-
Sounds crazy, but this was the first thing I thought of when I read the Canadian Supreme Court’s ruling on the Red Chris mine in northern BC today. What does this mining ruling have to do with Harriet Nahanee, the elder Squamish woman who blockaded at Eagleridge and was sent to prison? Lots. If this ruling had been in place when the Eagleridge Bluffs Coalition tried to stop the destruction at Eagleridge by applying for a judicial stay, Harriet Nahanee may never have been sent to prison where she caught pneumonia and would probably be alive today.
On what do I base my assumptions? The Supreme Court has ruled that any environmental assessment done prior to any kind of development must be done comprehensively by both the province and the federal government, that it can not be done “in bits and pieces” as Lara Tessaro of Ecojustice Canada said today. Which was exactly how the environmental assessment at Eagleridge Bluffs was done, in bits and pieces. By this I mean the company (Kiewitt Sons Co) and the Gordon Campbell government in a public private partnership, only submitted one third of the area to be assessed before starting the job of dismantling Eagleridge. When the Eagleridge Bluffs Coalition asked for a stay until the entire assessment could be done on the whole project Mr. Justice Grist said no, one third was good enough. And that’s what happened to Eagleridge Bluffs. This new ruling is not all sweet song, as the horrific damage planned for the Red Chris mine operation in northern BC will go ahead. But at least this one, if we are reading the ruling correctly, will be the last push through by corporations and public private partnerships in BC ( hopefully other provinces as well) without any real, whole, comprehensive environmental assessments. What has come over the Supreme Court of Canada? Are they smoking something, or are they truly becoming a Supreme Court of the people? This is two rulings in roughly two weeks that smacks of sensitivity to citizens and the environment. Harriet, what do you make of this?
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Sunday, January 17, 2010
HAITI, LET US LEARN!
HAITI, LET US LEARN!
As we have all been told over and over again by the media, Haiti is the poorest nation in the Americas. But what the media doesn’t usually tell us is that this poverty is, and was, deeper than corrupt leadership and a lack of financial and social structures. Haiti’s poverty, aside from lack of industrialization and competent government, is also the product of almost complete deforestation. Only one percent of Haiti’s former forests are still standing while on the same island right next door, 32 per cent of the Dominican Republic’s land area is in parks or reserves. And Haiti’s one percent is constantly under siege from people taking what few trees are left to make charcoal to cook food with. As a result of all of the deforestation in Haiti (re: COLLAPSE by Jared Diamond) the island nation also suffers , aside from the loss of the trees for food and building materials, soil erosion, loss of soil fertility, sediment loads in the rivers , loss of watershed protection and hence of potential hydroelectric power, and decreased rainfall. Environmentally speaking, the island nation was a wreck before the earthquake. As Tracy Kidder (recognized expert on Haiti) said this morning on CBC, with the massive deforestation in Haiti one big rainstorm can kill hundreds if not thousands of people in the flooding as has happened during hurricanes.
I am not implying Haiti’s deforestation caused, or had anything to do, with the earthquake. But again, Haiti’s people were in heartbreaking serious trouble before the earthquake hit. And this trouble was, and is, intimately entwined with the devastated physical environment. In addition to the money and supplies being sent to Haiti which is so very sorely needed, environmental agencies worldwide must, absolutely must, start a massive reforesting program in Haiti. Otherwise the forces of nature will continue to pound Haiti and make of it a very large mud hole which it was in the process of becoming from the hurricanes before the earthquake. International logging companies will happily log to devastation any country they can get access to, and work to promote this same mentality in the citizens. No country is safe from this mentality, certainly not Canada, as we look to our own mudslides and denuded landscapes in BC and the tar sands in Alberta. We can learn from the unfolding horrors in Haiti. Let us learn good and hard. Betty Krawczyk
As we have all been told over and over again by the media, Haiti is the poorest nation in the Americas. But what the media doesn’t usually tell us is that this poverty is, and was, deeper than corrupt leadership and a lack of financial and social structures. Haiti’s poverty, aside from lack of industrialization and competent government, is also the product of almost complete deforestation. Only one percent of Haiti’s former forests are still standing while on the same island right next door, 32 per cent of the Dominican Republic’s land area is in parks or reserves. And Haiti’s one percent is constantly under siege from people taking what few trees are left to make charcoal to cook food with. As a result of all of the deforestation in Haiti (re: COLLAPSE by Jared Diamond) the island nation also suffers , aside from the loss of the trees for food and building materials, soil erosion, loss of soil fertility, sediment loads in the rivers , loss of watershed protection and hence of potential hydroelectric power, and decreased rainfall. Environmentally speaking, the island nation was a wreck before the earthquake. As Tracy Kidder (recognized expert on Haiti) said this morning on CBC, with the massive deforestation in Haiti one big rainstorm can kill hundreds if not thousands of people in the flooding as has happened during hurricanes.
