Environmental activists have caused disruptions outside Montreal Trudeau International Airport for three consecutive days protesting Canadian fossil fuel policy.
That’s an interesting point but I disagree. They treated thousands other people with utter contempt. That is not the act of someone who is morally superior. It’s absolutely disqualifying.
I really don’t mind if the mildly inconvenienced thousands of people. If in a functioning democracy our powers are threefold - the vote, the media and protest, and peaceful protest by its very nature is a protest that can be ignored, then no change can be affected by non disruptive protest. In my opinion this isn’t disruptive enough. If we treated this climate crisis with the urgency it deserves then we would take a page out of the European book and block highways with concrete bollards.
Make no mistake, our children will burn and we’re worried about missing a flight.
Just as long as they are prepared to answer to the rest of a society who, don’t agree with their methods. The three who the judge in the UK was writing about are spending 2, 2, and 3 years in prison for their protest which showed utter contempt for other citizens.
I’m part of the rest of society and I agree with their methods. I haven’t been propagandized into thinking protests shouldn’t be disruptive (ignorable). They’ve got you thinking minor inconvenience = utter contempt (which for some reason you chose to write two comments in a row), and that for some reason deserves prison time.
Think about it, really, imagine this was coming from someone you respect enough to make you consider changing your mind; should protests that cause no bodily harm be a criminal offence? Should the people not have a way to truly disrupt the system if our existence is at stake? Is the convenience of the ignorant more important than our survival? I’d love to hear your honest answers to these questions.
Think about it, really, imagine this was coming from someone you respect enough to make you consider changing your mind; should protests that cause no bodily harm be a criminal offence? Should the people not have a way to truly disrupt the system if our existence is at stake? Is the convenience of the ignorant more important than our survival? I’d love to hear your honest answers to these questions.
In theory what you are saying is correct. Disruptive protest for popular causes are very effective. The problem is that these fanatics are driving a wedge between the solution they want and the people they really need on their side for their protests to be effective (the people in popular.) I’m prepared to bet that they didn’t convince a single person trying to get around the loop at YUL to join them. How many people jumped out of their cars and asked for glue? Do you think they changed any oil executive’s minds? Do you think that they convinced any bought and paid for by the oil industry politicians to change their vote? Do you think that the number of people they convinced to vote for change during the next election outweighs the number of people whos votes they galvanized against them? In order for us to achieve real change in climate policy they need to convince many millions of people to vote for change. I’m willing to bet you $1 that they have done more harm than good.
Please understand that I agree with their goals. I agree that we need to make dramatic changes and as I’ve said in other parts of this “discussion” (discussion in quotes because there is a lot of whinging, shaming, insulting, name calling, etc. being thrown at me that does not constutite a conversation.) I have made substantial changes myself and have helped hundreds of others make substantial changes. I have had a direct and personal impact on carbon reduction. I just don’t agree with their methods. I think that they are doing far more harm to the cause than they are doing good.
That’s an interesting point but I disagree. They treated thousands other people with utter contempt. That is not the act of someone who is morally superior. It’s absolutely disqualifying.
I really don’t mind if the mildly inconvenienced thousands of people. If in a functioning democracy our powers are threefold - the vote, the media and protest, and peaceful protest by its very nature is a protest that can be ignored, then no change can be affected by non disruptive protest. In my opinion this isn’t disruptive enough. If we treated this climate crisis with the urgency it deserves then we would take a page out of the European book and block highways with concrete bollards.
Make no mistake, our children will burn and we’re worried about missing a flight.
Just as long as they are prepared to answer to the rest of a society who, don’t agree with their methods. The three who the judge in the UK was writing about are spending 2, 2, and 3 years in prison for their protest which showed utter contempt for other citizens.
I’m part of the rest of society and I agree with their methods. I haven’t been propagandized into thinking protests shouldn’t be disruptive (ignorable). They’ve got you thinking minor inconvenience = utter contempt (which for some reason you chose to write two comments in a row), and that for some reason deserves prison time.
Think about it, really, imagine this was coming from someone you respect enough to make you consider changing your mind; should protests that cause no bodily harm be a criminal offence? Should the people not have a way to truly disrupt the system if our existence is at stake? Is the convenience of the ignorant more important than our survival? I’d love to hear your honest answers to these questions.
In theory what you are saying is correct. Disruptive protest for popular causes are very effective. The problem is that these fanatics are driving a wedge between the solution they want and the people they really need on their side for their protests to be effective (the people in popular.) I’m prepared to bet that they didn’t convince a single person trying to get around the loop at YUL to join them. How many people jumped out of their cars and asked for glue? Do you think they changed any oil executive’s minds? Do you think that they convinced any bought and paid for by the oil industry politicians to change their vote? Do you think that the number of people they convinced to vote for change during the next election outweighs the number of people whos votes they galvanized against them? In order for us to achieve real change in climate policy they need to convince many millions of people to vote for change. I’m willing to bet you $1 that they have done more harm than good.
Please understand that I agree with their goals. I agree that we need to make dramatic changes and as I’ve said in other parts of this “discussion” (discussion in quotes because there is a lot of whinging, shaming, insulting, name calling, etc. being thrown at me that does not constutite a conversation.) I have made substantial changes myself and have helped hundreds of others make substantial changes. I have had a direct and personal impact on carbon reduction. I just don’t agree with their methods. I think that they are doing far more harm to the cause than they are doing good.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod