well, let's understand what gandhi did.
there's a lot of ignorance around this, mostly coming from dumb hippies. but, what gandhi did was say "dear british, look at the size of my army! they are not currently armed - for both your sake and mine. but, suppose i were to arm them. would you stand a chance against a force this size?".
and the british, who were rational, which is the key part of the whole thing, said "no. we cannot win.", and moved out.
could a native blockade conceivably make an argument of the sort? it would have to have immense popular support that is willing to mobilize with a credible threat, which is the opposite of the status quo. you would essentially have to have an argument like this: "dear canada, look at the amount of support we have. it is not currently mobilized, but we might mobilize it. and, would you survive if we did?".
if the threat was credible, and our government was rational, which is not an obvious assumption, then a blockade might work on that level.
if the threat was credible, and our government was rational, which is not an obvious assumption, then a blockade might work on that level.
but, with the reality as it is, what the state is juggling is perception. nobody thinks critical mass is likely, unless you're talking about the potential of counter-demonstrators.
i want to support tactics that can win.
this one might feel good. you might think it's moral, and that might matter to you. but they can't win....
i want to support tactics that can win.
this one might feel good. you might think it's moral, and that might matter to you. but they can't win....