# data[].attributes.body
Saturday, May 2nd 1970 a Vietnam war protest at Kent State University in Ohio gets out of hand and the result being a building is burned to the ground during the protesting of America’s involvement in Vietnam. Monday, May 4th 1970 protests resumed by the burnt out building the National Guard arrived on scene, and started to deploy tear gas to the crowd and people going to class and the cafeteria. Rocks thrown from the crowd caused live rounds to be fired off by the National Guard killing several people and wounding others. The actions of the crowd later were described as “Communist” by the Governor of Ohio and that they are “Brown Shirted” referring to the brown dress shirts worn by members of the Nazis in World War two. Though people have the right to protest peacefully obviously this was not the case at all. Burning buildings and throwing rocks at people is an illegal act of expressing your opinion and not a proper method of dissent. However the National Guard was also at fault for the use of excessive force in putting down the protesters. As a result of this event 450 other colleges and universities protested the events of that day and the wrongdoing of the American Government.

# data[].attributes.body
The idle no more movement all started when Canada’s Government wanted to make changes to the Indian Act through Bill C-45. The bill would have affected previous areas of land belonging to FNMI people, making it open to industry which would transform the land into it not being the way it once was. Small peaceful protests resulted from the proposal of the act, none resulting to violence or civil disobedience. However when the bill was passed on Dec 14th, 2012 more protests around Canada occurred and people standing on rail lines unmoving created turmoil delaying trains for hours. From the past historical treatment of FNMI people in Canada and the promises they have gotten from our Government I do not think that this bill is the best decision. With all the issues today from the lingering effects of residential schools, to the thousands of people that lost their culture from the actions of our Government why are we continuing to harm the people here before us. The people reacted appropriately in their peaceful non-violent gatherings where they voiced their opinions and let the media know what was happening. However I do not agree with the dissent of civil disobedience with illegally blocking train lines to cause delays, though this form of illegal protest did spread their views on the bill I do not think it is a necessary act. The response of the government towards the protesting people was non-existent until continuous action to protest on parliament hill and an individual’s hunger strike occurred. Only then was there a meeting between government officials and FNMI people representatives, though they met today the bill still is in place.

# data[].attributes.body
What began as a peaceful protest for democratic reform in April of 1989 ended in bloody massacre on June third and fourth. It was about the posthumous rehabilitation of the former Communist Party Chairmen Hu Yaobang. The protests were not disbanded until after his funeral, where Deng Xiaoping supported the use of military suppression to these protests. What started as a peaceful protests of Chinese students escalated quickly when they were joined by workers, intellectuals, and civil servants, and in two months there were over a million people in the square. Martial law was declared on May 20, then on June third military force was given the okay to go, and troops and tanks were deployed, killing thousands of citizens. Zhao Ziyang, a man who sympathetic towards the protests, was dismissed and the student leaders of the protesters were arrested.
This form of civil disobedience is okay because they had a point to get across. The general will of the people was not being answered to by the government, so the people sought to replace the current government with a new one, and they did so peacefully. There was no need for violence to be brought forward by the government, they were only thinking about keeping their own power, not thinking about their people.

# data[].attributes.body
The non-violent protest was a part of Gandhi’s civil disobedience acts against the British rule in India. The British had placed a salt tax on the people that made it practically illegal to produce or sell salt, allowing for a complete British monopoly. Essentially the people could not go get their salt from the coasts, they were forced to buy their salt. Since it was monopolized they could not really afford it.

Gandhi had a letter written to the Viceroy saying that on the eleventh day of that month he and as many men as he could and they were to march from Sabarmati to Dandi, a 240 mile journey, to fight the salt tax. The Viceroy wrote back saying that they would not change their policy. And so on the eleventh day Gandhi and 78 male satyagrahis (it had to be males because Gandhi thought he would not get the reaction with women in the march) began their long journey, stopping in towns where Gandhi would speak to them. After he would finish speaking more and more people would join him in his march. At the end of the twenty three day journey, they reached the coast and picked up the salt, breaking the law. Many of his followers also did that, and many were all thrown in jail. This started many non-violent protests, one in which the protesters were assaulted by police and they remained non violent, killing many. This helped win their independence.
This is acceptable for liberalism because there was a large response from the general public. The general will of the people was to be their own country, not to be just a colony mistreated by their British rulers. It is not fair that all the money from salt should go straight to the crown. The only good this brings is money for England to help them get out of their recession, however it is not fair when the Indians have to pay crazy amounts for their salt when they were already so deprived.

# data[].attributes.body
In Ukraine, there has been turmoil across the nation in terms of economics and to hold the government accountable for their actions. Viktor Yanukovych, the president of Ukraine, was to sign Ukraine up to the EU but changed last minute and decided to side with Russia after an eight hour meeting with Vladimir Putin. This is in part that siding with Russia would mean that the major suppliers of money (steel mills and chemical plants which fund the government, corrupt undoubtedly) would be able to have greater output that can create more economic promises. This and other political troubles reached a fever point which  led to  a standoff at Independence Square in the capital, Kyiv. The Berkut, or riot police, opened fire killing at least seventy protesters. When the Berkut were forced to step down, hired thugs were then brought in to create mayhem at rallies making things even more complicated. With all these things happening, peace was no longer an option; the people became violent and more aggressive against police or pro-Russian supporters. Vitaly Klitschko, the head of the anti-Russian group (and the opposition party leader) challenged Yanukovych’s decision making and made it very clear that he must resign if an agreement between Ukraine and the EU is not made. Klitschko and Yulia Tymoshenko are both influential members of Parliament and encouraged the people to challenge and create dissent from the current political system that favours Russia. With the Russian occupation of Crimea and the eventual referendum, the desires to overthrow the current system (which brings us to now) led to Yanukovych running away from office when things began to escalate.
I believe that the people of Ukraine are justified with their actions in regards to not sitting idly while Putin and Yanukovych were acting without the people’s permission. To remain peaceful amidst the chaos would surely lead to less destruction, but voices will not be heard nor will there be any form of changes when it comes to facing off against a corrupt government and Russia. Without resistance, Russia surely would not stop at Crimea as the passivity marks the lack control the people really have. When seventy people are killed and the police were deliberately sent to keep the people down using an insane amount of force and brutality, there is justified grounds for retaliation so long as it promotes the goal of the entire nation and not of a small portion of the people. To stray away from a puppet government and a superpower which seeks only their benefit is enough justification for dissent to occur.

# data[].attributes.body
National Day of Protest picture.

# data[].attributes.headline
Kaylynn / Black Panthers and Civil Rights Movement

# data[].attributes.subject
Kaylynn / Black Panthers and Civil Rights Movement

# data[].attributes.body
The Black Panthers were formed in 1966 in California, and they had a short but strong influence in the civil rights movement. The two founders of the Black Panther Party were Huey Percy Newton and Bobby Seale. They preached for a "revolutionary war," and the group believed that Martin Luther King had been unsuccessful in getting results for the African-American people. Though it was an African-American group, they were willing to represent and fight for any minority group who was being taken advantage of. The Black Panthers were willing to use violence to get what they wanted: equality in education, housing, employment and civil rights. The plan of action for a revolutionary war against the authority was what alerted the FBI about the Black Panthers, and they were able to stop the group’s movement for fighting. There were many people who supported the Black Panthers that blamed the FBI and said they used dirty tactics to take down the group, though no accusations have ever been proven to be true. The head of the FBI, Edgar J Hoover, called the Black Panthers “the greatest threat to the internal security of the country." However, the group was responsible for a number of positive things as well. In areas where they were supported, the Black Panthers created a Free Food Program to feed those who could not afford to do so for themselves. They also set up Free Medical Research Health Clinics to provide basic health care for those who could not afford it and an Intercommunal Youth Band to give community pride to the movement. Newton once said they were giving the people what they needed and the government wouldn’t.

I agree with this dissent because the party was only trying to find equality and give minorities a better quality of life, but planning to start a war was the wrong way to approach it. What they were doing within their supporting communities was good, and they were able to help a large number of people. The FBI was right to take them down in order to prevent a revolutionary war, but if they needed to frame members of the group to do so then it was unjust, and they should’ve found a better way to do so. Even though the Black Panthers were violent and had to be stopped, they were successful in drawing more attention to the Civil Rights Movement, and they helped make today’s society a better place to live.

# data[].attributes.body
South Africa’s National Day of Protest

At an emergency meeting of the National Executive of the African National Congress held at Thaba ‘Nchu on Sunday May 21st 1950, the attitude of ANC, (The ANC is a national movement that was formed in 1912 to unite the African people and spearhead the struggle for fundamental political, social and economic change.0 to the Suppression of communism act was discussed. (The Suppression of Communism Act 44 of 1950 was legislation of the national government in South Africa, passed on 26 June of that year which formally banned the Communist party in South Africa and proscribed any party or group subscribing to the ideology of communism.) It was agreed to launch a campaign for a national Day of Protest. It was suggested that on that day the African people should remain home and refrain from going to work and regard that day as a Day of Mourning for all the Africans that lost their lives in the struggle for liberation. The government enacted the suppression of communism act (No 44) of 1950. The act outlawed the communist party and defined communism as any scheme that aimed at bringing about any political, industrial, social or economic change within the union by the promotion of disturbance or disorder or that encouraged feelings of hostility between European and non European races of the union of consequences.

My opinion is that i think that this was a justified act. The reason I have this opinion is because liberation is a very important issue. The fact that many died to achieve liberation is sad and unjust. Liberation should be a given part of live nobody should be used as a slave or treated unjustly. The government approving of the National Day of Protest is fair because those people who fought for liberation need to be remembered because of the life they achieved for the future African Americans. For example, in Canada we have rememberance Day to remember the lives that were lost in Afghanistan and remember the good the soldiers and peacekeepers did for the people of Afghanistan.

White Rose Group

The White Rose movement was active between June 1942 and February 1943. The White Rose movement opposed Hitler, Nazi rule and World War Two. The White Rose movement is famous of the civilian resistance movements that developed within Nazi Germany but some of its members paid a terrible price for their stand against the system. The White Rose movement was made up of students who attended Munich University. Its most famous members were Hans and Sophie Scholl. Members of the White Rose movement distributed anti-Nazi and anti-war leaflets and it was while they were in the process of doing this that they were caught. To keep secrecy, membership of the White Rose movement had to  be small. It produced anti-war leaflets that were also deemed to be anti-Nazi. If they were captured they would have been charged with treason with the inevitable consequences. That is why the group had to be kept very small, everyone knew each other and each was convinced of the loyalty of everyone in the group. On February 22, the Scholls and Probst were found guilty of political offenses by the notorious Judge Roland Freisler. The death of Probst and the Scholls was followed on April 13 by the trial of Graf, Schmorell, Huber, and eleven others associated with the organization. With the war's end in 1945, the members of the White Rose were made heroes of the new Germany and the group came to represent the people's resistance to tyranny.

My opinion is that the government’s reaction was unjust. Their actions are wrong because these poor people who are suffering tyranny are being good people and speaking the truth about their government and they suffer harsh consequences because of it. These peoples dissent was completely justified because everyone should have a say when it comes to poor and unfair government. These people resisted the Nazis and were willing to die for their beliefs. The White Rose wrote, printed and distributed leaflets denouncing Hitler and his government to warn people and tell them what Hitler and his government were about. These innocent people shouldn’t be punished because they speak for what they believe in. The government has no right to take away the life of someone because they speak their belief in this day but they did this back then and it is unfair.

# data[].attributes.body
Arab Springs was a series of uprisings in the Middle East. The uprisings were caused mainly by the people’s struggle for political change. The revolution started in Tunisia in late 2010, early 2011 when a young man, Mohamed Bouazizi, was selling vegetables on the street. When the police seized his cart, he marched in front of a government building and set himself on fire. This act of desperation echoed among the others in town and they began protesting about the increasing government control and unemployment rates in their country. This revolution removed their former President and replaced him with an elected Constituent Assembly, which is drafting a new national constitution for the people. Rebels in Egypt and other Middle Eastern countries became more powerful after the success of the Tunisia revolution and took progressive action to overthrow their own corrupt governments. Many governments responded with violence to these protests including the use of teargas, bombs, use of weapons and destruction of property. Many lives were lost, and not a single Middle Eastern country is yet plainly on course to become a stable, peaceful democracy. There are still ongoing civil wars in Syria and other chaos in the Middle East.

