Quote:
Originally Posted by Sliver
But it's reasonable (even if barely) for environmentalists to oppose any development in O&G and it's more practical for an environmentalist in BC or Alberta to fata with O&G development in our own country than to try to make somewhere like Saudi Arabia more environmentally friendly.
Like, I wouldn't want to stop environmentalists from advancing their agenda because, ultimately, it's to all of our benefit to work toward cleaner energy and a cleaner environment. They have done a lot to push our industry into being better and better for the environment. That's good.
If/when they start behaving illegally, then yes, any reasonable person should want them stopped by law enforcement. If/when there are foreign-funded groups directing money into the sponsorship of illegal activities by environmental groups, we need to stop them and prosecute to the extent possible.
You're going to have a tough time getting us on a 'gotcha' here. We're consistent. I think maybe you're projecting what you would do - that is, not want laws enforced when it's to the benefit of your ideology, but want them enforced when something runs counter to your ideology.
Speaking for myself, I want consistency in how we treat protesters that go too far by breaking the law. It's so basic and the best part is it doesn't require any mental gymnastics.
|
I would also argue that there's a fundamental difference between slowing the construction of a pipeline through Indigenous-owned land and occupying a section of a city or blocking an international border. For the former:
-the legal issues are much murkier re: Indigenous title given that the land is technically unceded.
-the societal impact is relatively narrow and more opaque.
For the latter, it's pretty open and shut. If anti-pipeline protesters blocked border crossings I imagine they would have been cleared out almost immediately, and they certainly wouldn't have gotten this kind of treatment from the police once they did leave:
