Congrats Ora! Your great efforts and hard work paid off - Loved your posts and articles about Norway!!Visit her posts and articles at www.noraway.net
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
Wednesday, August 3, 2011
Protest of Hamburger Stand may have been legal – but...
The protesters who attended Mayor Ken Hewitt’s private residence on Saturday July 23rd took pains to demonstrate the legality of their protest. As one member of the group expressed it - “[we] actually acknowledge” trespass laws. These statements, among others, were meant to demonstrate the justness and, therefore, righteousness of their actions; they were stand-ins for the implied message that, ‘because what these protesters were doing was legal, it was therefore also right’. But was it right to attend the Mayor’s home to stage such a protest?
As a lecturer in Ethics and practicing lawyer, I often come across those who confuse ‘legality’ with ‘justice’ - but Justice and lawfulness are not interchangeable concepts. As just one example, no one would deny that protesting is lawful, but as recent incidents in the United States have shown - where some protesters have attended the funerals of dead soldiers to shout that death is “payback” for immorality - law cannot be a stand-in for justice. Or, to be more direct – what is legal can still be wrong.
Of course – the obvious question is, “what is wrong with protesting at the home of the Mayor?” One could argue that the Mayor is the Mayor and so ought to receive these protests without complaint. Perhaps. But, can anyone deny that his wife or child isn’t the Mayor, or that this is their private residence and sanctuary? Further, can anyone deny that their neighbours’ peace, privacy, and quiet enjoyment of a Saturday were equally at stake? Can anyone deny that the Mayor is a decent person (as are, I assume, these protesters), doing his best for the good of his County – and that even a Mayor ought to be able to expect some solitude, privacy, and dignity in his own home and neighbourhood? Can anyone deny that there are public places and buildings more intimately tied to the Mayor’s Office and official duties – and that these are more appropriate places to voice discontent?
Of course, one might further argue that the residents of Caledonia have endured many inconveniences (or worse) and so it is only fair that the new Mayor endure his fair share. Perhaps. But does one person’s loss of an eye legitimize the taking of another’s? Does the strength of these protesters’ (perhaps legitimate) anger and discontent negate their obligations to treat Mr. Hewitt, his family, neighbours, and the wider public, with equal concern and respect? Can one legitimize his or her unethical behaviour with the moral equivalent of “feel my pain”?
The fact is that we don’t go to the homes of people we disagree with professionally to voice our discontent; lawyers don’t advise clients to attend the opposing side’s home to argue, and; no one goes to the chef’s home to say last night’s meal didn’t meet expectations. In going to the Hewitt’s private residence these protesters failed to pay heed to their wider obligations - mistaking lawfulness for rightfulness. In so doing, these protesters let their fervency for ‘the cause’ cloud their judgment of right and wrong. In letting the law be their guide, they were misled.
Visit http://www.sachem.ca/opinions/article/239762
Caledonia Ontario - Native Protests - The importance of acting ethically when protesting for a just cause
As a lecturer in Ethics and practicing lawyer, I often come across those who confuse ‘legality’ with ‘justice’ - but Justice and lawfulness are not interchangeable concepts. As just one example, no one would deny that protesting is lawful, but as recent incidents in the United States have shown - where some protesters have attended the funerals of dead soldiers to shout that death is “payback” for immorality - law cannot be a stand-in for justice. Or, to be more direct – what is legal can still be wrong.
Of course – the obvious question is, “what is wrong with protesting at the home of the Mayor?” One could argue that the Mayor is the Mayor and so ought to receive these protests without complaint. Perhaps. But, can anyone deny that his wife or child isn’t the Mayor, or that this is their private residence and sanctuary? Further, can anyone deny that their neighbours’ peace, privacy, and quiet enjoyment of a Saturday were equally at stake? Can anyone deny that the Mayor is a decent person (as are, I assume, these protesters), doing his best for the good of his County – and that even a Mayor ought to be able to expect some solitude, privacy, and dignity in his own home and neighbourhood? Can anyone deny that there are public places and buildings more intimately tied to the Mayor’s Office and official duties – and that these are more appropriate places to voice discontent?
Of course, one might further argue that the residents of Caledonia have endured many inconveniences (or worse) and so it is only fair that the new Mayor endure his fair share. Perhaps. But does one person’s loss of an eye legitimize the taking of another’s? Does the strength of these protesters’ (perhaps legitimate) anger and discontent negate their obligations to treat Mr. Hewitt, his family, neighbours, and the wider public, with equal concern and respect? Can one legitimize his or her unethical behaviour with the moral equivalent of “feel my pain”?
The fact is that we don’t go to the homes of people we disagree with professionally to voice our discontent; lawyers don’t advise clients to attend the opposing side’s home to argue, and; no one goes to the chef’s home to say last night’s meal didn’t meet expectations. In going to the Hewitt’s private residence these protesters failed to pay heed to their wider obligations - mistaking lawfulness for rightfulness. In so doing, these protesters let their fervency for ‘the cause’ cloud their judgment of right and wrong. In letting the law be their guide, they were misled.
Visit http://www.sachem.ca/opinions/article/239762
Caledonia Ontario - Native Protests - The importance of acting ethically when protesting for a just cause
Re: “Threat of Violence Still Hangs Over Caledonia”
I take issue with one of the allegations lobbed by this writer – that the police are using race as a principle upon which to decide when to enforce the law in Caledonia. This is a refrain that has been heard time and time again, and one against which the police have been unable to defend themselves. While I am not pro (or anti) police I do think some of the more vocal residents of this area have worked hard to unfairly characterise the police as racist – or more accurately, to characterise the exercise of police discretion as somehow based on considerations of race and not on some important societal goal or value. The oft-repeated allegation has been that the OPP is conducting “race-based” policing. Rage and anger naturally ensues.