I believe the dissent was more that justified because the people of the Middle East were trying to improve their futures and quality of life. All they could do was get together and protest to make sure their voices were heard and try to inflict change on the government. Some of the government responses were not justified because they enforced violence upon their citizens to stop the protests. The governments were not willing to listen to the people, and instead became ruthless in their actions. The people of the Middle East are still fighting for a better quality of life and freedom from corrupt and unjust dictatorships.

# data[].attributes.body
Idle No More Protests were based on collective rights and environmental protection. The goal of the movement was to stop the Conservative government from passing more laws and legislation that will not support the indigenous rights and rights of all Canadians. It began in December 2012 as a result of Bill C-45 that would enforce changes on the Indian Act, Navigation Protection Act and the Environmental Assessment Act. The Indigenous people didn’t like this because the government did not consult them about it. Steven Harper allowed the peaceful protesting to continue and met with First Nations chiefs on the matters at hand. He believes that the relation between First Nations and Canada is essential for the country. First Nations are still presently protesting Idle No More and waiting for government action.

I believe the dissent was justified because the First Nations should have a say on Bills and laws that affect and may change their former treaties with the Canadian government. The protesting that went towards the Bill C-45 was peaceful and clearly demonstrated the First Nations opinions and voice. There was something of a violent protest between the First Nations protestors and the RCMP in New Brunswick, but there are many opinions on who instigated the violence and if it was really a result on the issues of Idle No More. Overall, the First Nations are doing everything they can within the law to try and make their voices and fears for their future heard.

# data[].attributes.body
Tiananmen Square

Tiananmen Square is a large city centre in Beijing, China and is the largest square in the world. It is recently known for the recent protest in 1989 due to a pro democracy movement with the declaration of martial law in Beijing by the government and the death of anywhere between seven hundred and a thousand people. Throughout history Tiananmen Square has been the site of many political events and student protests in the form of dissent. The 1989 were predominantly lead by student-led popular demonstrations that were supported citywide in question to China’s political leadership. These protests were forcibly suppressed by the leaders as martial law was forced upon the nations capital. This was initiated on June 3rd and 4th where troops and tanks inflicted casualties upon unarmed citizens trying to block the way to the square that was occupied for four weeks by student protesters. These forms of demonstrations were frowned upon as they were considered counter revolutionary. The trigger to these protests was the death of Hu Yaobang a a Communist Party General Secretary. Students gathered in the square to mourn his death. Hu voiced his opinions on inflation as well as government accountability, freedom of press, as well as freedom of speech. At the height of these protests about a million people gathered in the square. In response the government mobilized 300 000 troops within Beijing to put an end to this democratic movement. To further their point the student leader began a hunger strike as a bargaining chip to force the government to meet their demands. This helped them galvanize support of many throughout the nation. However on June 3rd and 4th government officials authorized the use of lethal force in order to clear the square and regain control. They stated that no delays would be tolerated. This was also broadcasted across the nation as a warning to citizens as to what would happen if they would try and join the democratic movement.

This was a peaceful protests but an unreasonable and violent response by the government. The students were voicing their opinions peacefully and reasonably. The government is at fault for this incident but it shows that depending on the country you live in it will determine the degree to which dissent is acceptable. In a dictatorship such as China it is easy to see that dissidents are not supported and that protests no matter how small will usually end in violent means.

# data[].attributes.body
Kent State

The Kent State protests also known as the Kent State massacre took place from on Monday May 4th 1970 in Kent, Ohio. The shooting of unarmed college students by the Ohio National Guard where 67 rounds were shot over period of 16 seconds. Four students were killed while another nine were injured as they suffered permanent paralysis. In correspondence students from universities and colleges from across the US went on a student strike as they would not tolerate this inexcusable behavior.

In 1968 Richard Nixon was elected president of the United States as he promised to withdraw troops and end the US participation of the war in Vietnam but however, on Thursday April 30th, 1970 he announced the Cambodian Incursion. This caused an uproar from the students at Kent State where a peaceful protest of about 500 students took place throughout the day on May 1st. The real trouble however came at around midnight where glass bottles were thrown at police cars as well as small bonfires were started in the streets before police could gain control of the situation. On May 2nd the assistance of the National Guard at the university was requested and granted. But as the troops arrived the Reserve Officer Training Corps building was lit on fire as around a thousand students took part in the protest. No one was injured by the fire or the troops. With tension building small gathering were held on the 2nd where the crowd was dispersed with the use of tear gas from officials. On May 4th the original protest planned back in april took place where students voiced their opinions with little violence. With troops standing more than 100 yards away Sgt. Myron Pryor turned and fired shots at students with his .45 pistol. This triggered a ripple effect where 29 out of the 77 officers fired a total of 67 rounds killing four and injuring nine.

The cause and reason behind the initial shots remain a mystery. Allegations from the National Guard stated that the feared their lives. However the credibility of this is questioned considering they had been armed and been standing a fair distance away. To this America reacted with student protests and a hundred thousand people protest in Washington itself. In response Nixon’s secretary stated that, “when dissent turns into violence, it invites tragedy.” In no way however are the students innocent. The burning of buildings and abuse of officers could have been prevented by the students itself. This case study shows the fine line when considering the idea of dissent. It can be peaceful and liberal, but it can also be deadly and tragic when you cross certain lines. Both parties are at fault for a violent protests and an even more violent and unreasonable response.

# data[].attributes.body
South Africa’s National Day of Protest

At an emergency meeting of the National Executive of the African National Congress held at Thaba ‘Nchu on Sunday May 21st 1950, the attitude of ANC, (The ANC is a national movement that was formed in 1912 to unite the African people and spearhead the struggle for fundamental political, social and economic change.0 to the Suppression of communism act was discussed. (The Suppression of Communism Act 44 of 1950 was legislation of the national government in South Africa, passed on 26 June of that year which formally banned the Communist Party of South Africa and proscribed any party or group subscribing to the ideology of communism.) It was agreed to launch a campaign for a national Day of Protest. It was suggested that on that day the African people should remain home and refrain from going to work and regard that day as a Day of Mourning for all the Africans that lost their lives in the struggle for liberation. The government enacted the suppression of communism act (No 44) of 1950. The act outlawed the communist party and defined communism as any scheme that aimed at bringing about any political, industrial, social or economic change within the union by the promotion of disturbance or disorder or that encouraged feelings of hostility between European and non European races of the union of consequences.

