Are Flathead park supporters terrorists?
|
Submitted by trailhead on Sun, 08/11/2009 - 2:16pm.
|
|
|
Posts: 160
Joined: 17-06-2007 |
A recent letter in the Free Press twice called proponents of a Flathead park terrorists. While people may legitimately disagree on an issue, branding people as terrorists is uncalled-for. Certainly conducting a poll is not terrorism, nor is an advertising campaign in support of your cause. That's just politics. As for the poll results, I've read a few news stories that suggest slightly different interpretations. The Wildsight press release on this website implies that respondents were primarily in the Cranbrook-Elk Valley corridor. The story in the Vancouver Sun and the McAllister polling report both suggest that respondents were from throughout the East Kootenay region which includes far more than the Elk Valley. It would be interesting to see the results broken down by RDEK areas A-G to see if a majority in all communities supports the idea. (RDEK areas A & B closest to the Flathead represent just 25% of the East Kootenay population) I find Bill Bennett's suggestion in the Sun and Free Press articles that people voted against a park in the last election to be disingenuous. Few people would have voted for or against Bennett solely on the Flathead park issue. An election is about more than a single issue, and he knows that. I suppose he would also suggest that because he was elected that means that East Kootenay residents favor every BC Liberal position including the HST. |
Joined: 03-06-2008
Just to clarify.. she didn't call you a terrorist. She called you an "environmental eco-terrorist" The state of Texas defines an eco-terrorist as "two or more persons organized for the purpose of supporting any politically motivated activity intended to obstruct or deter any person from participating in an activity involving animals or an activity involving natural resources."
Joined: 06-07-2006
Ahh, Texas. The caring state.
Joined: 03-06-2008
Capital Punishment friendly. I know what we all think about Texas, but the point is people like Cindy Gallinger of Elkford feel like we're trying to be presured into your beliefs through a campain of selling fear and lies. She's had enough. I don't mind the phone surveys as much. I feel people voted for NDP Troy Sebatian for the sole reason of his support of the feasibility study in the Flathead. So I don't think it's a far stretch to think that people voted for Bill because he will maintain the same land use plan that we have for the last 50years. Which has brought the Flathead to the pristine state it is in today.
Joined: 23-11-2007
she can say anything she wants.
the real issue is should the free press have published it?
i'd say no. the letter makes no progress in providing rational forward movement in the debate and only serves to marginalize the two groups--for and against. there is not rational argument in her letter. only name calling and irrational fears.
the proponents of the park are no more terrorists than those who seek CBM in the flathead.
the free press should be taken to task for this letter.
and the article on Emily a few weeks ago was even more out of line. the headline about her quitting skiing (right before the olympics) was yellow journalism (or at least tabloid journalism) at it's best.
Joined: 17-06-2007
[quote=mikes]Just to clarify.. she didn't call you a terrorist. She called you an "environmental eco-terrorist" The state of Texas defines an eco-terrorist as "two or more persons organized for the purpose of supporting any politically motivated activity intended to obstruct or deter any person from participating in an activity involving animals or an activity involving natural resources."[/quote]
Any reasonable definition of either eco-terrorism or terrorism implies violence and/or illegal activity. Whatever the source of your Texan definition, it is either wrong or incomplete. Political activism is in no way eco-terrorism.
I seriously doubt that anyone outside of the Elk Valley was influenced to vote Liberal or NDP based on the Flathead issue alone. There were far more important reasons for voting, including the economy, health care and education. However strongly you may feel about the Flathead park, the provincial election cannot be considered as a referendum on that or any other single issue. I can state with near certainty that the majority of East Kootenay residents opposed the carbon tax, yet they still voted for Bennett -- in spite of their opposition to the tax.
Joined: 26-10-2006
For me the Flathead issue was far down the list of concerns. Much like global warming is far down the list for most people and ranks around 8th or 10th on the list of voter concerns.
Joined: 03-06-2008
Well to me it seems weird that Wildsight would unofficially support Troy Sebation so much if the bottom line wasn't the Flathead Feasibility study. David Suzuki slammed the NDP's environmental policy, stating that if the NDP has the chance to implement its irresponsible policies British Columbia will lose its pre-eminent position as a global environmental leader, fall far short of the province’s climate change targets and put thousands of jobs at risk across the province.
About the NDP's stance against carbon tax David Suzuki said: "I'm really shocked with the NDP with this. I thought that they had a very progressive environmental outlook."
So why does Wildsight support the NDP so much. One simple reason. The NDP supported a Flathead Park Feasibility Study.
Joined: 23-11-2007
hey mikes
if you think most voters are single issue voters, i think you are giving them a short shift. the folks i know evaluate all the issues and vote for the person who best meets/matches the majority of their concerns.
then again, maybe we travel in very different circles. your friends may all be single issue folks. kind of shallow, if you ask me.
Joined: 03-06-2008
Your right zippy, thats why I thought it was so shocking that Wildsight supported the NDP after most major environmental organizations spoke out against the NDP's environmental policy. Could they be so shallow as to be single issue folks? Seems your right...they are.
Joined: 23-11-2007
and where did you find the wildsight statement they were officially supported troy for his stand on the study?
i don't think they took a position. i don't think they can as a non-profit, become involved directly in a political campaign.
some staff from wildsight helped troy. as did staff from the city. that in no way means the city was backing troy's campaign. you are taking individual efforts and ascribing their work to the larger bodies they work for. not a viable position.