Well, that didn’t take long. The New Year isn’t even here yet and the Northern Gateway pipeline debate already begins to polarize.

First up, an argument that non-governmental organizations vowing to stop the proposed project following its approval by the National Energy Board — subject to more than 200 conditions — are somehow undermining the democratic process through intimidation, threats of violent protest, political sabotage, slander and disinformation.

This is all code. It is intended to define a category to which those who think the pipeline is a bad idea can be routinely consigned. Thus, opposition may be dismissed without assessing the merits of the objections — simply opposing the pipeline invites automatic framing of that protest as the work of enemies of the Canadian way of life.

British Columbians have heard all this rhetoric before. It is a propaganda strategy devised by giant public relations firms. It was first deployed here more than 20 years ago by the forest industry in response to protest and civil disobedience aimed at preventing the denuding of great swaths of the province with vast industrial clearcuts.

For those who need a refresher course on this strategy (and a handy antidote to its use in many other arenas), I recommend The War Against the Greens by indie journalist David Helvarg; The Age of Propaganda: The Everyday Use and Abuse of Persuasion by communications scholars Anthony Pratkanis and Elliot Aronson; and The Sultans of Sleaze: Public Relations and the Media by social analyst Joyce Nelson.

A word to the enthusiasts for this approach: It didn’t work in the early 1990s; it won’t work now.

As it turned out, the protests — even civil disobedience — didn’t result in the collapse of the economy. What did happen was that the forest industry modified its approach. Today, although there is still protest at the margins and over specifics of policy, industry has found that building consensus, engaging with critics and consultation is far more effective than confrontation.

Instead of seeking to polarize the issue into “them” versus “us,” advocates of such projects might think about the idea that “we” are “them,” in the sense that democracy accommodates dissent and the right of citizens to protest what their governments — and government proxies — want to do.

And that accommodation extends to civil disobedience, which can’t and shouldn’t be equated with criminal violence. Very few sympathize with criminal acts, but civil disobedience is another matter. If it weren’t for civil disobedience we would still be run by the Family Compact, would still have slavery and indentured labour instead of trade unions and labour codes, and women wouldn’t have the vote.

The inherent assumption in the demonization of opposition to the Northern Gateway pipeline proposal — please note, it’s a proposal that hasn’t yet addressed its ability to meet even the most basic conditions imposed by the NEB, let alone B.C. — is that the economic interests of giant corporations represent the Canadian way of life.

It is common for proponents of industrial mega-projects to portray their expectations of profit as vital to the economic interests of the nation. But the economic interests of Canada — or the province, or communities, or First Nations, or workers — are not what motivate corporations. They seek to do what is in their own immediate economic interests. This is fine. It’s called business. But it doesn’t follow that business interests and other interests automatically coincide.

Corporate interests can certainly be congruent with other interests, and they can be modified to complement one another. However, just because a trans-national corporation sees profit in a particular enterprise, it doesn’t follow that its interests are everyone’s.

So, as the “eco-terrorism” balloon is once again inflated, let us please keep in mind this fact.

Among those objecting to the Northern Gateway pipeline project as proposed are:

1. The official Opposition in the House of Commons; 2. The province of British Columbia; 3. The Union of B.C. Municipalities; 4. First Nations governments through whose territories the pipeline and tankers will pass; 5. Major trade unions, including Canada’s largest; 6. The municipal governments of Terrace, Prince Rupert, Victoria and the Regional District of Queen Charlotte; 7. The B.C. Wilderness Tourism Association; 8. Various non-governmental environmental organizations — they range from those who will employ direct action to those who reject it.

This opposition does not look like radical green eco-terrorists out to destroy business or the Canadian way of life. It looks like a broad cross-section of serious citizens with concerns to express. And have the democratic right to do so.

shume@islandnet.com