David Suzuki talks a lot. That's a good thing. And we think his meaning is usually pretty clear. He's articulate and knows how to communicate. That's what comes from being a broadcaster and writer for so many years.
But no matter how clear he or we think his words are, we sometimes end up having to explain his intended meaning.
Take some of his recent comments about the Green Party. Although his intention was neither to endorse nor criticize the party, his comments have been taken as both. Funny how people can find the opposite meaning (both of them inaccurate) in some simple and clear (well, they seemed clear at the time) statements.
The latest controversy erupted when Dr. Suzuki was quoted as telling Green Party leader Elizabeth May that he "can't wait until there is no Green party." We've had a flurry of calls and emails from people who are upset, figuring this means Dr. Suzuki wants the Greens out of the picture. Placing the quote in its context hasn't necessarily helped.
In one article that included the quote, Dr. Suzuki expresses his dismay with the fact that the environment has become partisan issue.
This is what he said:
"One of the most frustrating things that we have now is that the environment itself seems to be a political football. So, if you care about the environment, then you should vote Green. If you don't care about the environment, then vote conservative, and then there's the in between."
Part of that quote, "if you care about the environment, then you should vote Green", was used by the Greens to imply that Dr. Suzuki had endorsed the party.
Another article elaborated:
"As long as there's a Green party, the implication is that the Greens somehow have a stranglehold on this issue; they're the ones that worry about the environment so the other parties can worry about other things. I don't think it's a ghetto subject."
Of course, what seemed clear to Dr. Suzuki and to us is simply that the environment shouldn't be a partisan issue. If you're a Conservative who believes in the importance of protecting the environment, you should be able to vote Conservative without compromise, just as an environmentally aware NDP supporter or Liberal should be able to vote for his or her party of choice. If all the political parties saw the environment as a priority and stopped tossing it around as a political football, we wouldn't need to have a Green Party. We could vote for the party whose fiscal and social policies fit with our beliefs. In an ideal world, all parties would be green parties.
Too bad it's not an ideal world.
13 Comments
While I agree with the general idea, I am not fond of the implication that the Green Party of Canada is a single-issue party only concerned with the environment. This is not the case: the GPC has as complete and comprehensive a political platform as any of the other major political parties in Canada. In my case, this is the party whose fiscal and social policies fit with my beliefs. Indeed, one part of that is making the environmental component of their platform a central focus, as it should be. However, even if the Liberals, Conservatives, and NDP were to suddenly prioritize environmental issues to the same degree, I can assure you that the GPC would continue to have supporters and would not necessarily just go away.
Yes, I have to agree with Aaron. The Green Party won me over in the last provincial election with their social policies. They aren't just a one-issue party. I completely understand what Dr. Suzuki is saying, but at the same time I feel like the quote above just contributes to the idea that the Greens are soley about the environment and have no other ideas.
Where can I get a simple, clear, impartial explanation of the Green Shift Carbon Tax plan proposed by the Liberals, and the Cap and Trade plan proposed by the NDP?
I would also like to see the environmental plan of the Green party. I think I heard Elizabeth May say that it is essentially the same as the Liberal plan. I won't even bother with the plan of the Conservatives. If they cannot even bother to offset the carbon footprint of the PM's plane, then they have no plan whatsoever and the evnvironment is of no importance to them.
Fran
I'm a Suzuki supporter/donator and I am voting Conservative. But, with all due respect Professor Suzuki get off the fence! Quit hiding behind the notion that you have to protect your Foundation's charity status. Quit using that as an excuse to not actually endorse someone. That's weak! If you believe someone can carry your principles to the political arena then say so.
As for this Ian Harrington fellow give me a break! The Green Party is always looking for these reference that they have David Suzuki's support and that they are it when it comes to the environment. Suzuki hasn't endorsed anyone! There such an immature political party always grasping at something to show that they are "all knowing and all wise" and the rest of us peons can never measure up. The ones that whined loud enough to get a seat at the debate table when their party really just is the check for "none of the above". Why don't you guys actually try something amazing like getting someone elected! Even your party Leader Elizabeth May doesn't want to really implement her ideas that's why she chose to run against Peter Mackay because she knows she can't win. That way she won't ever have to actually "work" just be the forever whining antagonist. I haven't seen one poll that even suggests you guys will win one riding. Show me "one" riding that you guys expect to win.
