Say it isn't so department (2013, living, costs)

[Idunn]

"Monitoring of environmental activists in Canada by the country's police and security agencies has become the "new normal" …

Security and police agencies have been increasingly conflating terrorism and extremism with peaceful citizens exercising their democratic rights to organise petitions, protest and question government policies …

Canada is at very low risk from foreign terrorists but like the US it has built a large security apparatus following 9/11. The resources and costs are wildly out of proportion to the risk …" [1]


While one might unfortunately expect this type of behavior, and worse, in the United States, apparently Ottawa is absorbing some irregular notions from down south.

According to Greenpeace, not all Canadians share their governments view on protection of the environment and protests towards same. Or indeed that, "It is governments and fossil fuel industry who are the extremists, threatening the prosperity of future generations."[1]

Would this be true? Or perhaps the wider opinion that such activities as tar sand extraction in Alberta are a welcome economic bonus, and all environmental wackos best sent packing back to where they surely gained all their bad ideas, the US?

1) 'Canada's environmental activists seen as 'threat to national security',' The Guardian
Canada's environmental activists seen as 'threat to national security' | Environment | guardian.co.uk

[Stubblejumper]

While most activist groups are relatively harmless, there are some who have proven themselves to be dangerous.

Most prominent and well known is the group formerly headed by Wiebo Ludwig, who are still living out by Hythe, AB. Ludwig was responsible for dozens of bombings and other acts of vandalism on natural gas wells and other installations throughout the 1990's. There was also an incident in which a teenage girl was shot and killed on their Trickle Creek property, though it was unrelated to Ludwig and company's environmental agenda.

They became more active again in 2008-2009, and were likely responsible for a series of pipeline bombings in Northeastern BC.

While Ludwig died last year, his family and several associates are still active as an organization and remain on the Trickle Creek property.

Luckily, no one was injured or killed in any of the bombings, and I suspect that it was never their intention to kill anyone. However, given the unpredictable nature of oilfield work it was really a matter of blind luck that no one was on site at the time of the explosions. Of course, the damage to property, and ironically nearby flora and fauna was, at times quite severe.

[GTOlover]

Originally Posted by Idunn

"Monitoring of environmental activists in Canada by the country's police and security agencies has become the "new normal" …

Security and police agencies have been increasingly conflating terrorism and extremism with peaceful citizens exercising their democratic rights to organise petitions, protest and question government policies …

Canada is at very low risk from foreign terrorists but like the US it has built a large security apparatus following 9/11. The resources and costs are wildly out of proportion to the risk …" [1]


While one might unfortunately expect this type of behavior, and worse, in the United States, apparently Ottawa is absorbing some irregular notions from down south.

According to Greenpeace, not all Canadians share their governments view on protection of the environment and protests towards same. Or indeed that, "It is governments and fossil fuel industry who are the extremists, threatening the prosperity of future generations."[1]

Would this be true? Or perhaps the wider opinion that such activities as tar sand extraction in Alberta are a welcome economic bonus, and all environmental wackos best sent packing back to where they surely gained all their bad ideas, the US?

1) 'Canada's environmental activists seen as 'threat to national security',' The Guardian
Canada's environmental activists seen as 'threat to national security' | Environment | guardian.co.uk

they would be a threat to National security if they act in way that benefits their agenda rather than what is best for Canada ands I doubt Greenpeace has what is best for Canada and Canadians as well as Americans due to Greenpeace getting a lot of their large donations and paid for TV and Magazine ads it is funded by Opec countries in a way to prevent Canada and the U.S. from gaining energy independence from the ME Oil thus the lose influence and lose their pretty only major source of Revenue which goes to fund radical terrorist groups and well that is counter productive to North American security and thus is a risk to National security.