Harsh treatment of environmental and human rights protestors in some countries reminds of us how fortunate we are as Canadians to live in a society which embraces and respects differences of opinion.
Photo credit: iStockphoto
Activism in intolerant societies will almost inevitably incur the wrath of the authorities, or worse, the violent revenge of vested interests that feel threatened.
In Russia, for example, Greenpeace activists were recently arrested and threatened with 10-year jail sentences for alleged piracy, simply for trying to hang a banner on an oil rig. In China, political activists are still routinely persecuted and imprisoned for demanding the kind of democratic rights we take for granted.
Progressive change
A great feature of humane societies which tolerate protest is that they actually stand to be improved by permitting activism and dissent.
In Canada, protest movements have been crucial in driving progressive change throughout its history. The women’s suffrage movement led to voting rights for women in local elections as early as 1850 in some regions, and nationally, (except in Quebec), by 1918 (ten years before Britain enacted full suffrage for women). The Trade Unions Act, passed by Parliament in June 1872 legalizing unions, came after the Toronto Typographical Union strike earlier that year. And the mass Clayoquot anti-clear-cutting protests in British Columbia in the late 1980s and early 1990s set the stage for increased cooperation between environmental groups and forestry companies.
Can we get to ‘yes’?
Right now the country is embroiled in an increasingly rancorous argument about energy development, in which opposition to oil production has sparked anti-pipeline campaigns and other expressions of dissent.
Sadly, it appears some activists aren’t interested in advancing the debate or getting to solutions which have general societal support. These actions make it challenging to reach consensus, and responsibly get to ‘yes’.
The rational middle
History shows societies are best served when the conversation is rational, constructive and purposeful. Even sides that are seemingly far apart in perspectives can work together, if they want to.
Take the Canadian Boreal Forest Agreement. Activists who were at one point chaining themselves to logs in British Columbia eventually began conversing with the industry which harvested the logs. The result was a compromise that multiple parties, including British Columbian voters who ultimately owned the forestry resource, could accept. In the same spirit, environmental groups and energy companies have crafted an agreement on shale gas fracking standards in the U.S. Appalachian Basin.
If we are determined to find real solutions, we need to take heated debates like the energy one off the boil so that the ‘rational middle’ can be heard. The long-term energy challenge –meeting rising energy demand while preserving a healthy environment - will only be met if we focus on collaboration and 'getting to yes'.
