Will Violent Protest Rock BC?

The world abounds in wake-up calls but, as Sinclair Lewis wrote, "It can't happen here."

Or can it?

All over the world, citizens are taking to the streets and although the issues vary, there is an underlying theme -- the government isn't paying attention and the corporations, as usual, are lying.

Citizens against a large pipeline gather in rage in front of the White House.

Throughout the streets of the Middle East there are rebellions taking place.

In the U.K., there were riots, ostensibly, because of diminished social services.

While in Vancouver, people rioted, again ostensibly, as a result of a lost hockey game.

Many governments seem bewildered at what's happening and in at least three of them, the United States, the United Kingdom and Canada, are coming to the easy but wrong conclusion that putting down the riot/demonstration will take care of everything.

A spectrum of resisters

It is not my purpose here to condone violence and looting but to paint, for those in charge of British Columbia, what it all really means.

There have been many riots throughout history, of course, and some springing from bad motivations, such as the anti-Asian riot in Vancouver in 1907.

But usually those rioting have been one class of people, workers, rioting against a perceived threat to their livelihoods or to make their lives better. Examples in the U.K. included mineworkers rioting for better conditions, and, Chartists and Luddites rioting against new machines in Peterloo in 1819.

The widespread protests against the war in Vietnam, however, crossed all social and racial lines and happened when mass media had become worldwide. Most were non-violent demonstrations but some of the resistance was violent.

As a recent environmental activist, I have noticed something that the government obviously hasn't. The protesters span all societal boundaries. Rather than being (mostly) young people, many gray heads, and indeed hairless heads are seen at rallies in which I've been involved. At the protests over the Eagleridge desecration in aid of the Sea-to-Sky upgrades I saw what I dubbed the three-piece-suit/pearl-necklace crowd, which went in busloads to Tsawwassen to protest the transmission lines and ALR demonstrations. Anti-fish-farm demonstrations clearly included a wide variety of angry people. The B.C. government either hasn't the wit to understand what it all means, or perhaps (my view) they just don't give a damn.

I neither predict violence nor, God knows, want it. I'm simply saying that more and more British Columbians are pissed off and at more and more things.

Demanding a say

There is a common thread, whether it be fish farms, private power outrages, threats to wildlife preserves, seized farmland for highways, pipelines, oil tankers, First Nations demonstrations -- you name it. The common thread is lack of meaningful consultation. This was certainly obvious in the HST referendum as it was in the 1992 Charlottetown Accord referendum. In ever increasing numbers, British Columbians simply refused to acknowledge that the government knows best.

Mere consultation is not enough. It must be transparently meaningful.

A very good example is the Environmental Assessment Process for private power projects. I've been to several and as I've remarked before, I'd rather have a root canal without anaesthetic than go to another one.

These meetings are put on by the company, at a location inconvenient to most people and is chaired by a government employee. The meeting isn't even called until it's a done deal. Indeed, the only thing a member of the public can do is ask about the technical environmental process or make suggestions along that line. Time and again people want to deal with the merits of the undertaking -- time and time again they are ruled out of order. The company rep is an exception and is allowed to extol the "virtues" of the project ad nauseum.

I must admit that these hearings had an unintended consequence for the company and its co-opted politicians. So many people heard about the hearings and informed themselves of the issues that even the toady media in this province began to discover that -- Surprise! Surprise! -- trouble makers like Joe Foy, Damien Gillis and Rafe Mair just might be right in saying that these private power projects (IPPs) were not only wrecking the rivers but bankrupting BC Hydro.

This happened because the protests raised extended the time of final approval such that even this media could no longer avoid facing the issues. When they finally did, they acted as if they were breaking news!

BC's ecology at stake

Two hot button issues have had a very dangerous addition -- oil pipelines and oil tankers. I say "dangerous" because here we have a mathematical certainty that pipelines will spring leaks and tankers will founder.

Why are they mathematical certainties?

That's simple. If you take a so-called risk without any boundaries as to how long or how often you will take it, it's no longer a risk but a certainly waiting to happen. There will, as a certainty, be ghastly leaks in our fragile and wondrous wild country; there will be, as a certainly, a tanker disaster.

It does no good to cloak movement of oil in our province with weasel words like "mitigation." It is plain that a series of ghastly calamities will forever despoil our wilderness on land and at sea.

The question remains, I suppose, whether I am encouraging violence by raising subjects which beget violence.

I leave that with readers and will only say that I hate violence with every fibre of my body. The blame for violence will not be on the head of those who warned of it but those who thought that their fellow citizens had endless patience with politicians who would desecrate their beloved province.