My opinion is that i think that this was a justified act. The reason I have this opinion is because liberation is a very important issue. The fact that many died to achieve liberation is sad and unjust. Liberation should be a given part of live nobody should be used as a slave or treated unjustly. The government approving of the National Day of Protest is fair because those people who fought for liberation need to be remembered because of the life they achieved for the future African Americans. For example, in Canada we have rememberance Day to remember the lives that were lost in Afghanistan and remember the good the soldiers and peacekeepers did for the people of Afghanistan.

White Rose Group

The White Rose movement was active between June 1942 and February 1943. The White Rose movement opposed Hitler, Nazi rule and World War Two. The White Rose movement is famous of the civilian resistance movements that developed within Nazi Germany but some of its members paid a terrible price for their stand against the system. The White Rose movement was made up of students who attended Munich University. Its most famous members were Hans and SophieScholl. Members of the White Rose movement distributed anti-Nazi and anti-war leaflets and it was while they were in the process of doing this that they were caught. To keep secrecy, membership of the White Rose movement had to  be small. It produced anti-war leaflets that were also deemed to be anti-Nazi. If they were captured they would have been charged with treason with the inevitable consequences. That is why the group had to be kept very small, everyone knew each other and each was convinced of the loyalty of everyone in the group. On February 22, the Scholls and Probst were found guilty of political offenses by the notorious Judge Roland Freisler. The death of Probst and the Scholls was followed on April 13 by the trial of Graf, Schmorell, Huber, and eleven others associated with the organization. With the war's end in 1945, the members of the White Rose were made heroes of the new Germany and the group came to represent the people's resistance to tyranny.

My opinion is that the government’s reaction was unjust. Their actions are wrong because these poor people who are suffering tyranny are being good people and speaking the truth about their government and they suffer harsh consequences because of it. These peoples dissent was completely justified because everyone should have a say when it comes to poor and unfair government. These people resisted the Nazis and were willing to die for their beliefs. The White Rose wrote, printed and distributed leaflets denouncing Hitler and his government to warn people and tell them what Hitler and his government were about. These innocent people shouldn’t be punished because they speak for what they believe in. The government has no right to take away the life of someone because they speak their belief in this day but they did this back then and it is unfair.

# data[].attributes.body
In the early to mid-2000’s Greece had a strong
economy that their government took advantage of by running a large deficit. Greece
was hit hard due to their main industries of shipping and tourism being so
sensitive when the world economy slowed down in the late 2000’s, resulting in
the countries debt piling up. In early 2010 a policy maker suggested an emergency bailout may be necessary for the country. On March 5 2010 the Hellenic Parliament passed the cost-cutting
economy protection bill. Later in mid- April the Greek government requested the
bailout package offered by the European Union. The protesting began on May 5th
2010 when plans to cut back on public spending and raise taxes in exchange for
bailout money in order to solve the 2010-2011 debt crisis. There were three
people killed in this protest. There were schools, some hospitals and many
private businesses that were closed. There were hundreds of thousands of people
that marched through the streets of Athens towards the parliament building with
intentions of storming in and accusing the members of parliament of being thieves.
With the riot police keeping them from entering with tear gas, flash bombs and
smoke bombs other buildings around such as finance buildings were set on fire.
The people of Greece had the right to protest so
their voice so they would be heard by the government. However I feel they went
too far when they began to start buildings and numerous trash cans on fire, throwing
rocks, bottles and marble at police, broking windows and vandalising. Those
actions were not justified. While the government also did not have the best response
to the situation by using tear gassing, flash bombs and smoke bombs on their citizens.

# data[].attributes.body
The 1880’s was a time when working conditions
were often dismal dangerous and wages were low. Following the Great Depression
there was a rapid expansion of industrial production in the US. Chicago was a
major industrial center and tens of thousands of German and Bohemian immigrants
were employed for $1.50 a day. American workers on average worked 60 hours
during a six day week. The city became a center for many attempts to organize labors
for better working conditions. Which the employer’s response was anti-union
measures; which included things like firing and black listing union members. The
support for eight hour days quickly grew from 1884 to 1886 from approximately
70 000 to 700 000 when the economy slowed down. In October 1884, a convention held
by the Federation of organized labours and trades unanimously set May 1, 1886, as the date by
which the eight hour work days would become standard. As the chosen date approached, U.S. labor
unions prepared for a general strike in support of the eight-hour day.
On Saturday, May 1, thousands of workers went on strike and rallies were held
throughout the United States. In New York City the number of demonstrators was
estimated at 10,000 and in Detroit at 11,000. In Milwaukee, Wisconsin some10,000 workers
turned out. In Chicago, the movement's center, an estimated 30,000-to-40,000 workers had
gone on strike. The Haymarket affairalso known as the Haymarket massacre
or Haymarket riot refers to theaftermath of a bombing that took place at a labor demonstration on Tuesday May 4, 1886, at Haymarket Square in Chicago.
It began as a peaceful rally in support of workers strike for an eight-hour day. An unknown person threw a dynamite bomb at police  as they acted to disperse the public meeting. The bomb blast and ensuing gunfire resulted in the deaths of seven police officers and at least four civilians; scores of others were wounded. The throwing of the bomb lead to jail time for some and death for others of those accused of partaking in the event.
The way theworkers organized and pretested what they believed should happen was definitely
justified until they took it too far and everything became violent. There was
no need to become violent when their voice was being heard and they were in
their legal rights. It was not fair for the government to have that low of
standards in place to begin with for workers but they also could have been more
supportive and announced a type of change sooner so that people didn’t get
irritable and become violent.