I find it laughable that I receive dozens of emails and letters from Suzuki a year asking me for money. Because the reality is that "money" got us into this environmental problem and money is going to get us out it. Credit to the Liberals and the NDP on this too. They have actually elected people who have implemented policies and got the money to actually solve these problems. The Greens there nothing more then a bunch of people who never want to take responsibility just protest everything with their "X" meaning none of the above. That's all they are a party of "none of the above."
The Conservatives aren't perfect and I am strong enough to admit that. But, they will lead this country through these tough economic times just like the Liberals did in the 90s and make this country prosper. Then when I get letters from David Suzuki asking me for more money. I have plenty of it to give and then Suzuki can continue on his do-gooder quest to save us for ourselves.
Oddly enough it wasn't the environmental issue that won me over with the Greens either (as Tamara mentioned, they're not *only* about the environment), it was their policy on health that really made me take notice. Their stance on the environment was just icing on the cake (healthy cake!)
http://www.greenparty.ca/en/policy/healthpromotion
People never cease to astonish me. Mr. Suzuki is a wise individual as I would hope that the majority of people are (debatable) but politics isn't solely about the enviroment. Take the green out of the green party and scrutinize the other issues as well. I've listened to Ms. May and she seems sincere. She's not flying gas guzzling airplanes like the rest of them and Mr. Harper doesn't even off set his enviromental damage,so I believe that she's concerned about the enviroment but is she concerned about the economy, crime, poverty, healthcare, homelessness, etc? Apparently yes. What about Mr. Harpers conservatives? Well what does the evidence suggest? Talks cheap, I don't care who it comes from, I judge things by the evidence and when you go to the polls you should too.
I am a supporter of the Green Party in principle, but must be honest that I personally find it wise to vote for the best local candidate. This has not always been possible. That said, as much as I admire most of the platform (who ever agrees with everything a party stands for?), I am disappointed the Green Party took Dr. Suzuki's quote out completely out of context. It was clearly not an indorsement but a general comment on Canadain politics.
It would be nice in the environment was a higher priority for all parties. Some of them really just don't get it.
Green is a movement more than it is a party, and since I already voted Green in the advance poll of the cancelled Guelph by-election that's where my vote is going again. Quite frankly it wouldn't bother me if the Green Party got folded into a united progressive party so long as the party was called the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation. To me that's the most holistic concept Canada ever had, it implies an inclusive body politic, it's rooed in 'the green' as commons, and as far as I'm concerned the federation should actually be rooted in watershed bioregional governments with provinces devolving into custom Houses. This whole issue reminds me Virgina Wolfe's A Room of One's Own, in which she argued that writing by women would mature only when it ceased to be about writing by women. The Greens actually have done that, since their policies are not simply about being green, but rather, like all intelligent presuppositional philosophers, their policies are sequential to a chosen first principle, which then branch into refined details. As Zimmy Kanata's claims of supporting Suzuki while voting Conservative, seems more like a conservative blogger come to stir the pot and giggle offstage.
Ms Stephanie Hendy wants to vote Conservative because she thinks they are going to lead us out of tough economic times. I guess Ms Hendy has forgotten that Mr Flaherty's tough economic theories almost destroyed Ontario back in the bad old days of Harris. If Mr Stephen Harper is so smart how come he chose as Minister of Finance a man who left Ontario, once the richest province in Canada, five billion dollars in deficit? Time after time the Conservatives have proven that they are simply lousy money managers. Sorry Ms Hendy, but you should really put your faith someplace else because the Conservatives are only going to put us in a big hole. They have already eaten away at the surplus that was there when they came into office. It is only a matter of time before Canada goes "deficit "with them in power. The only ones who prosper under Conservative rule are the already rich corporations, for whom Mr Harper has already made such extensive allowances. Read, Ms Hendy. Find out what really happened, don't just look at Mr Harper's baby blues.
How can someone support the environment and vote conservative?
