Students will be free to march Sept 27
School boards, as well as Concordia and Dawson, probably more to come, will be cancelling classes September 27 for the climate protest.
The rallying point is the Cartier monument at noon. Has anyone heard yet if it’s to be a march, and if so, what the endpoint is?
SMD 19:29 on 2019-09-17 Permalink
It will be a march, but the organizers are planning an XR disruption (probably blocking a major road, like last time) so they aren’t sharing the itinerary.
Kate 20:21 on 2019-09-17 Permalink
Thank you, SMD. (I’m relieved. I was getting annoyed with myself for not being able to find that piece of information anywhere.)
Faiz Imam 21:43 on 2019-09-17 Permalink
Ya know, I first heard a presentation by an Extinction Rebellion person only a couple months ago. I was taken aback by their focus on disruptive direct action.
But they are all over the news these days and I can’t help but agree.
We seem to have almost unanimous agreement that small measured changes in technology will solve this problem without anyone making any major sacrifices. But that’s delusional, and Its good that those folks are out there making a louder point.
Chris 08:49 on 2019-09-18 Permalink
“We seem to have almost unanimous agreement that small measured changes in technology will solve this problem without anyone making any major sacrifices.” We do? That’s the exact opposite of the consensus I’m aware of.
Su 12:21 on 2019-09-18 Permalink
Faiz, It is my understanding that officially, Extinction Rebellion uses Civil Disobedience . Direct Action is not the same thing.
Michael Black 13:08 on 2019-09-18 Permalink
The terms are often used interchangeably, so it’s go’s hard to follow.
If it’s just hit and run disruption, I woukdn’t call it civil disobedience. Though there was the time in October 1979 when the Clamshell Alliance decided to call it “direct action” and it seemed like an escalation. Annie said afterwards that the woman she was with got her head bashed. And while there was a call later to return to Seabrook, nothing much happened there afterwards, while previously Seabrook had been the model for civil disobedience at nuclear power plants.
Most people don’t understand civil disobedience. They think of it as firce, when really it’s about changing people’s minds. Gandhi didn’t fast as a threat, he wanted people to know how serious he was. The Montgomery Bus Boycott wasn’t about disruption, people just stopped using the bus, either walking or carpooling. The Freedom Rides were about changing the law, either they’d have no trouble or being arrested would show the world the reality of segregation.
The students in 2012 weren’t prepared for arrest, they wanted to be loud and inconvenient. And when they did get arrested, for being disruptive, they got lost in side issues about “right to protest”.
One mistake is to decide the end justifies the means. That happened during the anti Vietnam era, going as far as the Weathermen bombings. That was force, rather than trying to convince people.
Other than the Vancouver Five with the bombing at Litton in Toronto, the nuclear disarmament movement forty years ago wasn’t violent or disruptive. Nobody talked about how it was so important that anything was acceptable. Causes come and go, all want to believe that their cause is the most important thing. But it’s through other means that that us conveyed. Being disruptive doesn’t explain how important this is, it just annoys peop!e.
There was a story at the CBC this week about young women making a pledge to not have children. Time will tell, but that seems to convey something more than blocking traffic.
Michael
Tee Owe 14:48 on 2019-09-18 Permalink
Michael – that’s very insightful – thank you!
Meezly 14:51 on 2019-09-18 Permalink
According to: https://www.bl.uk/learning/histcitizen/21cc/counterculture/civildisobedience/disobedience.html
“Advocates of civil disobedience argue that small crimes, such as the disruption of roads and public spaces, are justified when they are against far greater crimes such as massive environmental damage or war.”
Disruption is a form of civil disobedience, which is why they are indeed used interchangeably. I’m learning this myself as I observe the Hong Kong protests this past year, which completely relied on disruption (of major roads, public spaces, airports) to force the authorities to meet their original demand, which was to withdraw a proposal that would extradite dissidents to mainland China. For them, the right to protest is not a side issue – they know firsthand how fragile and valuable democratic rights are. Perhaps they seem desperate to hold onto what little rights they have in their so-called two systems.
The ends justify the means can go both ways for each ‘side’. The HK authorities were prepared to use any means necessary to dampen the protests, which had the opposite effect and further escalated the situation (to put it mildly).