As I said in an earlier post, communication is a 2-way street. Just because you choose to communicate too somebody does not mean that they choose to hear what you have to say.
The same is true for larger groups. For example, let’s look at the United States. Back in 1860, there was a lot of ill-will between the people of the North and those in the South. We don’t need to go into any details here, but the result was that the people in the south chose to leave the United States and form their own government.
First and foremost, let me emphasise this: WHAT THE PEOPLE OF THE SOUTH DID WAS COMPLETELY LEGAL. The right to choose to leave the union was guaranteed in the Constitution, The founding fathers had foreseen that possibility, and built in protection for it – BECAUSE – they had just chosen to end their alegiance to another country. It was their (the founding fathers) decision that the Union of the States would not be held together by force.
What the North did in response to that was completely immoral, and totally wrong. Every life that was lost in the Civil War should be charged against Abraham Lincoln’s personal karmic account. He violated the expressed wishes of the free will of the southerners, for no other reason than to further his dreams for the power of a centralised government. Do you think he really cared about slavery? Take a better look at the Emancipation Proclomation. It was written during the Civil War – and it was written with such specific language that the ONLY slaves he freed were those held in geographic areas controled by the South. Yes, there were slaves held in the north, but Lincoln did not free any of them. Why? At that point in the war – he was LOOSING. This was a diversionary tactic, because it left the southern soldiers with divided loyalties. Who was going to protect their wives, children, and property against the now freed slaves running around looking for someone to blame for their years of mistreatment? The soldiers would have to choose between weakening thier troops (by abandoning their posts to go home) or leaving their family at risk while they fought for the higher principles they felt the war was over.
Well, the rules of communication apply to groups, just as they do to individuals. The US Southern states had as much right to form a new group as you have to leave one job to go to another. Or, lets say you receive a letter in the mail from a political candidate, and in reading his platform, you decide that you not only don’t want to support him, you don’t want to hear anything from him ever again. Don’t you have that right?
Well, actually, in the United States, you don’t, unless you choose to act very agressively to protect your own interests in the matter. You would have to always screen what you watch on TV, changing the channel every time he appeared. You would have to throw away every letter, and hang up the phone every time his campaign calls. But you can’t force them to stop calling, because what laws do exist on the matter right now have a built-in exemption for politicians and political parties (after all, they wrote the laws). Vigilance would be the key word in that situation, for if you truely did not want to read or hear anything from him, you would have to always be alert to the possibility that something you were being handed might be from him, so you could throw it away.
There is a movement gaining momentum in Canada, where a political group wants to pull Quebec out of membership in Canada. Personally, I think it’s a bad idea, but if it goes to the polls and the vote supports it, then it is their right to leave. I just hope the government of Canada is smart enough not to make the same mistake the US government did. I also hope that Quebec, if it ends it’s membership in Canada, will respect those who vote against the secesssion (sp?) enough to give them a chance to move into Canadian territory if they choose to remain Canadians. Keep everything civilised, you know.