Bill C-51, Environmental Justice & Human Rights: Freedom Comes with Responsiblities
When the executive director of Sierra Club, a prominent environmental advocacy group originating from California, USA, wrote in support for the "Black Lives Matter" movement, I was surprised to see disapproval in the commentary section of his FaceBook post.
 |
| Protesters take to the streets in the uproar for the "Black Lives Matter" movement. |
"This is not what you're all about. What you do is important. And making it about something else takes away from your basic mission. Shame on you. And shame on you for using a picture of Dr. King", wrote another.
What Michael Brune, the executive director in question, was calling for was increased cooperation and solidarity among different movements: "how can we enlist the support of millions of people who are forced to live with irrefutable injustice if we turn our backs on their suffering?" Brune makes a compelling case for solidarity, but there’s another link between human rights and the environment. That is, when a human rights abuse occurs over a land conflict.
For those in Sustainability Studies or the ilk, there is the concept of "environmental justice", defined by UL, an independent safety science firm, as "the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people in an affected community, regardless of race, colour, gender, national origin, or income, in considering investments and developments that affect the environment." In other words—and there seems to be growing consensus—we cannot detract human welfare from environmental welfare, and vice-versa.
The primary goal of Vanier’s Social Justice Committee is to break the silence on issues of social justice. In a time where complacency can be widespread, we hope to provide the space for discussion on human rights, whether domestic or abroad. In light of this, we too, cannot dislodge the connection between environmental protection and human rights.
Consider the current anti-terrorism bill, officially known as Bill C-51, undergoing the legislative process. This sort of bill is timely, as we witness the growth of a sophisticatedly organized terrorist group in the Islamic State. This bill has provoked criticism, as all proposed bills do, but this time four former PM’s, along with 18 other former governmental officials (Supreme Court of Canada justices, ministers of justice and public safety, etc). The overarching criticism was that the proposed bill lacked oversight, which would have for effect the erosion of human rights at home.
But let’s put this aside and look at another flaw, one outlined by VICE, one that hints at environmental protection and human rights.
Basically, an RCMP (2014) report leaked on the "criminal threats to the petroleum industry" (see VICE article for attached document). One finding claims "there is a growing, highly organized and well-financed, anti-Canadian petroleum movement". This is dismaying for a Prime Minister who once proclaimed, in an address to the Canada-UK Chamber of Commerce, Canada to be "an emerging energy ‘superpower’", one that "[his] government intend[ed] to build."
To matters briefly, the 2014 report combined with the language in the new anti-terror bill has the potential to criminalize one of the pillars of democracy: civil disobedience. As confirmed to VICE by Justice Minister Peter Mackay, anti-pipeline or petroleum protests and blockades could be criminal, as it interferes with Canada’s "critical infrastructure".
 |
| Protesters disrupt the work of Kinder Morgan in Burnaby Mountain last November. With the introduction of Bill C-51, this could be illegal. |
By the same token, aboriginal groups often protest for their right to be consulted on any project affecting their land, a right guaranteed to aboriginal populations of the world in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
The point being made here is simply that C-51, while it seems to be a response to rising concerns for terrorism, also would provide grounds to quell the anti-petroleum movement. Not too farfetched for a government that has built its reputation on developing itself "as a global energy powerhouse" (same address as previously mentioned).
All things considered, Canadians shouldn’t be overly concerned about the threat of terrorism because, as Scott Gilmore writes, "in Canada, only two people have died in terrorism attacks in the last decade." Clearly it isn’t necessary to take drastic measures—yet. In the meantime, let’s not be shaken by the Conservative government’s politics of fear, especially if it has a hidden agenda in the energy sector.
What does this mean for citizens? Briefly, your engagement can be threefold. First, stay alert and informed with avail of news media and experts, and spread the information—break the silence. Second, write to your member of Parliament. Third, let your voice be heard in the upcoming election, to be held this year.
Posts
0 comments