I am not implying Haiti’s deforestation caused, or had anything to do, with the earthquake. But again, Haiti’s people were in heartbreaking serious trouble before the earthquake hit. And this trouble was, and is, intimately entwined with the devastated physical environment. In addition to the money and supplies being sent to Haiti which is so very sorely needed, environmental agencies worldwide must, absolutely must, start a massive reforesting program in Haiti. Otherwise the forces of nature will continue to pound Haiti and make of it a very large mud hole which it was in the process of becoming from the hurricanes before the earthquake. International logging companies will happily log to devastation any country they can get access to, and work to promote this same mentality in the citizens. No country is safe from this mentality, certainly not Canada, as we look to our own mudslides and denuded landscapes in BC and the tar sands in Alberta. We can learn from the unfolding horrors in Haiti. Let us learn good and hard. Betty Krawczyk
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
BEVERLY McLACHLIN WHO?
I ‘m beginning to wonder. Is the McLachlin who has just today in writing for the Supreme Court in a landmark case involving freedom of the press said that:“Freewheeling matters of public interest is to be encouraged”, and that writers and bloggers who do a form of reporting should be protected by law, the same Madam Justice Beverly McLachlin I know intimately just from hearing her rulings on criminal contempt read adnauseam in court just before I’m sent to prison? Is this the same Madam Justice MCLachlin , ex-Chief Justice British Columbia ,who ruled that a public protest in defiance of a court order is a criminal matter simply because it is public? Yes, It is indeed one and the same.
I run smack up against this ruling by Madame Justice McLachlin every time I’m in court for trying to help protect the last scrap of some forest somewhere in British Columbia. This ruling defined by Madam Justice McLachlin is called “Open, Continuous, and Flagrant.” It means that because one talked publically to the press and other media about the environmental destruction one is, or was, protesting, this action has brought the court into disrepute. Then an accused’s civil charges get raised to criminal charges. Just for talking. To the press and other media. And for writing what one thinks about the environmental destruction under dispute (the last was Eagleridge Bluffs.) For all these sins one is tried as a criminal in BC, judged as a criminal, and sentenced to the place where other criminals are kept. For lengthy periods of time.
And yet this same justice who has risen to be Chief Justice of Canada now appears as a defender of freedom of expression in an unanimous Supreme Court of Canada ruling. Don’t get me wrong. I’m certainly not complaining. It’s long over due. But shouldn’t some of this reasonable understanding of the need for an unfettered press slop over onto the heads of citizens in environmental disputes? Of those who get charged with breaking a court order which initially merits civil contempt of court which is bad enough, but then in the attempt to explain the situation to the press and to the world the court and the Crown conspire (or seem to) to make one the accused criminals? This recent land mark ruling of The Supreme Court of Canada reminds me of an old hymn my mother used to sing: “Showers of blessing, showers of blessing we need, mercy drops round us are falling, but for the showers we plead”. I, personally, with all due respect, am pleading for a few Supreme Court of Canada showers instead of a few mercy drops. Can you hear me, Madam Chief Justice McLachlin?
Beverly McLachlin who?
I ‘m beginning to wonder. Is the Madam Chief Justice of Canada Beverly McLachlin who has just today in writing for the Supreme Court in a landmark case involving freedom of the press said that:“Freewheeling matters of public interest is to be encouraged”, and that writers and bloggers who do a form of reporting should be protected by law, the same Madam Justice Beverly McLachlin I know intimately just from hearing her rulings on criminal contempt read adnauseam in court just before I’m sent to prison? Is this the same Madam Justice MCLachlin , ex-Chief Justice British Columbia ,who ruled that a public protest in defiance of a court order is a criminal matter simply because it is public? Yes, It is indeed one and the same.
I run smack up against this ruling by Madame Justice McLachlin every time I’m in court for trying to help protect the last scrap of some forest somewhere in British Columbia. This ruling defined by Madam Justice McLachlin is called “Open, Continuous, and Flagrant.” It means that because one talked publically to the press and other media about the environmental destruction one is, or was, protesting, this action has brought the court into disrepute. Then an accused’s civil charges get raised to criminal charges. Just for talking. To the press and other media. And for writing what one thinks about the environmental destruction under dispute (the last was Eagleridge Bluffs.) For all these sins one is tried as a criminal in BC, judged as a criminal, and sentenced to the place where other criminals are kept. For lengthy periods of time.
