As the debate over the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline heats up, Stephen Harper and members of his Conservative government
are claiming that ‘radical groups’, such as environmentalists, are trying to extend
the public consultation. We must see this aggressive rhetoric for what it is - nothing
more than an unashamed attempt to fire up the conservative core against ‘evil’
environmentalists.
In an open
letter earlier today Canada’s natural resources minister Joe Oliver referred to
environmental groups as ‘radical groups’, when referring to the public consultation phase
of the Enbridge pipeline approval process. Seriously, all environmental groups
are radicals? What is this guy on? Going even further, Harper himself claimed
that foreign money was behind the plot to hold up construction of a new
pipeline. When did he become so concerned over foreign interests in oil,
considering most of the money from the tar sands flows right out of the
country? Then I started thinking about it. It makes complete sense for a
Harperite to refer to environmental groups as radical.
One might
assume, from the rhetoric coming from the Harper camp, that these ‘radicals’
are threatening to disrupt a potential pipeline, or those who are building it.
At the very least, one must assume that they are protesters disrupting the
consultation process. No, not at all. The ‘radicals’ are those who have signed
up to speak at the public consultation on the project. That’s it. Although
there may be a few who want to push a specific agenda unrelated to this
specific pipeline, the vast majority are local people with local concerns.
Concerns such as the devastation that would be caused by a pipeline leak or oil
tanker spill in one of the most pristine natural environments left in the
world.
Is it really
radical to be concerned with issues like climate change (especially after the
train wreck that was the DuranClimate Change deal)? Is it really radical to be concerned about oil spills
in your own backyard, oil spills that can affect the quality of life’s essentials,
such as cleanwater, as the speakers at the public consultation are? That is not radical.
Radical is to think that changing the climate is okay, so long as we don’t have
to change the way we live. Radical is thinking that corporate profits are more
important than local interests. Radical is thinking that we need oil more than
we need water. Humanity survived, even thrived, for tens of thousands of years
without oil, but wouldn’t last a week without fresh water.
The
environmentalist groups aren’t the radicals. Stephen Harper and his group of
cronies are the ones who believe it is okay to put profits before people, put
oil before water and trade short-term gain (but not for you or I) for long-term
pain.
But let’s
not kid ourselves. This isn’t about the environment or the tar sands or even
about jobs and the economy. It’s about getting re-elected
and it’s about ideology. Harper knows that most of the people speaking out
against the pipeline won’t support him anyway, so he will fight them and insult
them to fire up his core supporters, the minority of the Canadian population
who buy into Harper’s crooked Conservative ideology and really believe that
this public consultation (remember, this is over a public consultation!) is some
kind of battle between capitalism and socialism. That minority is able to give
him the support and money (mostly the money) to get re-elected. So all Harper
is really only concerned about is making sure environmentalists are seen as
some kind of threat (even better when it is a foreign threat) to ‘our way of
life’.
So I put the
questions to you, who are the radicals: the environmental groups and concerned
local citizens or the Conservatives?
No comments:
Post a Comment