🚀 go-pugleaf

jamie@cs.sfu.ca (Jamie Andrews) writes:

>In article <mgFT9B1w165w@ham.almanac.bc.ca> emd@ham.almanac.bc.ca writes:
>>I'd have absolutely no problem with the protesters demonstrating their
>>opposition to the decision. I do have a problem with people, misguided or
>>not, who have decided that they should engage in a concerted way to block
>>Mac-Blo from engaging in logging that follows the principles as set out
>>in the Clayoquot compromise...

>     In other words "I have no problem with people expressing
>their opinion as long as Mac-Blo can flat-out ignore them."

Thats what free speech is all about. The right to speak out on issues
that are important to you. However, there is nothing in the concept of
"free speech" that says people have to listen to you.

>     By the way, why is this so-called "compromise" backed 100%
>by the loggers and the forest companies, and so vehemently
>opposed by environmentalists?  Is this some new definition of
>"compromise"?

The environmental groups were invited to participate in land-use
committees and chose to boycott them.

The compromise involved setting aside part of the Clayoquot for
preservation and forcing Mac-Blo to use differnet loggin methods that
are more costly but more environmentally friendly.


Whats your idea of compromise?

Complete and utter surrender to the ecofacists?