Environmental activists have caused disruptions outside Montreal Trudeau International Airport for three consecutive days protesting Canadian fossil fuel policy.
“I acknowledge that at least some of the concerns motivating you are, at least to some extent, shared by many,” he said.
“But the plain fact is that each of you has some time ago crossed the line from concerned campaigner to fanatic. You have appointed yourselves as the sole arbiters of what should be done about climate change, bound neither by the principles of democracy nor the rule of law.
“And your fanaticism makes you entirely heedless of the rights of your fellow citizens. You have taken it upon yourselves to decide that your fellow citizens must suffer disruption and harm, and how much disruption and harm they must suffer, simply so that you may parade your views.”
What an absolutely tone deaf and patronizing statement. The world is ending but god forbid we inconvenience anyone while trying to do something about it.
“Die in a hole you filthy peasant. Your life is expendable and you won’t be missed when the police gun you down in the climate riots 20 years from now.”
Read it again. You are NOT morally superior. The three people he was writing about are now spending 2, 2, and 3 years in prison because they mistakenly believe that they are absolutely morally superior and that that absolute moral superiority justifies anything that they do to anyone they see as inferior. This is the same mistake that every extremist makes.
I think it’s safe to say that if they gave up their freedom for the cause of trying to save us and our descendants from climate catastrophe then they are absolutely morally superior to both of us. The mistake you make is thinking that the law has a single thing to do with moral superiority, it only deals in financial superiority.
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.
“But the plain fact is that each of you has some time ago crossed the line from concerned campaigner to fanatic. You have appointed yourselves as the sole arbiters of what should be done about climate change, bound neither by the principles of democracy nor the rule of law.
YOU have appointed yourselves as the SOLE arbiters of…
YOU is collection. The collective have appointed themselves the sole arbiters of…
Have you ever been to the Montreal airport? 45 minutes to drive the loop is normal without protesters. It took hours with the protesters. What if someone missed a flight and didn’t get to the hospital to see their dying patent or child for the last time? What if someone missed a court appearance and ended up in prison? There are so many reasons that this protest could cause real, lasting harm to the people who are, “inconvenienced”. I think that the judges words, voices on the ruling where he sentenced the people to two and the hearts in prison for the same sort of protest, really last it out perfectly well. Your comment and the protesters are utterly tone deaf.
Okay, lets just keep burning fuel until all of us are harmed by earth’s wrath. Will you show the same sympathy to flood and wildfire victims? Those events are going to happen more frequently if we do not bring an end to climate change. Many currently inhabited places may become too hot or too dry to survive.
I’ve been an environmental activist and protester since the 1970s. I live in a straw bale house that I built with my own two hands and the hands of my family and around 40 volunteers 20 years ago. It has a carbon footprint 80% lower then our neigbors much smaller house. I’ve taught more than 1,000 building officials how to inspect straw bale houses and intervened in over 100 disputes between people wanting straw bale houses and their building officials with a 100% success rate. I have contributed to the reduction of carbon emissions in a very personal and direct way that these fanatics can only dream about in their wettest circle jerk fantasies.
Don’t lecture me, child.
The mistake that these people are making, and that you are making, is the same mistake that ALL extramists make. All extremists believe that they are somehow absolutely superior to everyone else. That superiority may be genetic, racial, religious, sexual, political, ethical, moral, dietary, or any of many other factors. They believe that that absolute superiority justifies anything that they do to anyone who doesn’t share that absolute superiorty. They can self-absolve any transgressing or crime because their goals are pure and the people they are harming are not.
Oh GTFO. You wanna have a conversation like an adult feel free to treat others like equals and be respectful. If you can’t see how you’re acting so fucking smug, there’s no hope for you.
They acted like disrespectful petulant children and I am treating them with the respect that they deserve. When they start acting like adults I will treat them with the respect they deserve. Until then, then are disrespectful petulant children.
We tell kids, when we talk about straw bale houses, that the fourth pig combined all three of the systems that the first three used, straw for insulation and structural integrity, wood for headers, window framing, and interior walls, and cement (Portland lime) for load bearing skins and fire resistance.
Our walls are 10 times as strong as a 2x6 wall in a vertical load, 6 times as strong in a vertical load, have a 2 hour commercial fire rating, a Catgory 5 missile penetration rating (a 2x4 fired at Categort 5 hurricane speed will not penetrate the wall, and an isolated section R value of 70 with a system R value of 40.
From a recent ruling in the UK.
