There is a new amount of confrontation over the Dakota Access Pipeline. The protesters against the pipeline must leave their campsite by December 5 or face arrest. The basis for the decision was that it was protecting the general public from violence between protesters and law enforcement officials, and to protect the people living in camps from the harsh North Dakota winter conditions. Later, going back on the original statement, the Corps issued a new statement said it had no plans for forcible removal, but those who choose to stay do so at their own risk and without medical and police aid. Those staying will be unauthorized and may be subject to citation under federal, state, or local laws.
The author of this article seems slightly biased towards the protesters, showing the unfairness and possible questionable legality of the original decision made by the Army Corps of Engineers. I think this current event is relevant because it brings two issues to light: the environmental repercussions of the pipeline and drilling, and the right to protest. The protesters fight to keep the groundwater clean and stop the drilling, which I agree with. However, I think the decision made by the Corps is reasonable, though I'm doubtful of its legality. I don't know where to draw the line for the right to protest, and it's hard to know where it's suppressing public opinion or upholding public safety.
Synthesis to peaceful protests during the civil rights marches in the 1960's.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/25/us/dakota-pipeline-access-army-corps/index.html
This event is interesting. Im with you, Maggie, on the ideas that the people were protesting for good reasons but the Corps' response is also legitimate!
ReplyDelete