🚀 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."
>

No, I have no problem with people expressing their point of view legally.
They can conduct political campaigns, lobby the government, or try to
persuade people to their point of view.

What they have NO right to do is to violate the court injunction barring
them from blockading the road. Your right to protest my legal actions
ceases at the point where you interfere with my carrying out that action.

>      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"?
>

In fact, the compromise seems to be supported by just about everybody who
participated in the process except the environmentalists, who grabbed
their marbles and went home to sulk when not everyone agreed with them.

> --Jamie.
>   jamie@cs.sfu.ca
> "Why doth thou slay my kine?  Kine are hard to come by.
>  Now I am short kine and I'm not even sure what kine are."  --Woody Allen


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

Claiming that sex education leads to irresponsible sex is like
claiming that driver education leads to car accidents.  Laurie.Mann