# data[].attributes.headline
Sabrina/ Edward Snowden and the NSA leak

# data[].attributes.subject
Sabrina/ Edward Snowden and the NSA leak

# data[].attributes.body
Edward Snowden is a former CIA member who uncovered several classified documents regarding surveillance of American citizens by both the government and social media sites through their cell phones and internet browsing. He became more well known after he had an interview with a writer from the Guardian and disclosed several documents that he was not supposed to have seen, (illegal/ bad/no-looky/supposed to be hidden) sharing that American citizens were, without their consent, being watched on a daily basis from their internet movements. This was a big shock for people, because its always been assumed that the government watches all people movements but it was never proven to a full extent. Showcasing this information and proving that the American government not only allowed this to occur but assisted in it, put a huge target on Snowdens back right after this event. He later fled to Hong Kong for his interview sharing his newfound knowledge,leaving the country as soon as possible knowing that remaining in the country would cause him harm. The US Department of Justice charged Snowden with espionage on June 2013 and the US revoked his passport the next day. He some how gained a document that gave him way to Moscow Russia, where he now remains today. Snowden has claimed asylum due to his countries fear and anger towards him, he fears for his life. Russia granted him one year asylum with the availability to renew it the following year. The US and Russia haven’t always seen eye to eye and them protecting Snowden is a slight jab.

I believe that Edward Snowden releasing this information to the public was not an act of espionage or treason. These programs and the surveillance that was being used on American citizens goes against the right of privacy that all citizens have. I believe it was is duty as an American citizen to share this knowledge and make everyone else in the country aware of the situation. The documents were classified yes, but if he was able to access them and it wasn’t something the government thought should be publicised it shouldn’t have existed in the database all together. Snowdens form of dissent was completely justified; he now fears for his freedom and life because he risked all of it to make the rest of his people aware of the wrong-doings their country had been doing.

# data[].attributes.body
Martin Luther King’s March on Washington: Amber

Background Info: 1963 was noted for racial unrest and civil rights demonstrations. Nationwide outrage was held by media coverage of police actions in Birmingham, Alabama, where attack dogs and fire hoses were turned against protesters, many of who were in their early teens or younger. Martin Luther King, Jr., was arrested and put into jail during these protests, writing his famous "Letter From Birmingham City Jail," which advocates civil disobedience against unjust laws. Before the Civil Rights movement blacks were looked at and treated as a minority. They were separated from the white people in schools, restaurants, pretty much anywhere you could think of.

Start of it all: The modern period of civil rights reform can be divided into several phases, each beginning with isolated, small-scale protests and ultimately resulting in the emergence of new, more success movements, leaders, and organizations.

Date: The March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom took place in Washington, D.C., on August 28, 1963. Attended by 250,000 people.

How the government reacted? There has been many revised Civil Rights Act’s and there has also been The Voting Rights Act. These Acts help enforce the citizens and remind them that everyone is equal. The government supports this movement.

I think that this movement was appropriate and justified because it has erased most of the racism and unnecessary cruelty from the world. Obviously racism is impossible to vanish because of the many people in this world that still think they are superior, but for the most part because of Martin Luther’s strong voice it helped bring more darkness to light, therefore had many more people waiting and striving for change.

# data[].attributes.body
The Suffragist Movement in Canada, started in 1876, with the Toronto Women's Literary Club created by the first female doctor, Emily Howard Stowe. It was a group that allowed women to discuss social problems. In 1883, the group became the Women Suffrage Society. They tried to expand the movement to the rest of Canada to help other suffragist groups. The suffragists strived to vote in federal elections to help their social roles of women and wives.  In 1885, the right for women to vote was brought to the Federal Parliament but they were never granted the right to vote. In 1912, the Political Equality League gathered a more forceful campaign and increased the supporters. During World War One, lots of women took care of the male jobs and others became doctors and nurses overseas. In 1916, the women of Manitoba were granted the right to vote in provincial elections and slowly the other provinces created their own laws. WARTIME ELECTIONS ACT of 1917, was the first step in allowing women who worked in the forces or relatives of males who worked in the forces to vote in federal elections. The final act that gave all women the ability to vote was the Women's Franchise Act in 1918.

The women of Canada had all right to strive to get the right to vote in federal elections. They can bring a different viewpoint to social and political issues. They live and support Canada just as much as the men so they should get a say in how it’s run. The government was not justified in taking so many years to finally give them their right to vote. They should have been more accepting that women are equals to them and they should be treated the same.

# data[].attributes.body
The FLQ (Front de Libération du Québec)  Crisis was terrorist acts that included over a few hundred bombings and it was responsible for over 160 violent incidents which killed eight people and injured many more, including the bombing of the Montreal Stock Exchange in 1969. The FLQ was a terrorist group that was active between 1963 and 1970 focused on the separation of Quebec from Canada and the sovereignty of Quebec. It became a bigger problem when British Trade Commissioner, James Richard Cross, was kidnapped and held hostage; their requests were 23 FLQ members were to be released from jail and their manifesto be read over national television. Several more political peoples were kidnapped including Pierre Laporte. During this crisis the federal government invoked the War Measures Act to suspended some civil liberties and sent in the army to help maintain order, all while trying to find  the leaders of the this terrorist group.  James Cross was eventually released but the Quebec politician Pierre Laporte was murdered.

I understand why people protest and dissent from their government to make a point or express a belief that isn’t being acknowledged. Many people in Quebec since before the FLQ crisis, wanted separation from the rest of Canada for several reasons including difference of culture and language, face alienation as a nation etc. But I don’t believe that them being as reactionary as they were, made them accomplish anything more than they would have just nonviolently protesting. If anything they gave the whole separation a bad look and name, because all the politically aware people who weren’t being violent now were identified with those people, which wasn’t really fair. Now it was harder for other people even across Canada to take the movement seriously.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The October Crisis, 1970, involved an attack by the FLQ and PM Pierre Trudeau's subsequent response. More at http;//www.unboringlearning.com

# data[].attributes.body
The NSA was legislation passed by the American government in
order for the CIA to better monitor the people in the case of Communist supporters
by listening in on phone calls, reading telegrams and so forth. Since then, the
NSA became low key after the Cold War and was barely enforced. However, after
9/11 and the passing of the Patriots Act, the NSA was put into hyper drive with
the new technology out there such as cell phones, computers with E-Mail and MSN
etc. and the threat of terrorism was at an all-time high. Edward Snowden, a
member of the CIA and programmer for the NSA, leaked this information about all
the surveillance that the government has from phone-tapping to intercepting
digital information being sent via webcam on various websites. Snowden arguably
created the biggest leak of information the US government had when it comes to
surveillance. From this, new light is being shed that big corporations such as
Google and Facebook most likely have the NSA connected to every post, picture
and status ever. Everything from E-mail to phone calls to that very embarrassing
selfie you took and thought you deleted has been probably seen, analyzed and
archived. Because this is a major infringement of personal property and
confidentiality millions of people began sending E-mails and the like talking
about the NSA to show their distaste towards it because they know the NSA will
read them. This knowledge of our personal space being invaded led to immense hate
towards the government and the validity of trading our rights for security.