The story goes like this: The police have failed to enforce the law against the Natives on the former Douglas Creek Estates (DCE) land. The police have not failed to enforce the law when non-Native activists, and others, have attempted to enter this same disputed land. The logical conclusion, so the story goes, is that the police are using reverse discrimination to prefer the interests of Natives over that of non-Natives.
There are at least three problems (two logical and one systemic) with this familiar fable.
First, the person alleging race-based policing is making a leap of faith. He or she is assuming decisions that result in the seemingly different treatment of different peoples must be based on race. The person making this argument assumes the police are making decisions based predominantly on race, to the near total exclusion of justice, security, peace, public order, or other operational considerations.
Second, this allegation treats correlation (the fact that particular decisions seemingly correlate with race) as causation (the motivations or cause of the treatment). This slight-of-hand confuses one into believing that race, and not some other factor, is the cause of the manner of policing, rather than the correlative result.
The third problem is more worrisome. This allegation, based on a party trick and unsupportable assumption, has served to sour relations between the residents of Haldimand and police. People have lost faith in the men and women who, every day, work hard to protect our communities, and right wrongs.
A more likely story, and one that I think has been born out in the process and result of the last six years, is that the police have been charged with the thankless and difficult task of standing between two warring groups. In that middle ground, police have had to take into consideration, in conjunction with the goal of law enforcement, the greater goals of security, peace, stability, and operational viability; all while also trying not to derail a slow-moving political process of negotiation and discussion. In that effort to promote these grander goals and processes, the police have, it appears, acted diligently to maintain an admittedly less-than-ideal status quo pending resolution of this dispute through negotiation.
This more likely story takes into consideration the fact that (unless you are a conspiracy theorist) most police officers are fair-minded individuals who chose policing in order to do good – not evil. It also takes into consideration the fact that police officers are like you or me and therefore not likely to be motivated by the goal of reverse-discrimination. It also takes into consideration the fact that police officers in Caledonia are operating in a difficult situation – many competing values and goals are in play – and making difficult operational decisions about how to maintain law, order, peace and promote resolution to a problem that, in 350 years, has yet to be solved, makes for tough working conditions.
We should all, therefore, take issue with the allegation that the OPP are engaged in race-based policing. It is too facile an explanation to a very difficult and complex issue; its treats police as vapid politically correct monkeys and it takes us for fools. It is towards this uncritical allegation, and not towards the police, that our collective rage and anger should, naturally, be directed.
Visit http://www.thespec.com/opinion/columns/article/565045--criticism-of-the-motives-of-police-caught-in-the-caledonia-conflict-are-unfair
The story goes like this: The police have failed to enforce the law against the Natives on the former Douglas Creek Estates (DCE) land. The police have not failed to enforce the law when non-Native activists, and others, have attempted to enter this same disputed land. The logical conclusion, so the story goes, is that the police are using reverse discrimination to prefer the interests of Natives over that of non-Natives.
There are at least three problems (two logical and one systemic) with this familiar fable.
First, the person alleging race-based policing is making a leap of faith. He or she is assuming decisions that result in the seemingly different treatment of different peoples must be based on race. The person making this argument assumes the police are making decisions based predominantly on race, to the near total exclusion of justice, security, peace, public order, or other operational considerations.
Second, this allegation treats correlation (the fact that particular decisions seemingly correlate with race) as causation (the motivations or cause of the treatment). This slight-of-hand confuses one into believing that race, and not some other factor, is the cause of the manner of policing, rather than the correlative result.
The third problem is more worrisome. This allegation, based on a party trick and unsupportable assumption, has served to sour relations between the residents of Haldimand and police. People have lost faith in the men and women who, every day, work hard to protect our communities, and right wrongs.
A more likely story, and one that I think has been born out in the process and result of the last six years, is that the police have been charged with the thankless and difficult task of standing between two warring groups. In that middle ground, police have had to take into consideration, in conjunction with the goal of law enforcement, the greater goals of security, peace, stability, and operational viability; all while also trying not to derail a slow-moving political process of negotiation and discussion. In that effort to promote these grander goals and processes, the police have, it appears, acted diligently to maintain an admittedly less-than-ideal status quo pending resolution of this dispute through negotiation.
This more likely story takes into consideration the fact that (unless you are a conspiracy theorist) most police officers are fair-minded individuals who chose policing in order to do good – not evil. It also takes into consideration the fact that police officers are like you or me and therefore not likely to be motivated by the goal of reverse-discrimination. It also takes into consideration the fact that police officers in Caledonia are operating in a difficult situation – many competing values and goals are in play – and making difficult operational decisions about how to maintain law, order, peace and promote resolution to a problem that, in 350 years, has yet to be solved, makes for tough working conditions.
We should all, therefore, take issue with the allegation that the OPP are engaged in race-based policing. It is too facile an explanation to a very difficult and complex issue; its treats police as vapid politically correct monkeys and it takes us for fools. It is towards this uncritical allegation, and not towards the police, that our collective rage and anger should, naturally, be directed.
Visit http://www.thespec.com/opinion/columns/article/565045--criticism-of-the-motives-of-police-caught-in-the-caledonia-conflict-are-unfair
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)