#idlenomore,  memes,  politics

Is there a way to "fight our own government"

Share Button

I’ve been toying with the idea of starting a regular feature on my blog, a weekly post about the facebook memes (maybe Meme-y Monday) that I end up seeing, going through and trying to discuss the ideas behind them in more detail like I did the picture of babies who don’t believe in mom. There is something incredibly troubling about the modern online equivalent to bumperstickers. I used to post quite a few on my facebook page but I slowed down when I realized, for the most part, they can’t convince anyone anything that the person doesn’t already agree with and instead they end up hurting those who disagree. A good text-in-a-box-with-picture shared on facebook can be a slap in the face of someone who has an alternative position that isn’t summed up so easily in 140 characters. Even if one does agree with the main idea there can be interesting implications and questions around it.

I don’t know if I’ll have time to make a weekly feature, but I would like to write about some of the memes I’ve seen recently. One of them showed a picture by Ansel Adams, a photographer worth looking up. Overtop the picture was the words “It is horrifying that we have to fight our own government to save our environment. – Ansel Adams.”

Ansel Adams used the word “fighting” just a way of saying, it is horrible that we have to be in opposition with our own government over protecting the environment, horrible that our governments would not already be on the side of the environment. Yet when I saw the picture I found myself wondering, what does it mean to fight our governments? Is political lobbying a form of fighting? What about petitions or protests?

The question of what fighting means seems relevant to me now as I read newspaper articles and comment sections about #IdleNoMore. People are complaining about the blocking of traffic. They are complaining that the protesters are inconveniencing the public. I find that fascinating. How are we supposed to fight the government if even blocking traffic is considered too inconvenient?  Can it really be considered fighting if we are trying out best not to inconvenience anyone at all?

Does one fight the government through swaying public opinion?  Peeking into the discussion of local #idlenomore organizers, I heard the debate between paying for a permit in order to protest legally and not. Applying for a permit is seen partly as a way of trying to deflect criticism about the inconvenience to traffic. Yet at the same time, there’s a question of whether one can truly be fighting against the government when one asks permission from a government before hand.

Derek Nepinak, Grand Chief of the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, warned “The Idle No More movement has the people, it has the people and the numbers that can bring the Canadian economy to its knees… We have the warriors that are standing up now that are willing to go that far. So we’re not here to make requests. We’re here to demand attention and to demand an end to 140 years of colonial rule.” People respond by saying he’s threatening blackmail, that he’s not playing by the rules, that the election was won and he should respect that the government gets to do what it wants.

Is there a fair way to fight our government? Do we have to stop thinking in terms of fair? Do we have to fight the government even knowing that it will antagonize others? Is there a legitimacy to using any type of pressure on the government (for example, highway blockades) other than pressure related to elections? Is fighting back simply not letting government policy pass unnoticed?

(This post reminds me of an earlier post I wrote, about the page in the Senate who held up the Stop Harper sign. It was right after an election. How does one Stop Harper after he’s just been elected?)

Editing to add: The discussion of how to make one’s voice heard, and what lengths are okay to go to, is obviously being held in  many places. The Sierra Club is changing its policy in supporting an act of civil disobedience.

Share Button


  • Lionel

    Another great post! Thought provoking,insightful. Very, very good. I make it a point, if at all possible, not to miss your posts. This makes me think of what I consider one of the major issues going on today, the erosion of our Constitution. I am not a fan of the Patriot Act and would love to see it go away. I don’t think it is necessary to keep us safe. How do we as individuals make our feelings known in any significant way? It’s an answer I’m still looking for, and your post today made me think of that. Thanks for another great post.

    Paul R. Hewlett

  • Susan Goodsell

    Enjoyed reading your article christyk, you’ve highlighted some very interesting points.

    My Uncle and I have been ‘fighting’ for justice after the death of my father; we have been ‘fighting’ with the establishment and the government in the UK for changes in the Inheritence Laws, which our case prooved, are flawed and even worse still can, and are, manipulated and ignored for self gain with no posible chance of repremand.

    Our journey began in 2002 and continues to date. We have written our story and had it published in 2011, ‘The Perfect Crime: A Story of Truth or Fantasy’, within the cover is a true account of our experiences and all names, places and incidents are documented and not one of the parties named has tried to have it removed or sued – The reason being, it is all absolutely true.

    So back to the question – Yes you can ‘fight your own government’. Like us you could become a complete nuisence and embarrasment to the government, name and shame, never go away and rally the public by telling them of the injustices that exist in their society and affect every one of them in one way or another.

    Susan Goodsell

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.