🚀 go-pugleaf

sl@vanbc.wimsey.com (Stuart Lynne) writes:

> In article <mgFT9B1w165w@ham.almanac.bc.ca> emd@ham.almanac.bc.ca writes:
> >ggauvrea@unixg.ubc.ca (Gwethalyn Gauvreau) writes:
> >
> >The organized and concerted attempt to prevent MB from carrying out legal
> >and lawful activities has rightly met with a court injunction enjoining
> >the protesters from blocking the road.  Once the injunction was granted,
> >it became the people of B.C. that the protesters were thumbing their
> >noses at, not MB. The protesters have decided by themselves that they're
>
> Well the majority of the people in BC are NOT in favour of the current
> government policy WRT to Clayoquot so perhaps it's more like the left hand
> trying to get the attention of the right hand.
>

Sez who? A small number of self-appointed environmental "saviours"?

And what is it they're not supporting? The actual agreement, once they
examine it, or the propaganda handed out daily by the likes of the
so-called "Friends of the Clayoquot"?

> >If you want to violate a court injunction, you're breaking the law. If
> >you break the law, you should be prepared to take the consequences
> >without whining.
>
> That's true.
>
> >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 by the people of B.C. through their
> >government. In fact, the orchestrated protest at Kennedy River, as
>
> Exactly, it's the government that made this *BAD* decision. Not the people.
> In fact one of the reasons that the NDP got in was through the efforts of
> people now violently opposed to what is happening in Clayoquot (can you say
> sold out, I knew you could).

It's ludicrous to characterize the position of the NDP on this issue as
selling out, Stuart. It's not even a bad decision. It was a GOOD
decision, that after four years of discussion balanced the goals and
desires of a lot of people with different interests,  created stringent
logging requirements, reserved thousands of acres of forest to never be
cut,etc. With fair weather friends like some environmentalists, the NDP
doesn't need enemies.

>
> >presently constituted, has all the earmarks of a criminal conspiracy to
> >violate the injunction.
>
> Well, you have to get the attention of the government somehow. Merely voting
> them in doesn't seem to count anymore.
>

Oh, really? Because someone doesn't agree with you, you have the right to
violate the law willy-nilly to get attention? Bull.

> >Personally, I hope Premier Harcourt doesn't cave in to these people, and
> >that he continues to support the responsible compromise reached.
>
> He already did cave in to the special interest groups. It would be nice if
> he simply went back to what he/they said they where going to do WRT to the
> environment etc.

It seems to me that he's done just that. There are a whole host of
improvements, environmentally speaking, initiated by the current
government, including the pulp effluent standards, the recent decision to
not allow the mine to go ahead in the Tat, the institution of the CORE
process, etc.

That some environmentalists refuse to acknowledge that a: not all desired
changes can be made overnight, b: people who don't agree with their views
have not necessarily "sold out", and c: that people with every bit as
much passion for the environment as they have themselves can interpret
facts differently - makes it really unlikely we'll get beyond the
mud-slinging stage.


emd@ham.almanac.bc.ca  (Robert Smits, Ladysmith B.C.)

Claiming that sex education leads to irresponsible sex is like