David Suzuki: Irrational attacks have long history of diminishing debate
In 1962, biologist and writer Rachel Carson published Silent Spring, a book about the widespread use of agricultural pesticides, and how toxic chemicals like DDT were threatening insects, birds, and other elements of our natural world. It garnered widespread critical and popular acclaim and is heralded as the catalyst for the modern environmental movement.
Carson’s ability to describe in simple but passionate language the great damage caused by pesticides, and her courage to express controversial ideas that rankled powerful business and political interests, helped propel the book to massive success.
Agrochemical companies responded with furor, threatening the publisher with a libel lawsuit and launching well-funded public-relations campaigns touting the safety and necessity of agricultural chemicals. Critics of Silent Spring also attacked Carson personally, accusing her of being radical, unpatriotic, and sympathetic to communism—a serious threat during the height of the Cold War.
Even though Carson was a well-educated biologist with a master’s degree in zoology, she was dismissed as an amateur and a “hysterical woman” in industry journals and the popular press.
Fortunately, she remained steadfast despite the attacks, and we have all benefited. Dangerous pesticides like DDT have been restricted and laws to protect the health of the environment and communities have been enacted around the world. But sadly, harassment, and intimidation of environmental advocates continues. Some would argue it has worsened with the rise of social media, which amplifies messages of hatred and intolerance, often under the cowardly cloak of anonymity.
We witnessed a recent example when David Suzuki Foundation senior scientist Faisal Moola was attacked on social media for supporting a campaign—on his own time as a private citizen—asking Tim Hortons to stop running ads for controversial oil-sands pipeline company Enbridge on its in-store TV channel. The company had been running the commercials in about 1,500 Tim Hortons coffee shops in an attempt to resurrect its sinking brand among Canadians.
Moola was one of 28,000 Canadians who wrote or tweeted to ask Tim Hortons to pull the Enbridge campaign from its network, but he was singled out for attack by right-wing oil-sands promoter and pundit Ezra Levant, who accused him on Twitter of being a “foreign-funded extremist” responsible for Tim Hortons’ decision to stop running the ads.
At one point Moola’s name was trending nationally on Twitter, largely because of the barrage of hate messages he was receiving every few minutes, including many xenophobic and racist attacks on his ethnic background and Muslim religion. He was accused of being “anti-Canadian”, an “extremist”, and even a “terrorist” because of his opposition to oil sands expansion—even though 100 fellow scientists just released a public statement calling for a moratorium on new oil-sands development.
Moola’s experience, like that of Rachel Carson’s a half-century earlier, shows that environmental advocacy has never been easy. As Heiltsuk community organizer and First Nations leader Jess Housty says, “Activism is hard. It pits you against forces that have a lot at stake, and who fight dirty and bite back hard.”
I’ve spoken to thousands of environmental and community activists during many years of meeting with Canadians across this country. I’ve heard too many stories of people being harassed, ostracized, sued for standing up to large corporations and even fired from jobs because of their environmental advocacy.
Canada is blessed to have strong laws that protect human rights and prohibit hate speech, and the courts have held accountable those who’ve defamed people with xenophobic accusations. And we rarely have to fear the levels of violence faced by environmental and social justice advocates in other parts of the world. But recent polls reveal the uncomfortable truth that many Canadians hold intolerant, even racist, beliefs.
Reading comments sections of online publications and Facebook and Twitter posts and listening to call-in radio shows can be disheartening. People often express the worst of their tribal instincts on these public forums, and discussion of difficult issues like the oil sands often degenerates into personal, irrational, and sometimes hateful rhetoric.
Canadians must continue to speak out for our water, land, air, and wildlife, for justice for indigenous peoples, and for a clean energy future—without fear of harassment, intimidation, and hatred.
Comments
13 Comments
Seriously?!!
Jun 16, 2015 at 10:27pm
There are laws against defamation already on the books and the Orwellian concept of "hate speech" is interpreted so broadly as to make it a crime to tell someone he/she is an idiot. If Mr. Moola is upset and has grounds for legal action he should take them; if the comments about him aren't actionable then tough luck. Free speech protects the criticisms of Mr. Moola and there are no laws against hurting someone's feelings so unless he was defamed or can conjure up a "hate crime" from the comments Mr. Moola is SOL.
Kiskatinawkid
Jun 16, 2015 at 10:57pm
Myself, I would consider it amusing, in a tragic way, to be personally attacked by a complete moron like levant. Normally morons are more a pain in the ass than anything else...oh, wait, he is! Silly me for giving him the benefit of a doubt.
Also, I'm still trying to find out how to get on harper's hate list. Anyone?
@Seriously?!!