When it comes to invasion of privacy, I would say that the
people are right in challenging the government in that our rights of privacy as
the public should not be infringed upon without prior suspicion. The general
public should not be penalized by the work of a few and what may happen.
Terrorists are often well funded or devious when it comes to tech. Snowden and
his conspirators used a device which blocks out the signals the NSA uses to tap
into information archives so similar tech could be used. Even with all these
regulations, acts of terrorism are still found and the government is left with
no trace of them. Snowden was marked for treason and fled to Russia all because
he believed in his civic right to hold the government accountable for their
actions and the impact they are making on an unaware public. This is why I would
agree that Snowden was in the right to bring light to this espionage and make
the public aware of what their government is hiding.

# data[].attributes.body
Claus von Stauffenberg

The incident occurred on July 20, 1944 at Hitler’s head quarters in East Prussia. Both Hitler and Claus von Stauffenberg were important figures in this event. Von Stauffenberg was disturbed by Hitler’s mass killing of innocent Jews in WWII and the events of the war. He decided to attempt to assassinate Hitler by detonating a bomb in his office. He ended up killing 3 people, none of which were Hitler who was only slightly injured in the blast. Hitler found out it was von Stauffenberg and had him executed by firing squad.

I think von Stauffenberg's dissent towards Hitler's mass killings and his disgusting  actions against the Jews was completely justifiable. There are certainly alternatives to violence , but when dealing with a person such as Hitler there are not really any other options. Because of the lack of alternatives killing was necessary and his actions were acceptable because of the circumstances. The execution of Claus von Stauffenberg was fairly justified especially compared to the reckless killing of so many innocent people. I think it is justified because if someone was trying to kill me I would want to eliminate them before I was killed.

# data[].attributes.body
During a time of rapid social change in Canada, the Metis people felt that the government was not protecting their rights, land, and survival as a people.

In 1869, the Canadian government had bought Rupert's Land from the Hudson's Bay Company and appointed an English speaking man, William McDougall as governor. The inhabitants of the land, mostly French-speaking Metis people, opposed McDougall and Louis Riel led them in preventing him from entering the territory. McDougal proclaimed that the HBC was no longer in control of Rupert's Land. This led to the Metis creating a provisional government and Riel debating with the Canadian government about establishing Manitoba as a province.

Riel's men arrested people who resisted the provisional government. One of these people was Thomas Scott who was tried and executed for threatening to murder Riel.

In 1870, the Manitoba Act was passed, allowing the Red River Colony to enter Confederation as the province of Manitoba. This included some of Riel's demands to have French speaking schools for Metis children and the protection of Catholic practices.

I think that that Louis Riel led a particularly peaceful rebellion and their actions were necessary. They refused to go along with government forces that they did not agree with and sought out a way to directly speak to and compromise with the government. I think they were justified in their actions.

I believe that the government responded quite well overall. At first they were reluctant to agree to Riel's demands but they eventually realized that the uprising would only get worse if they didn't accommodate their wishes. There were some death threats made against Riel by pro-Canadian government groups, but this was not directly from the government.

# data[].attributes.body
Suffragist Movement in Canada

The Suffragist movement took place all across the country starting in the 1870’s. The movement was lead by a woman name Dr. Emily Howard Stowe. Stowe was the first female doctor in Canada as well as a suffragist. There were multiple influences of the movement, one being the suffragist movements led in Britain and the USA; another was the disagreement of a law passed in 1849. The law in 1849 said to exclude women from suffrage since they were not even considered as "persons" in the legal sense. The Government reacted by listening to the protests and throughout the 1900’s women were being allowed to vote.
I do feel that the dissent by women was justifiable because women are certainly necessary for the functionality of a society. Women provide vital things to society and should not be excluded from it. I feel the action of women across Canada was perfectly acceptable and necessary for their equality as a citizen. The Government’s action of allowing them to vote was undoubtedly justified.

# data[].attributes.body
The Arab Spring dissent most likely began because of the people’s dissatisfaction with their local governments, however some speculate that the wide income gaps between people may have played a role as well. Some problems were absolute monarchies, dictatorships, human rights violations, economic failure, etc. Because of this strong political and economic discontent throughout many Middle Eastern and North African regions, protests began. These protests are known as the Arab Spring.

It all sparked with a protest in Tunisia that occurred after Tarek al-Tayeb Mohamed Bouazizi set himself on fire in protest of the police corruption. President of Tunisia, Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, stepped down.

Other countries experiencing similar problems as Tunisia saw Bouazizi’s act as a catalyst to start their own protests to overthrow their corrupt governments. After 18 days of massive protests in Egypt, President Mubarek stepped down.  Libyan leader Gaddafi was overthrown when a rebel force took over the government. Yemeni President Saleh signed papers to make him step down and make it possible for a presidential election to be held. Seeing the success of these protests caused many other leaders to step down preemptively.

Despite the seeming success, many of the protests were met with extremely violent responses from authorities. In these cases, some protestors acted with violence as well.

I believe that the actions taken by the protestors were justified because they were not satisfied with their dictatorial governments. Some of the presidents were in power for over twenty years without even the thought of an election, and when the people craved a democracy, I believe they had a right to voice that desire. Clearly, the government would not, and did not, listen to them peacefully so the people had to take it one step further. They were not satisfied economically or politically so they made large statements to the government to get their points across. This worked in most cases, as many officials did step down or get overthrown.

I think that the government was wrong to respond violently to the protests (I am a bit of a pacifist though, so I may be biased), but I do understand why they felt that that was the only way to contain the people. It is never easy to overthrow a dictatorship because the people’s opinions are not valued, so it makes sense that the government would respond the way that it did, I just don’t believe it was the right decision to make. I think that if they had listened to their people much earlier, they could have avoided a lot of grief.

