Mid-week Inspiration,      

Beautiful British Columbia is once again locked in a confrontational conflict, another labour dispute.  Having lived in this province all my life I realize that this is somehow the nature of dispute resolution here, as if it were a very part of the consciousness and culture of the province.  As commonplace as it may be in our little part of the world I recognize that it is by no means unique.  Possibly the only thing as common place in the world today as confrontational conflict is the occurrence of natural disasters. Something that appears connected to global warming (scorching) and is increasing in frequency and magnitude.

It causes me to speculate whether there is some underlying correspondence here.   Maybe if we, as a society, changed our approach to conflict and sought resolution rather than victory there would be a ripple effect right through into global weather patterns; something to ponder. 

What I care to explore today is a word that is being thrown about in conjunction with the present labour dispute between government and teachers; Law.   The word law was derailed thousands of years ago into a completely new and inaccurate use.  At one time it was applied to acts of nature or an unseen power we collectively recognized as the gods or God.  It was something that was beyond our ability to change.  In the realm of science this use of the word law has remained unadulterated since its recorded beginnings with the birth of pure science in the age of the Greek city states.   Within this original context a law is something by its nature, unbreakable; in science if a law can be broken then it is not a law, it is merely a theory or concept.

It was a beautiful move; a “coup d’etat”.  By usurping this one little word governmental and church leaders gave themselves an appearance of authority equal to God and nature. 

Let’s face it, there’s not much authority in ‘rules’.  If I don’t like the rules you play by I can just go play with somebody else, or if I’m big and strong enough I can change those rules; I can make my own game.  Laws on the other hand suggest something immutable and divinely ordained.  To break a law is inherently wrong and somehow not acceptable if it is even possible.  To do so carries an implication of guilt.

So today when a dictator or a majority government passes a ‘law’, (and I really see no effective difference between the two) they have usurped the authority of a supreme deity to execute punishment in order to enforce their will.  That is a scary prospect in this age we live in. 
Democracy is supposed to be a process whereby the collective wishes of the people are represented; it, like all political systems, must be monitored by a level of moral responsibility and integrity within the people.  There must be a willingness to stand by a justice for the majority of people even if that is not in the best interests of a select group of powerful individuals.  As Martin Luther King stated, and I paraphrase; “if a Law is unjust there is a social responsibility of the people to oppose it.”