What Ian and others try to do is reduce the environment to an issue separate from economic, cultural, foriegn or social policy. By definition it is part of these issues. Our environment is just that ...the food we eat the air we breath the movies we watch, the countries we travel to. Think about it. I f Barrack Obama wins in the US and Harper wins a majority in Canada we will be seen as the nation of dinosaurs (4000 year old ones at that) just as Howard's Australia was seen until Aussies saw the light.
If you think that Harper's decisions were centrist as a minority leader/bully wait until he gets a majority and puts forth a neo-liberal, anti-gay, anti-(fill in the blank) government that will transform the environment of Canada into something TOXIC! This man will say/promise anything to get a majority and then watch out.
I have voted for every party in my years as a voter and this time I may vote conservative...if I think think that: 1) Harper is going to win 2) the local tory is decent, agrees to a recall if he votes against his local promises 3) will fight the social conservatives who want to turn back the clock on women's and gay rights and to throw our joint smokign children in jail.
Greg
It's a give in that the green party is all about the environment and everybody is aware of that but many people aren't aware of their other policies because in order to learn of them they must be sought out. In last night's political bebate, while the other party leaders were squabbling and bickering like school children I saw an opportunity for Ms. May to highlight and articulate the green party policies and yet the opportunity passed her by. In today's world, politics is a blood sport and there's little room for the timid and weak of heart and while the green party has some very intelligent policies, if people aren't aware of them why would they vote green? Anybody can engage in a debate and deceive constituents with lies and double talk but when there's evidence to substantiate ones agenda, it's important to stand up and be recognized. I believe Ms. May would secure many more votes if she were more assertive.
I have to agree with some of the other comments that it does a real injustice to the Green Party to say <quote>: "If all the political parties saw the environment as a priority and stopped tossing it around as a political football, we wouldn't need to have a Green Party. We could vote for the party whose fiscal and social policies fit with our beliefs." First off, the very reason that there IS a Green Party in the first place is to try to place environmental issues in the forefront and thus get them onto the radar of all other political parties. Without a Green Party, how much airtime does anyone think environmental issues would get during campaigns? Secondly, as some others have commented, I happen to think that the fiscal and social policies of the Green Party ARE the best fit with my beliefs. And I think that Elizabeth May's excellent performance in the leadership debates actually helped many other Canadians realize that the Green Party is far from a one issue party, just as many in Quebec realize that the Bloc have excellent policy positions beyond separatism.
That said, even though I would prefer to vote Green and have done so in any previous election where I was offered the option, I am going to be voting strategically for the first time in this election. Because I know that in our first-past-the-post system it is highly unlikely that more than one or two ridings in the country have the support for the Greens to see a Green MP elected. And I don't think the country can afford another Harper government. So I am encouraging my friends to visit the www.voteforenvironment.ca website to see who has the best chance in their riding to beat the Conservatives. But I'm also encouraging them to go to www.fairvote.ca to work toward electoral reform, so that in the future everyone can vote with their heart and know that their vote will actually count.
I don't see teh Greens going away very quickly because, as more people get a more complete understanding of the GPC principles and platform through this election., they will find that there's more to it than a fluffed environmental policy.
The Greens are the first party I know of who are rooted in an overarching set of values that I can clearly recognize and use as a practical benchmark for policies. The root principle is "sustainability" in all aspects of governance, so it is necessarily a mandate for responsible economic management and also a bellwether for social policies, education, health care , defence, etc. "If we're going to do this, can we support it long enough to have real lasting value?" Works for me.
The other parties are too "political" for my taste, basing their policies on the self-serving wants of various interest groups who, they believe, have enough sway to put them in power. The Harper conservatives and, I suppose, the NDP are more ideologically driven but their platforms are built on what they dislike, not what they aspire to. The LIberals seem more of the "tell me what you want and I'll promise it to you" variety. Compared to the Greens, all of the root principles in other parties are too vague or too abstract to provide a clear beacon of leadership. That's why our elections are characterised more by fearmongering and rhetoric than by vision and education.
So -- that got very long-winded -- but the point is that the Green Party brings more to the table than one issue that, hopefully, will go away before long. Once energy and pollution and global warming require less politcal attention, we will still need "sustainable" solutions to many other aspects of Canadian life.
See you all next election!