What an absolutely tone deaf and patronizing statement. The world is ending but god forbid we inconvenience anyone while trying to do something about it.
No, no you misunderstand. Let me translate:
“Die in a hole you filthy peasant. Your life is expendable and you won’t be missed when the police gun you down in the climate riots 20 years from now.”
Read it again. You are NOT morally superior. The three people he was writing about are now spending 2, 2, and 3 years in prison because they mistakenly believe that they are absolutely morally superior and that that absolute moral superiority justifies anything that they do to anyone they see as inferior. This is the same mistake that every extremist makes.
I think it’s safe to say that if they gave up their freedom for the cause of trying to save us and our descendants from climate catastrophe then they are absolutely morally superior to both of us. The mistake you make is thinking that the law has a single thing to do with moral superiority, it only deals in financial superiority.
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.
guy needs to look up the meaning of the word “sole”
Sole.
congratulations?
What did you think he got wrong?
dude. how many protesters and defendants are we talking about? is it more than one?
He was referring to them collectively. In English, “you” can refer to one person or a group of people.
yeah that’s not the word we were talking about?
“But the plain fact is that each of you has some time ago crossed the line from concerned campaigner to fanatic. You have appointed yourselves as the sole arbiters of what should be done about climate change, bound neither by the principles of democracy nor the rule of law.
YOU have appointed yourselves as the SOLE arbiters of…
YOU is collection. The collective have appointed themselves the sole arbiters of…
Do you understand now?
Yes the harm of being delayed a coupled minutes while siting in a nice climate controled vehicle that has comfy seats and an entertainment system.
Have you ever been to the Montreal airport? 45 minutes to drive the loop is normal without protesters. It took hours with the protesters. What if someone missed a flight and didn’t get to the hospital to see their dying patent or child for the last time? What if someone missed a court appearance and ended up in prison? There are so many reasons that this protest could cause real, lasting harm to the people who are, “inconvenienced”. I think that the judges words, voices on the ruling where he sentenced the people to two and the hearts in prison for the same sort of protest, really last it out perfectly well. Your comment and the protesters are utterly tone deaf.
Okay, lets just keep burning fuel until all of us are harmed by earth’s wrath. Will you show the same sympathy to flood and wildfire victims? Those events are going to happen more frequently if we do not bring an end to climate change. Many currently inhabited places may become too hot or too dry to survive.
I’ve been an environmental activist and protester since the 1970s. I live in a straw bale house that I built with my own two hands and the hands of my family and around 40 volunteers 20 years ago. It has a carbon footprint 80% lower then our neigbors much smaller house. I’ve taught more than 1,000 building officials how to inspect straw bale houses and intervened in over 100 disputes between people wanting straw bale houses and their building officials with a 100% success rate. I have contributed to the reduction of carbon emissions in a very personal and direct way that these fanatics can only dream about in their wettest circle jerk fantasies.
Don’t lecture me, child.
The mistake that these people are making, and that you are making, is the same mistake that ALL extramists make. All extremists believe that they are somehow absolutely superior to everyone else. That superiority may be genetic, racial, religious, sexual, political, ethical, moral, dietary, or any of many other factors. They believe that that absolute superiority justifies anything that they do to anyone who doesn’t share that absolute superiorty. They can self-absolve any transgressing or crime because their goals are pure and the people they are harming are not.
They are wrong and you are wrong.
It’s cool that you’re in the well-insulated house business. But we’re still cooking the planet and jet aircraft are bad.
Do not lecture me, child.
Oh GTFO. You wanna have a conversation like an adult feel free to treat others like equals and be respectful. If you can’t see how you’re acting so fucking smug, there’s no hope for you.
They acted like disrespectful petulant children and I am treating them with the respect that they deserve. When they start acting like adults I will treat them with the respect they deserve. Until then, then are disrespectful petulant children.
Removed by mod
I love that I’m living rent free in your head. I just wish that it was furnished.
I will huff, I will puff, I will blow down your straw bale house.
We tell kids, when we talk about straw bale houses, that the fourth pig combined all three of the systems that the first three used, straw for insulation and structural integrity, wood for headers, window framing, and interior walls, and cement (Portland lime) for load bearing skins and fire resistance.
Our walls are 10 times as strong as a 2x6 wall in a vertical load, 6 times as strong in a vertical load, have a 2 hour commercial fire rating, a Catgory 5 missile penetration rating (a 2x4 fired at Categort 5 hurricane speed will not penetrate the wall, and an isolated section R value of 70 with a system R value of 40.