to whenever the judgement was made. After taking over power the initial coup  attempt was seen as heroic for example, but nowadays we would judge it differently, of course.

[J.C.MacSwell]

If I'm holding up a train because I don't like the fact that they won't let me use pesticides on my own lawn...that's a little different from doing the same to protest a law that requires me to be someone's butler because I have grey hair.

[dimreepr]

2 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

If I'm holding up a train because I don't like the fact that they won't let me use pesticides on my own lawn...that's a little different from doing the same to protest a law that requires me to be someone's butler because I have grey hair.

Maybe you should stop thinking that it's about you, until it's about you...

[J.C.MacSwell]

32 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Maybe you should stop thinking that it's about you, until it's about you...

First they came for the Socialists...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...

"First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
     Because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
     Because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
     Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me."

 

Ye see Dim...in the end it's all about me...

Edited February 21, 2020 by J.C.MacSwell

[dimreepr]

2 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

First they came for the Socialists...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...

Good point, but I feel we are talking past each other on this, given

Quote

If I'm holding up a train because I don't like the fact that they won't let me use pesticides on my own lawn...that's a little different from doing the same to protest a law that requires me to be someone's butler because I have grey hair.