dissent – 350orbust

The Harper Government is sending out a clear message at home and abroad that if your politics are not correct your art shouldn’t be shown, and if your findings are inconvenient your science doesn’t matter.

A recent Vancouver Sun discussed the silencing of Fisheries Department scientist Kristi Miller. Miller heads a $6-million salmon-genetics project at the federal Pacific Biological Station on Vancouver Island whose breakthrough research into the deaths of West Coast salmon was published in the top scientific journal Science last year. The study suggests the possibility of a mysterious virus killing huge numbers of Fraser River salmon before they reach their spawning grounds. According to The Sun:

The documents show the Privy Council Office, which supports the Prime Minister’s Office, stopped Kristi Miller from talking about one of the most significant discoveries to come out of a federal fisheries lab in years.

...Miller is still not allowed to speak publicly about her discovery, and the Privy Council Office and Fisheries Department defend the way she has been silenced.

But observers say it is indefensible and more evidence of the way the government is undermining its scientists.

“There is no question in my mind it’s muzzling,” said Jeffrey Hutchings, a senior fisheries scientist at Halifax’s Dalhousie University.

“When the lead author of a paper in Science is not permitted to speak about her work, that is suppression,” he said. “There is simply no ifs, ands or buts about that.”

In a similar chilling manner, the Harper Government has recently lead a campaign to silence award-winning artist and author Franke James. James was asked by an international non-profit, Nektarina Nonprofit, which educates, connects and inspires people to care about their communities and their environment, to mount a series of art exhibitions in Europe. As Nektarina’s website states:

The uniqueness of her artwork is in combining science, art and storytelling, creating powerful and thought-provoking visual essays. Franke does not preach, she tells a story, educates and explains, leaving it to the viewers to make their own choices and decisions.

However, since May 2011, the Canadian Government has been using underhanded, behind-the-scenes tactics to get my “What can one person do?” art show in Europe cancelled. As Franke explains:

The goal of the ambitious show, organized by Nektarina Non Profit, is to raise environmental awareness with youth, and inspire teens to make their own climate change art. The show has the support of the Ministry of Culture in Latvia and the Croatian Agency for Environment. It’s a huge honor for me — but I can also see that it’s a direct result of the visual essays I’ve written, and the green conscience workshops I’ve done with students in Canada and the USA.

But apparently, Franke has ignited the Harper Government’s fury by telling the truth about Canada’s footdragging on climate action. And having the audacity to advocate pollution taxes and tougher environmental policies on Alberta’s Tar Sands – recommendations which are in line with many respected environmental NGO’s including the Pembina Institute and the David Suzuki Foundation. Nektarina Non-Profit has issued this statement about the concerted effort the Harper Government, through its Canadian embassies, have been making to shut down James’ art exhibit:

When Nektarina decided to present Franke’s artwork in a series of exhibitions in Europe and Central Asia, we felt confident of the support of Canada – Franke’s homeland. Regrettably, the Canadian Government has since declined support for the project, verbally explaining that “She (Franke James) speaks against the Canadian Government”. Nektarina Non Profit was deeply surprised and disappointed by the reaction of official Canada, yet we decided to carry on with the project.Nektarina Non Profit believes that it is the right of every person – artists and intellectuals in particular – to freely express their opinion and to be able to pose the question about their government’s accountability on specific decisions. This is all the more important when such governmental decisions potentially impact the welfare of a large demographic, natural resources or both.

In the past few months we have encountered many difficulties in organizing the exhibitions, usually connected to interventions of the Canadian Government or institutions under Canadian governmental control. We continued to look for ways to collaborate with the home land of the artist, although at times we felt patronized and even intimidated, as a small NGO trying to reach an understanding with a powerful state.

This was most surprising given Canada´s reputation over many decades as a leader in promoting democratic freedoms, the right of free expression and also supporting the international community (through its role as a peace keeper and in many other ways). It is clear that Canada has a difficult position to resolve in relation to its narrower national interests (in particular the exploitation of natural resources) and its wider responsibility in the international community. We will continue to try to reach out to Canadian society and we feel sure that the positions taken do not reflect the attitudes of Canadian society as a whole and we are confident that we have many friends in the country.

To help make Franke’s powerful “What Can One Person Do?” exhibit a reality, please consider donating $5 or more to Nektarina Non-Profit (the corporate sponsor cancelled after pressure from the Harper Government). Click here to donate on-line. And here’s a challenge from me – I’ll match every $5 that one of you, my blog readers, donates (you let me know in the comment section or by email at 350orbust@gmail.com). Let’s see what we can do!

To read more about the anti-democratic, bullying actions of the Harper Government, as well as more ideas for taking action, go to Franke James’ blog.

More links:

Nektarina Non-Profit

My Green Conscience

Franke James Needs YOUR Support

Feds Silence scientist over West Coast Salmon Study

Another Canadian Muzzled By Harper

This guest posting was submitted to a local newspaper recently in response to an opinion piece entitled “Why Dismiss Dissent” by right-wing ideologue Peter Worthington. While the said newspaper declined to publish it, I am happy to give it space here:

In this article, Mr. Worthington parrots the usual climate change-denying arguments and pseudo-science: Humans are too insignificant to cause climate change; carbon dioxide is our friend; climate change is a conspiracy by poor countries to dupe rich countries into giving them money; etc. What Mr. Worthington fails to do is address any of the vast body of research which shows convincingly that the earth is warming quickly and beyond normal variations. He also entirely fails to mention that virtually all reputable climate scientists from around the world and across numerous scientific disciplines agree that global warming is real and threatens humanity’s future, that it is caused by human activity and industry, and that the need to change this constitutes an emergency. While there are still some details of global warming which spark debate between serious scientists (i.e.those scientists who use their skills to look for the truth and not to promote an agenda), the basic facts have been settled. Moreover, despite Mr. Worthington’s claims, there is really no believable way in which all these diverse scientists from around the world could be conspiring to deceive the world into accepting global warming as real when it is not. And what would be the point? They don’t stand to gain anything and would actually stand to lose a great deal by lying. On the other hand, most prominent climate change deniers have either demonstrable links to organizations whom the status quo benefits (oil and coal producers, etc.) or, as with Mr. Worthington, to right-wing lobby groups who are funded by these organizations. One has to ask which group is more likely to be trying to deceive the public.

The situation is this: We are all on the Titanic speeding through the North Atlantic night. Someone has just spotted what looks like a very large iceberg dead ahead and we are bearing down on it fast. The crew begins rushing to avoid the collision but the ship owner shows up and begins shouting that we should all stop and discuss this first. Maybe the iceberg is smaller than it looks, or further away. Maybe the ship could survive the impact. Maybe the ship can turn faster than we think. Maybe turning sharply will cause some passengers to fall out of bed andsue the ship owner. We should probably just wait and see what happens.

Does this approach make ANY sense?

Mr. Worthington, given the relatively small long-term cost of changing our
greenhouse gas-emitting ways and the absolute catastrophe which awaits humanity if
scientists are right about climate change, isn’t your recommendation for continued
inaction kind of irresponsible?

Is The Kremlin Now In Charge? Harper Government Silencing Canadian Artists And Scientists

Climate Change Deniers Risk Catastrophe