And yet this same justice who has risen to be Chief Justice of Canada now appears as a defender of freedom of expression in an unanimous Supreme Court of Canada ruling. Don’t get me wrong. I’m certainly not complaining. It’s long over due. But shouldn’t some of this reasonable understanding of the need for an unfettered press slop over onto the heads of citizens in environmental disputes? Of those who get charged with breaking a court order which initially merits civil contempt of court which is bad enough, but then in the attempt to explain the situation to the press and to the world the court and the Crown conspire (or seem to) to make one the accused criminals? This recent land mark ruling of The Supreme Court of Canada reminds me of an old hymn my mother used to sing: “Showers of blessing, showers of blessing we need, mercy drops round us are falling, but for the showers we plead”. I, personally, with all due respect, am pleading for a few Supreme Court of Canada showers instead of a few mercy drops. Can you hear me, Madam Chief Justice McLachlin?
Beverly McLachlin who?
I ‘m beginning to wonder. Is the Madam Chief Justice of Canada Beverly McLachlin who has just today in writing for the Supreme Court in a landmark case involving freedom of the press said that:“Freewheeling matters of public interest is to be encouraged”, and that writers and bloggers who do a form of reporting should be protected by law, the same Madam Justice Beverly McLachlin I know intimately just from hearing her rulings on criminal contempt read adnauseam in court just before I’m sent to prison? Is this the same Madam Justice MCLachlin , ex-Chief Justice British Columbia ,who ruled that a public protest in defiance of a court order is a criminal matter simply because it is public? Yes, It is indeed one and the same.
I run smack up against this ruling by Madame Justice McLachlin every time I’m in court for trying to help protect the last scrap of some forest somewhere in British Columbia. This ruling defined by Madam Justice McLachlin is called “Open, Continuous, and Flagrant.” It means that because one talked publically to the press and other media about the environmental destruction one is, or was, protesting, this action has brought the court into disrepute. Then an accused’s civil charges get raised to criminal charges. Just for talking. To the press and other media. And for writing what one thinks about the environmental destruction under dispute (the last was Eagleridge Bluffs.) For all these sins one is tried as a criminal in BC, judged as a criminal, and sentenced to the place where other criminals are kept. For lengthy periods of time.
And yet this same justice who has risen to be Chief Justice of Canada now appears as a defender of freedom of expression in an unanimous Supreme Court of Canada ruling. Don’t get me wrong. I’m certainly not complaining. It’s long over due. But shouldn’t some of this reasonable understanding of the need for an unfettered press slop over onto the heads of citizens in environmental disputes? Of those who get charged with breaking a court order which initially merits civil contempt of court which is bad enough, but then in the attempt to explain the situation to the press and to the world the court and the Crown conspire (or seem to) to make one the accused criminals? This recent land mark ruling of The Supreme Court of Canada reminds me of an old hymn my mother used to sing: “Showers of blessing, showers of blessing we need, mercy drops round us are falling, but for the showers we plead”. I, personally, with all due respect, am pleading for a few Supreme Court of Canada showers instead of a few mercy drops. Can you hear me, Madam Chief Justice McLachlin?
I run smack up against this ruling by Madame Justice McLachlin every time I’m in court for trying to help protect the last scrap of some forest somewhere in British Columbia. This ruling defined by Madam Justice McLachlin is called “Open, Continuous, and Flagrant.” It means that because one talked publically to the press and other media about the environmental destruction one is, or was, protesting, this action has brought the court into disrepute. Then an accused’s civil charges get raised to criminal charges. Just for talking. To the press and other media. And for writing what one thinks about the environmental destruction under dispute (the last was Eagleridge Bluffs.) For all these sins one is tried as a criminal in BC, judged as a criminal, and sentenced to the place where other criminals are kept. For lengthy periods of time.
And yet this same justice who has risen to be Chief Justice of Canada now appears as a defender of freedom of expression in an unanimous Supreme Court of Canada ruling. Don’t get me wrong. I’m certainly not complaining. It’s long over due. But shouldn’t some of this reasonable understanding of the need for an unfettered press slop over onto the heads of citizens in environmental disputes? Of those who get charged with breaking a court order which initially merits civil contempt of court which is bad enough, but then in the attempt to explain the situation to the press and to the world the court and the Crown conspire (or seem to) to make one the accused criminals? This recent land mark ruling of The Supreme Court of Canada reminds me of an old hymn my mother used to sing: “Showers of blessing, showers of blessing we need, mercy drops round us are falling, but for the showers we plead”. I, personally, with all due respect, am pleading for a few Supreme Court of Canada showers instead of a few mercy drops. Can you hear me, Madam Chief Justice McLachlin?