# data[].attributes.body
Claus von Stauffenberg, (15 November 1907 – 21 July 1944), was a German army officer and noble who was one of the leading members of the failed July 20th plot of 1944 to assassinate Adolf Hitler and remove the Nazi Party from power. Although Stauffenberg agreed with some of the Nazi Party's nationalistic aspects, he found many aspects of its ideology repugnant and never became a member of the party. Moreover, Stauffenberg remained a practicing Catholic. On top of this, the growing ill-treatment of Jews and suppression of religion had offended Stauffenberg's strong personal sense of Catholic religious morality and justice.In an attempt to save his own life, co-conspiratorGeneraloberst Friedrich Fromm, Commander-in-Chief of the Replacement Army present in the Bendlerblock (Headquarters of the Army), charged other conspirators in an spontaneou court martial and condemned the ringleaders of the conspiracy to death. Colonel Claus von Stauffenberg, his aide 1st Lieutenant Werner von Haeften, General Friedrich Olbricht, and Colonel Albrecht Mertz von Quirnheim were executed before 1:00 am that night (21 July 1944) by a makeshift firing squad in the courtyard of the Bendlerblock, which was lit by the headlights of a truck.
I believe that the dissent was justified because Hitler was not at all justified coming into power and killing as many people as he did. The dissent was necessary because it allowed Hitler to see that he wasn’t invincible and that there were people who would stick up for the Jews when they could not. The government responded by killing the individuals that were involved in the assassination that was not successful. The government should be able to stick up for their decisions but the decisions that had been made by Hitler were not at all justified so I believe that the dissent was completely necessary.

# data[].attributes.body
Louis Riel was born on the Red River Settlement in 1844. He was a very bright student but failed to graduate from priesthood or to become a lawyer. He came back to Red River well educated and bilingual and became the leader of the Metis. In 1869-70 the Metis farmers and hunters owned a part of Rupert’s Land that was transferred from the Red River Settlement to Canada. The Metis feared that if Canada took control that they would lose their land rights and culture in the Confederation. Canada appointed an anglophone government for the area. When William McDougall, came to the settlement they stopped him from coming in.  The Metis people lead by Louis Riel protested and asked the transfer to be postponed. Thomas Scott, died for rebelling against the Metis government. The anglophones became angry and Ottawa sent military to the settlement.  There was a bit of bloodshed but for the most part it was peaceful. Before entering Confederation the Metis started a rebellion and declared a provisional government. The government was negotiated to have an equal number of anglophone and francophone representatives.  The province of Manitoba was created and their French language and culture would be protected. The Metis people viewed Louis Riel, as a hero for his leading in the uprising and protecting their culture.

The main influence in ones life is their culture. You can’t change them or expect them to forget their culture. The uprising of the Metis was justified because they should not be forced out of their culture or land because one group thinks they are better and can have it.  I feel if they would have waited till after they joined Canada and their land and culture was being taken away it would have been too late and more violent would have occurred. Considering Louis Riel wanted to be peaceful and protect his group it was not justified for the Canadian government to bring in the military and start violence. They should have been more willing to negotiate after they tried to threaten the culture of a certain group.  Since culture is such a powerful and important accept of ones life it should never be discussed with violence.

# data[].attributes.body
The Ukrainian Protest happened on November 21, 2013 and in Ukraine, primarily Kiev. The reasoning for the Ukrainian Protest was because of many reasons, first the suspension of the Ukraine–European Union Association Agreement by the government, then Russian foreign policy and threat of Russian trade sanctions, government corruption and finally police brutality. The Prime Minister, Mykola Azarov, had asked for 20 Billion Euros (US$27) in loans and aid. The EU was willing to offer 610 million euros (838 million US) in loans, however Russia was willing to offer 15 billion US in loans. Russia also offered Ukraine cheaper gas prices. In addition to the money, the EU required major changes to the regulations and laws in Ukraine, Russia however did not.

I believe the dissent was justified because the people of Kiev weren’t happy with their government so they took the initiative and started protests. If the people would not have fought for themselves and what they believed in their government would not have changed and they would still be in the same miserable state. The government responded by of course trying to contain the protests, but failed when they didn’t listen to their citizens demands. The first thing the citizens wanted was for there to be change in power which wasn’t that unfair considering the person in power had been there for a long time.

# data[].attributes.body
The Ludwig Gas protests were a series of bombings and sabotages of various sour gas wells in the Trickle Creek area in 1990 through 2008 committed by Wiebo Ludwig. Ludwig established the town of Trickle Creek in 1985 and started to attack and bomb sour gas wells that were close to his community after there was an increased frequency of stillbirths and children born with deformities in Trickle Creek. Wiebo believed that the increase in stillborn infants was caused by the increased levels of hydrogen sulfide from the rapidly increasing number of sour gas wells, having 10 new wells within 15 years with only previously having one. Ludwig tried to voice his opinions to the government, but they did not respond. Ludwig then moved to protesting by producing a video about his beliefs and even pouring crude oil on the carpet of the Grande Prairie government building, in an effort to attract more attention to his cause. These efforts were also unsuccessful and the government did not respond. It is believed that then Wiebo turned to bombing and sabotaging wells, targeting major energy corporations like AEC. Ludwig’s plight went largely ignoring by local governments.

I believe that Ludwig’s dissent is justifiable to the extent of him bombing and attacking wells, Wiebo did try other methods of drawing attention to his concerns and only resorted to violence after he was continually ignored. Although I do not believe that he should have acted so radically without actual evidence to support his claims. I also believe that the government should have at least responded to Wiebo, by investigating whether or not the gas wells posed any serious health risks.

# data[].attributes.headline
Rachel Mayko - White Rose Group (Hans and Sophie Scholl) 

# data[].attributes.subject
Rachel Mayko - White Rose Group (Hans and Sophie Scholl) 

# data[].attributes.body
White Rose Group:

Lasted from June 1942 till February 1943 and included students from the University of Munich and their professors. This group was made up of intellectuals from the university who called for an active opposition to Hitler. This was occuring during Hitler's extreme power in Germany and this group was calling for an end to the injustice being caused by Hitler. The government reacted by arresting the members, trying them for treason and beheading them (I found that this was done to the 6 most recognized members and probably many more). Hans and Sophie Scholl were siblings that were part of this group and they were recognized as symbols of the humanist German resistance movement against the totalitarian Nazi regime.

