In January of 1848, a year and a half after he spent a night in jail for refusing to pay poll-tax on ethical grounds, Henry Thoreau shared his experience and beliefs in a lecture entitled "The Relation of the Individual to the State".  Later published as "Resistance to Civil Government" in the 1849 periodical, Aesthetic Papers, the lecture did not appear under the now famous title "Civil Disobedience" until 1866, when Thoreau's A Yankee in Canada, with Anti-Slavery and Reform Papers was published posthumously. Thoreau's essay on civil disobedience - choosing to disobey the law on moral grounds as a means of protesting or affecting government policy, has attracted and motivated Tolstoy, Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. 

Although civil rights issues triggered the essay's conception, Thoreau's critique of government and his imploration to base actions on conscience before statute, resonate strongly in the realm of environmental activism.  I can effectively apply arguments from Thoreau's "Civil Disobedience" to my recent experience lobbying the city of Mississauga to adopt a tree protection by-law. 
 
 

As well as "the mode which people have chosen to execute their will", Thoreau describes government as being "equally liable to be abused and perverted".  Thoreau felt this potential lack of integrity validates a conscious person's decision not to resign their conscience to the legislator. Mississauga's short-sighted stand on environmental issues, which gives immediate economical gains priority over the long term welfare of the environment, demonstrates a level of monetary perversion that requires moral intervention. 

Thoreau describes most legislators, politicians, lawyers, ministers and office holders as serving the state without moral distinctions. Because of this, he considers them to be just as likely to serve the Devil, without intending it, as God. With increased residential and industrial development as the Mayor's ultimate goal, the municipal government of Mississauga has developed a tradition of pleasing developers at any cost. The destruction of watersheds, forests and environmentally sensitive wetland areas to facilitate new subdivisions or industrial parks happens with frightening regularity. 

Only extreme lobbying, uproar from groups of citizens, and/or supportive media coverage have prevented more environmental disasters. I have seen no evidence of independent protective measures taken by the City, despite the implementation of UFMAC (Urban Forest Management Advisory Committee). 
 
 

When the American Government accepted slavery and invasion of Mexico in 1846, Thoreau refused to associate with, or recognize the Union's political organization as his own. He condemned the refusal of American citizens to take a stand against government actions. Though they recognized the right of revolution and the right to refuse allegiance to or resist government when its tyranny or inefficiency were great and unendurable, they did not believe that to be the case. Thoreau mocked them because they hesitated, regretted and sometimes petitioned but did nothing in earnest or with effect. They waited for others to remedy the evil so they would no longer have it to regret. 

The same attitude presides over present day residents of Mississauga. Many people claim to respect the remaining greenspace in the city. But they do not express their opinions or beliefs in an effectual manner. When pressed, individual citizens claim confidence in the elected officials ability to protect the interests of the environment, even when faced with evidence to the contrary. On July 15th., 1998, a one acre lot on Mississauga Road, boasting enough mature trees to be classified as a woodlot under the Ontario Trees Act, faced the threat of clear cut. When a protestor blocked the road in front of the property, a major thoroughfare, not a single person out of the hundreds made aware of the situation stepped out of their vehicle to join the protest.

Thoreau questions society's willingness to merely entertain an opinion rather than take the action necessary to realize change. He states:

"Unjust laws exist: shall we be content to obey them, or shall we endeavour to amend them, and obey them until we have succeeded, or shall we transgress them at once?

A second opportunity arose to bring attention to the atrocities allowed by Mississauga's lack of tree protection by-law. A developer, Legend Homes, severed a heritage property fronting on the Credit River in south Mississauga. He divided the lot with the intent to build a row of five townhouses. Four mature silver maple trees, estimated at being between one and three hundred years old, in exceptionally good health, were slated to be removed. One tree, in the rear of the lot, believed to be the grandmother tree of the other three was immense. In the words of a city planner, "You will not see another tree like that in Ontario. But the building layout the developer's site plan proposes will destroy the tree's root system. Therefore we cannot request any attempts at preserving the tree." The city planning department does not have the authority to alter a site development plan so the tree's root system would remain undisturbed.
 
 

To make city residents aware of the impending felling of the trees, a peaceful protest was held on Friday September 18th. Costumed as the Lorax, a Dr. Seuss character, I sat in the largest tree and recited a locale specific version of Seuss poetry. 

I am the Lorax
I speak for the trees.