Jun 17, 2015 at 8:05am
You must forgive the environmentalist left-wing, for they have been so busy studying the death of snails, etc. that they have neglected over a hundred years of research into metalogic and reasoning that suggests there is no natural and total domain of discourse. You are always using a specialized discourse. Environmentalism basically works by demanding that everyone adopt a certain way of framing the discourse visavis the environment.
Not that the right wing is any better---most political people seem to still believe in some sort of 1850s-style "rational truth," as though if we are all bright enough and work hard enough, we will come to some sort of rational system of government. That ain't how it works. Different people have different, irreconcilable interests. Things like "pure water" are always on a particular scale; if you think the ultra-rich won't always be able to secure potable water, regardless of how polluted streams/rivers/etc. get, you don't understand why the ultra-rich are the ultra-rich. They take care of themselves, they don't rely on socialism and nanny-state lock-step groupthink.
Stan Lee
Jun 17, 2015 at 12:40pm
As is the case in science where a study is validated by the methodology employed and the level of scientific rigor, so is the case in constructing arguments. The validity of an argument is judged largely by it's logic. Arguments premised on logical fallacies are inherently problematic and deemed, at least in part, invalid. One of the most commonly employed logical fallacies is "ad hominem" (An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, means responding to arguments by attacking a person's character, rather than to the content of their arguments. When used inappropriately, it is a fallacy in which a claim or argument is dismissed on the basis of some irrelevant fact or supposition about the author or the person being criticized. Source: wikipedia). In my opinion, if you want to engage in the debate, do so responsibly, accurately and logically because the anything less is often simply bunk!
Brad Rush
Jun 17, 2015 at 4:51pm
Twitter Quote to me from Faisal Moola (Director General of David Suzuki Foudation Ontario & Northern Canada) in response to my suggestion that he distance himself from the US-based eco-terrorist group Sum of Us: "Your outrageous rhetoric, accusations poison the discussion Canadians need to have about their energy future @SumOfUs". Really, Isn't that shooting the messenger?
Furthermore, Moola's use of the pejorative "tar sands" in his Tim Horton's tweet, doesn't further any discusion....and may have raised the ire of many who see the huge economic benefits of the oil sands.
Please see Stan Lee's comments above on "ad hominem. Dr. Moola can not really separate what he says on Twitter from his position representing the Suzuki Foundation
I agree with Dr Suzuki when he says "discussion of difficult issues like the oil sands often degenerates into personal, irrational, and sometimes hateful rhetoric." . He should try to ensure that one of his directors doesn't continually fall into that abyss.
Martin Dunphy
Jun 17, 2015 at 5:38pm
Brad Rush:
Just because you (and oil industry types) think the word "tarsands" is a pejorative doesn't make it one. The word has been used for many years and, in fact, is as much of a misnomer for that type of bitumen as is "oilsands".
What's really funny is the idea that greenwashing the word "tar" into "oil" is actually preferable. All a matter of sticky, black degree, I guess.
What's next, calling an oil spill a "hydrocarbon distillate inadvertency"?
Nigel
Jun 18, 2015 at 9:32am
I was employed at the David's foundation briefly, and it was crazy when there was an article on CBC News about him how it had hundreds of comments more than any other article on the website.
It was filled with tons of comments on the exact same talking points attacking David with stuff like "he owns 5 houses... he partnered with an oil company.." etc. It looked like a Foxnews.com article discussion blaming everything on Obama.
Well it turns out PR Firms like Edelman have been hired that make tons of fake accounts and post against all initiatives that foundations like his ha. They try to tie up its money, time, and resources. They will literally have people attack initiatives that are non pipeline related like bike lanes or more green space thinking they will then not have the resources to fight them on bigger issues. http://gawker.com/attack-oil-pipeline-opponents-advises-bad-pr-firm-1660...
Rand Sam
Jun 18, 2015 at 10:39am
Multi-culture acceptance of them and all their notions,Science and analysis never does a darn bit of good except make them rich or wealthy meanwhile, lots suspect they get bought off. Indigenous knowledge law an spiritual taking care of the Land, resources dont need their say look at the thousands of generations of our peoples with no air pollution, oil spills fossil fuels nightmare and had pristine enviornments with our resources that greed tore up...an no State or Govt will, can, or is doing anything about..is it a Sham or Shame our fine educated and feathered friENDS¿?
Greg Heebner
Jun 18, 2015 at 11:01am
Why do people like Ezra Levant get away with their vitriolic attacks on people who are simply trying to preserve or better the environmental conditions that are necessary for our survival as a species ?
dianne kirkby-minler
Jun 18, 2015 at 1:08pm
There should be absolutely no doubt in anyone's mind to fight for and to be an advocate for the safe future of our environment for our children/grandchildren/families!! If we do not do this, who will? :-)