I think that the action taken by this group was very courageous and shows that their belief for what they were protesting was strong since they died for it. Of course the government would react the way that they did, with being a dictatorship and all. Hitler had a vision for power and he would let nothing get in his way to stop it. Of course the actions of this group did not achieve exactly what they wanted, it started a movement going towards the goal they had in mind and that is what really matters in the end.

# data[].attributes.headline
Rachel Mayko - Gandhi's Salt March and White Rose Group (Hans and Sophie Scholl) 

# data[].attributes.subject
Rachel Mayko - Gandhi's Salt March and White Rose Group (Hans and Sophie Scholl) 

# data[].attributes.body
Gandhi's Salt March:

Began on March 12, 1930 when Gandhi wanted to rebel against the British monopoly for putting taxes on salt, which was essential to everyday life. The British put taxes on all salts and made it illegal to collect salt yourself for your own uses, making it mandatory for you to purchase it from the British. Gandhi began this venture in Ahmedabad and made a long journey down to the coastal town of Dandi, collecting salt and making an impact on many people along the way. This non-violent protest triggered the Civil Disobedience Movement. The British reacted by arresting and throwing Gandhi in jail along with many other protestors. After Gandhi was in jail, the protests only got larger and began to turn violent, finally resulting in India finally becoming free from Britain rule.

I feel like the action taken in this particular event was extremely justified because the British were taking the power that they had and misusing it by mistreating the people that they had power over. I feel that the government reacted in a way that they felt was justified because they wanted to protect their power from diminishing and not have the protesters win, however I always believe in compromise so I personally don't think that violence would have been necessary if the government just listened to the voices of the people in the first place, but that rarely ever happens so my ideas for the right thing to do is a little unrealistic.

# data[].attributes.headline
Melissa - Greece Protest on Social Programs

# data[].attributes.subject
Melissa - Greece Protest on Social Programs

# data[].attributes.body
In the early 2000’s, Greece took advantage of their strong economy and built up debt. In May of 2011, protests began which opposed the cutting of social programs of the Greek citizens and increase taxes so that more money could be put towards the lessening of the country’s debt (austerity measures). Protests began peaceful and the government chose to move forward with the legislation and the protest became violent. Accusation of excessive use of tear gas and police brutality were reported. The passing of these measures to lessen the debt of Greece was a precondition for the EU’s 103 billion euro lending package. The disadvantage is that the people would be subject to higher taxes and the removal of public spending which would put strain on the society and the removal of jobs. In 2012, Greece receives the bailout package from the EU. People continue to protest as it will be about seven years of recession before Greece’s economy begins to normalize.
I think that the people of Greece are right to protest in the streets like they did. They began peacefully, but when you have thousands of people in the streets motivated by frustration the mob mentality takes over. The government was within its rights to continue with the legislation and acceptance of the EU’s aid. The economy of Greece was in such a detrimental state that it was going to get worse before it got better. The EU’s aid was, in my opinion, the only way out of a tough situation. However, the violence and anger of the protesters were a result of the non responsiveness of the government. If the people in opposition were addressed before hand then maybe violence wouldn’t have been so prevalent.

# data[].attributes.body
Wiebo Ludwig was a pastor who founded the self-sustaining community of Trickle Creek located 500 km away from Edmonton. In 1990 oil and gas companies began to build sour gas wells near the community. Ludwig attributed the town’s stillbirths, deformities, and miscarriages to the hydrogen sulfide gas and leaks from the wells. He appealed to both levels of government to regulate the sour gas extraction but was never responded to. He then produced a video to gain a broader attention. He then appeared at the government offices in Grand Prairie and poured crude oil on their lobby carpet. Despite all his efforts the government didn’t respond. Ludwig later bombed and vandalized wells near his property. He was convicted then released in 2001. In 2008,  Encana received threatening letters and wells were hit by six explosion close to the town of Trickle Creek. Ludwig was arrested. Hydrogen sulfide was found to cause alterations to the nervous system and oxygen utilization.

I feel that with this situation was bound to end up with violence because of the constant silence of the government. After trying to go through the proper channels, radical action was the only way of gaining the attention of the government. I think that Ludwig was pushed into a corner but by bombing the wells he didn’t gain the kind of attention that would make people take him seriously. Instead of action by the government on the matter of the wells, they were concerned with the conviction of an eco-terrorist. I think Ludwig had justification to act otherwise but I feel that his method of choice was misguided and extreme.

# data[].attributes.body
The Black Panther Party

The Black Panther Party was created in the United States in 1966; it was formed by Huey Percy Newton and Bobby Seale. The party was created on the basis that the non-violent methods of Martin Luther King were unable to procure any sort of tangible or effective changes in the lives of African-Americans. The Black Panthers also believed that a “revolutionary war” against authority was necessary in order to create the equality they desired.  The party was primarily comprised of African-Americans and was perceived by many as a black nationalist group but they were willing to support and advocate any minority group facing discrimination. The Black Panthers were willing to resort to violence to get achieve their goals, placing a strong emphasis on trying to create a police review force to mitigate police brutality and prejudice against minority groups. Although they also tried to improve the standard of living inside of their respective communities, creating free breakfast programs and healthcare clinics for those who could not afford them. Once the Black Panthers caught the attention of the government, the head of the FBI, Edgar Hoover, deemed them the “greatest threat to the internal security of the country” and introduced measures to sabotage and cripple the party’s strength. It is speculated that the FBI used operatives to track and monitor the party’s movements, forged letters to cause conflict between the party’s leaders, created propaganda campaigns to reduce their public support and also used infiltrators to commit crimes that could be blamed on the Black Panthers.

I believe that the dissent of the Black Panthers were justified because, even after the civil rights movement, they still saw and experienced discrimination and prejudice that infringed upon their rights and, being frustrated with the effectiveness and speed of traditional methods, saw violence and revolution as their only alternative for providing them with something their government wasn't. I also believe that the government's reaction was unnecessary and radical because instead of actually addressing and considering the concerns of the Black Panthers, they destroyed their public image to eliminate support and served to perpetuate existing stereotypes, rather than trying to solve the original cause for dissent.