I speak for the trees
 for the trees have no tongues
I speak for the trees
 at the top of my lungs.

Trees in this city
 need protection by-laws
before they all fall
 to developers saws.

Speak to your councillors
 speak to your mayor
tell them they don't 
 treat our trees very fair.

If this tree falls down
 our virtue falls too
there's no one to stop it
 except me and you.

On the Tuesday following the Tree Festival, a crew arrived to fell the four trees. A large sign placed in front of an adjoining property advised that the trees were to be cut down and asked people to join the protest. Dressed as the Lorax, I again climbed into the tree to impede the tree cutting. The owner of Legend Homes, the construction company who owned the property, asked me to leave. 

I refused.

The developer returned to his vehicle. On the road in front of the trees, were two Legend Homes trucks, three pick-up trucks with STS Tree removal services stencilled on their doors, one wood chipper and a stump mulching machine. 
 
 

Faced with a protest, the developers and work crew left for the day. I remained in the tree overnight, hoping to draw more public support. Media reporters came during the night and the next morning a television channel broadcast the story of "a woman in a tree" every half hour. One friend saw the coverage and showed her support by bringing by coffee on her way to work. That morning the developer returned and requested that I leave his property. When I refused he called the police.  Police arrived, asked me to leave, then explained I would be charge with trespassing if I didn't. 

Determined to bring this issue to the broadest audience possible I remained in the tree. The police called the Fire department, who came with a fire engine equipped with a cherry-picker. A number of people had now gathered around the base of the tree. I asked for them to block the drive way with their vehicles to prevent the fire engine from entering the property. Again, though they agreed with and supported my actions, people were unwilling to get personally involved. My husband moved his vehicle to block the driveway. Their access denied, the fire crew brought in a large ladder and raised it into the tree. A fire man climbed to ladder to speak to me. I explained my position, that I would not come down willingly. 

Over a two hour period police and firemen came into the tree. The firemen to check on my safety, the police to coerce me into leaving the tree and property. They charged me with trespassing. I remained in the tree. They threatened a charge of resisting arrest. I remained in the tree. Two police officers employed pain compliance techniques. In response to their application of pressure on pain pressure points in my arm, I let go of the branch but didn't come down from the tree. 

Unable to physically remove me from the tree the police charged me with resisting arrest, a criminal charge. The police asked the people gathered at the bottom of the tree to leave the property. All but one person left. The remaining person was charged with trespassing, given a ticket and eventually escorted off the property. After a sufficient number of media reporters attended the scene, I came down from the tree. The police escorted me to the police station.The entire time, police and fire crew expressed complete support of my position. Yet they involved themselves in attempts to remove me from the tree, explaining that they were only doing their jobs.
 
 

As an abolitionist, Thoreau refused to pay poll-tax for six years as a means "to refuse allegiance to the State, to withdraw and stand aloof from it effectually". The tax gatherer, a neighbour of Thoreau's, faced him about paying his taxes, and even offered to pay the poll-tax for him if he was "hard-up" Thoreau declined and explained that it was a matter of principle. The tax gatherer immediately had him imprisoned. The exchange was completely friendly. The tax gatherer asked Thoreau, "But what shall I do?" 

Thoreau's answer was "If you really wish to do anything, resign your office". 

In his essay, Thoreau states, "when the subject has refused allegiance, and the officer has resigned his office, then the revolution is accomplished. In Thoreau's situation the tax-gather chose to maintain his role as government enforcer. In the tree by-law situation the police officers also chose to maintain their role as government enforcers. In both situations, the government official chose to disregard their conscience and personal beliefs to fulfil their duty as government employees. 
 
 

Presented with an opportunity to divert the criminal charge of resisting arrest to The Elizabeth Fry Society for women in conflict with the law, where charges would be withdrawn after I fulfilled two sanctions, my immediate response was to accept diversion to protect my clean record. After considering Thoreau's essay on Civil Disobedience I have chosen to opt out of the diversion program.  Thoreau states:

"...it is, after all with men and not with parchment that I quarrel, and he has voluntarily chosen to be an agent of the government. How shall he ever know well what he is and does as an officer of the government, or as a man, until he is obliged to consider whether he shall treat me, his neighbour, for whom he has respect, as a neighbour and a well-disposed man, or as a maniac and disturber of the peace...".

I believe this will force the judge to actually consider my actions, his conscience, and the degree of criminal behaviour involved.