This is the third part of a three part series from Rafe Mair on civil dissent.

In the last article I discounted the possibility that any hearing into the Enbridge pipelines or tanker traffic, to and out of Kitimat and Vancouver would dare stop these projects. I considered and rejected, without saying so, any intervention by the federal procedures, specifically the National Energy Board’s Federal Panel Review which held against the Taseko proposal at Fish Lake. I don’t believe for one moment that this Panel would put an end to the pipelines permanently but at most would attach conditions. Since there are no environmental conditions that would prevent horrendous and permanent damage to our environment, the NEB, will, at most, be a slowing down process.

Assuming that the pipelines and tankers are supported by both the federal and provincial governments I don’t believe that any review panel would have the jam to reject the projects outright (nor can it, in fact – it only has the power to make recommendations to the Minister of Environment, who has the final say) but most surely would use the weasel word “mitigation”, where no mitigation is possible or acceptable.

A far better bet is that the Federal cabinet will, as it did with the original Kemano II project, waive the requirement for such a hearing or any other.

Consider the Harper government’s position – to reject the pipelines and tankers would be to reject the Tar Sands, especially if the US Keystone XL pipeline is rejected by President Obama. Even if it is passed by Obama, the heat from China, the projects themselves, plus the pressure of the business community that finances the Tory government will be too strong for Harper & Co. to resist. In fact the approval of environmental destruction comes naturally to right wing governments so that, in my view, the issue moot. When it comes to fighting these projects, the public of BC will be on its own.

What about majority rules? Isn’t that the end of the matter? Both senior governments have mandates so they can do as they please?

This simply is not so. Neither government has faced this as an issue and there have been no referenda. There will not, in my opinion, be any meaningful forum for popular opinion. But the critical question is this: the proposals will do permanent and egregious harm – what government ever has the moral or even legal right to make such a decision without direct citizen approval?

Friends – we must face the fact that neither government will stand in the way of these projects.

I must be careful with my next point. First Nations have, thus far, made it clear to Enbridge that they will not accept the projects. They have recently refused a bribe of 10% of the action. Careful though I must be, it must be recorded that some First Nations have accepted financial inducements to permit fish farms, although most First Nation have opposed; more tellingly, perhaps, some have been induced to supported Independent Power Producers (IPPs) ravishing their rivers. Indeed, in the Klina Klini project, First Nations have sued the provincial government for nixing the project.

One must ask, then, is First Nations rejection of the Pipelines an outright refusal or just part of a negotiation process?

We must prepare for the worst. We must assume that the projects will be approved and, govern our actions accordingly. Clearly, then, we must be ready for civil disobedience.

This, in my view, means three things:

1. There must be an obvious flouting of the public will. In the absence of a public referendum on the matter, the flouting of public will becomes clear.
2. We must understand that civil disobedience carries with it penalties. Even though these penalties will involve the governments and corporations subverting justice by proceeding criminally in a civil matter, we must realize that this is a penalty we will pay and be prepared to pay it.
3. The Civil Disobedience must be on a large scale. We must have leadership and we must provide that leadership with our support and enough money to stand behind those who are fined, go to jail, or both. People’s savings will be attacked and their families will suffer. We can expect no mercy from companies or our very own governments.

The notion of lawbreaking does not come easily to me, a lawyer. The fact remains that the great United States Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes was right when he said that the courts decide the law, not justice.

The cause of preserving our province is too important for us to meekly accept a judge’s finding that prevention of that cause is to be supported by jail sentences. As Justice Holmes so tartly observed, law and justice are not synonymous.

Our question is simple to state: is it justice when any tribunal, parliament, legislature or court destroys our environment, not as a vital need of society but for private profit?

Last week I advised that we must be prepared to lie down in front of machinery aimed at creating the pipelines from the Tar Sands to Kitimat and, as I fully expected, got some heat.

We have to face this question before we get into morality and legality issues – why do you suppose that there is no public process dealing with the merits of this idea?

The answer is simple: the Campbell/Clark and Harper Governments know that we won’t try to physically stop the undertaking, so why bother holding meaningful hearings? To do so would raise the expectation that we care and would listen.

I realize that the above is cynical but cynicism has been Campbell/Clark’s hallmark since they took office in 2001, announced that the NDP had left us in penury and promptly gave over a billion in tax cuts to the well off.

(And let me set out once more the issue – building and using pipelines or tankers does not pose risks but absolute mathematical certainties of catastrophic consequences. If you take a “risk” without any limit on how often or how long you will run this “risk”, that risk becomes a certainty; the only question remaining being the extent of damage done).

When the public has no influence on the making of a law it has no option but to oppose it on the ground.

Let me make something clear that I omitted in my last article: the defiance must be peaceful. The example of Mahatma Gandhi must be the by-word. Such violence as may occur must be by the authorities, not the protesters. Please take what I just said as being in deadly earnest.

Moreover, any who disobey the law must be prepared to accept the consequences.

To the morality. Civil disobedience must be in consequence of a wrong being done, not a political whim. There is a large difference between protesting and active flouting of a law and one crosses the Rubicon with very great care. CD must be in response to a serious change in policy not warranted by any public approval. It is not enough to say that a free government approved the project because in our system, parliaments (legislatures) are not free agents voting the wishes of their constituents. Moreover our governments don’t even trouble themselves with legislatures – it’s just time wasted on getting a rubber stamp. As Finance Minister Kevin Falcon has remarked, it would all be so much easier if we were like China and didn’t trouble ourselves with tiresome procedures in such matters and just let the government get on with it.

Let’s get down to principles and morality. If a government, with its friendly construction companies, decides to irrevocably destroy large tracts of wilderness, exposing it to the absolute certainty of ongoing catastrophes, can they do this at their pleasure? Must the public be content with their right, several years down the road, to throw out the government after their policy is a fait accompli?

All of what I argue prevails with equal if not even greater impact against oil tankers down our coast.

Have we not got the right nay, duty to do all within our power, save violence, to stop this from happening? Are these not, in Tom Paine’s words, ”times that try men’s souls”?

Where is the illegality, the immorality here? Is it immoral, should it be illegal for citizens to stand against a tyrannical government which, hand in hand with its bankers, destroys our wilderness, ruins our rivers and the ecologies they sustain and poses the never-ending threat of horrific oil spills on land and in the oceans?

How can the people be wrong to reject the outright lies of government and industry flacks? What is the only option left a citizenry when a dictatorial government demolishes our land for all time?

How can citizens be wrong to stop, with their bodies and freedoms, the ravishing of nature’s bountiful and precious endowment so that world’s filthiest energy source can be spread like black ooze across one of the last wildernesses on earth?

I suppose it gets down to this: is it a sufficient answer for generations to come that we tried to stop the carnage they see by sending letters to editors and carrying placards?

I think not.