Beverly McLachlin who?
I ‘m beginning to wonder. Is the Madam Chief Justice of Canada Beverly McLachlin who has just today in writing for the Supreme Court in a landmark case involving freedom of the press said that:“Freewheeling matters of public interest is to be encouraged”, and that writers and bloggers who do a form of reporting should be protected by law, the same Madam Justice Beverly McLachlin I know intimately just from hearing her rulings on criminal contempt read adnauseam in court just before I’m sent to prison? Is this the same Madam Justice MCLachlin , ex-Chief Justice British Columbia ,who ruled that a public protest in defiance of a court order is a criminal matter simply because it is public? Yes, It is indeed one and the same.
I run smack up against this ruling by Madame Justice McLachlin every time I’m in court for trying to help protect the last scrap of some forest somewhere in British Columbia. This ruling defined by Madam Justice McLachlin is called “Open, Continuous, and Flagrant.” It means that because one talked publically to the press and other media about the environmental destruction one is, or was, protesting, this action has brought the court into disrepute. Then an accused’s civil charges get raised to criminal charges. Just for talking. To the press and other media. And for writing what one thinks about the environmental destruction under dispute (the last was Eagleridge Bluffs.) For all these sins one is tried as a criminal in BC, judged as a criminal, and sentenced to the place where other criminals are kept. For lengthy periods of time.
And yet this same justice who has risen to be Chief Justice of Canada now appears as a defender of freedom of expression in an unanimous Supreme Court of Canada ruling. Don’t get me wrong. I’m certainly not complaining. It’s long over due. But shouldn’t some of this reasonable understanding of the need for an unfettered press slop over onto the heads of citizens in environmental disputes? Of those who get charged with breaking a court order which initially merits civil contempt of court which is bad enough, but then in the attempt to explain the situation to the press and to the world the court and the Crown conspire (or seem to) to make one the accused criminals? This recent land mark ruling of The Supreme Court of Canada reminds me of an old hymn my mother used to sing: “Showers of blessing, showers of blessing we need, mercy drops round us are falling, but for the showers we plead”. I, personally, with all due respect, am pleading for a few Supreme Court of Canada showers instead of a few mercy drops. Can you hear me, Madam Chief Justice McLachlin?
Beverly McLachlin who?
I ‘m beginning to wonder. Is the Madam Chief Justice of Canada Beverly McLachlin who has just today in writing for the Supreme Court in a landmark case involving freedom of the press said that:“Freewheeling matters of public interest is to be encouraged”, and that writers and bloggers who do a form of reporting should be protected by law, the same Madam Justice Beverly McLachlin I know intimately just from hearing her rulings on criminal contempt read adnauseam in court just before I’m sent to prison? Is this the same Madam Justice MCLachlin , ex-Chief Justice British Columbia ,who ruled that a public protest in defiance of a court order is a criminal matter simply because it is public? Yes, It is indeed one and the same.
I run smack up against this ruling by Madame Justice McLachlin every time I’m in court for trying to help protect the last scrap of some forest somewhere in British Columbia. This ruling defined by Madam Justice McLachlin is called “Open, Continuous, and Flagrant.” It means that because one talked publically to the press and other media about the environmental destruction one is, or was, protesting, this action has brought the court into disrepute. Then an accused’s civil charges get raised to criminal charges. Just for talking. To the press and other media. And for writing what one thinks about the environmental destruction under dispute (the last was Eagleridge Bluffs.) For all these sins one is tried as a criminal in BC, judged as a criminal, and sentenced to the place where other criminals are kept. For lengthy periods of time.
And yet this same justice who has risen to be Chief Justice of Canada now appears as a defender of freedom of expression in an unanimous Supreme Court of Canada ruling. Don’t get me wrong. I’m certainly not complaining. It’s long over due. But shouldn’t some of this reasonable understanding of the need for an unfettered press slop over onto the heads of citizens in environmental disputes? Of those who get charged with breaking a court order which initially merits civil contempt of court which is bad enough, but then in the attempt to explain the situation to the press and to the world the court and the Crown conspire (or seem to) to make one the accused criminals? This recent land mark ruling of The Supreme Court of Canada reminds me of an old hymn my mother used to sing: “Showers of blessing, showers of blessing we need, mercy drops round us are falling, but for the showers we plead”. I, personally, with all due respect, am pleading for a few Supreme Court of Canada showers instead of a few mercy drops. Can you hear me, Madam Chief Justice McLachlin?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)