Fletcher represents corporate views

Letter to the editor on columnist's perspective on Kitimat pipeline

Re: Questioning U.S. “environmentalists,” Jan. 25, by Tom Fletcher.

Fletcher, using populist tactics, writes “Haisla members told the throng of out-of-town professional protesters to sit down and shut up. They don’t need self-appointed urbanites to speak for them.”

In the old days populist tactics were used to rouse people against the corporations. We have fallen so far now that populist tactics are used by corporations against the people.

There are many different reasons to object to the tar sands pipeline to Kitimat. The local people make one kind of protest: the importance of the place to their lives and culture. That is an important and valid concern and must be voiced.

There are other more technical reasons to oppose the pipeline. Working through the science and the engineering required to understand and explain this type of reason may well require help from urbanites. The reviled elites: the folks who have university degrees and study issues related to pipeline engineering, route geology and oil tanker navigation.

As far as being self-appointed goes, if people do not volunteer to present the other side of this case, who would? Would Enbridge produce an unbiased document? It is possible, but should we rely on that? Would the government present the other side of the case? With the Harper government laying off civil servants from the environment ministry with both hands, not much chance there.

Does the government fund opposition analysis of these issues? Liberal governments used to fund challenge cases. Harper cancelled this funding.

So, without these self-appointed urbanites, where would we get something other than the corporate view?

It looks like the media has dropped the ball on this, folding to corporate pressure.

The comments in the article on logging and the tar sands are equally corporatist astro turfing.

Has the Black side become the dark side?

Brent Beach

Victoria