Enbridge’s cozy relationship with law enforcement went unchecked by state leaders or critiqued by local media

Minnesota’s handling of the Enbridge Line 3 tar sands pipeline has knocked another block from our crumbling wall of democracy.

Government leaders and institution have ignored their promises, rules, logic, and even their own experts to make decisions around Line 3 that benefit powerful elites rather than consider the long-term needs of the bulk of its citizens.

Minnesota’s shrinking newsrooms have fallen flat on their collective faces, too.

As one example, there’s been no substantial critique of the precedent set of having a foreign multi-national corporation using local police as private security. There’s been no analysis of the double standard where water protectors are treated as criminals while Enbridge’s environmental damage gets a tiny financial slap on the wrist.

Unchallenged by a counter narrative, people might accept the Line 3 story as business as usual.

What follows is a collection of alternative media articles that take readers where Minnesota media failed to go. It’s an effort to weave these stories together to show the extent of the systemic bias and disparate treatment in Line 3 policing.

This is laying down a marker as a reminder for the next pipeline struggle.