Citizen protests come in a variety of forms. Some take to the street or show up at Parliament Hill, placards in hand. Others strike, petition, blockade and sit-in (or bed-in, a la Lennon; but I digress).Then there are blackouts – the darkening of websites.

Akin to the good ‘ole fashion silent treatment, this tactic is quickly becoming one of the more powerful methods of protest. Take the SOPA/PIPA blackout on January 18 of this year, the largest online protest ever recorded. With the goal of protesting two anti-piracy bills — SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) in the U.S. House of Representatives and PIPA (Protect Intellectual Property Act) in the Senate — the day-long event saw thousands of websites take part. Proposed changes to copyright laws in New Zealand, meanwhile, inspired a widespread and highly impactful blackout in 2009.

Right here at home, Black Out Speak Out — organized by 12 environmental charities — is asking supporters to darken their websites today (June 4) in protest of a proposed bill they say will effectively weaken environmental protection measures and silence the voice of Canadians. The event is a culmination of a strong, unified campaign launched on May 7 that saw ads placed in Canada’s major newspapers and a targeted media blitz. As of the writing of this piece, 133 “partners” signed up on blackoutspeakout.ca, each agreeing to darken their own sites in support, though the final tally is as yet unknown.

As Canada’s first nationwide blackout, we wanted to know: what motivated the group to take action? What message are they trying to convey and what are they hoping to achieve?

Why?

As discussed in an earlier article, the situation has been simmering between environmental groups and the federal government for a while now. “We’ve seen a more systematic and concerted attack both on us as a charity and the issues we care about over the last six months,” offers Gillian McEachern, climate and program manager at Environmental Defence. “It’s been quite focused on the fact that we are opposing big new tar sands projects.”

So, with the oil industry and its proponent, Ethical Oil, becoming more combative and a rise in government opposition and rhetoric, it was time, she says. “And when the budget was released this year, it was clear we needed to become more coordinated in our response,” shares McEachern.”There were serious attempts to silence us and if we allowed that to happen, it could impact the future of Canada if we’re not allowing people to speak out about issues they care about.”

The essentials

To better understand the blackout, one needs to appreciate the issues it’s trying to address. Though it’s hard to tackle them all in one piece, at its heart are proposed changes in the federal government budget bill to Canada’s environmental laws. “We’re concerned we’re moving backwards at a time when our understanding of environmental need and our responsibility to protect the environment for ourselves and our kids is probably greatest than it’s ever been,” explains Ecojustice Executive Director Devon Page.

On a personal level, considering the time and energy that Ecojustice invested over the last 21 years implementing and enforcing strong environmental laws, Page can’t help but take it to heart when the government chips away at their efforts.

A related concern involves what the groups see as the undermining of public debate and awareness. The bill in question, you see, involves a diverse mix of issues. “Where traditionally you would have a bill that deals with revenue and taxation measures, here, in effect, they’re seeking to hide major law changes in the midst of that,” Page offers. By packing in as much information as possible, the argument goes, there is less of a chance Canadians will truly understand the changes and have the opportunity to consult on their impact.

Affecting us all

Stifling debate around issues that affect the public interest is problematic enough. But, for anyone who thinks this is an issue that will impact only “environmental radicals” — to paraphrase Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver — Blackout organizers point out that simply is not the case. This is about democracy and the core Canadian value inherent in healthy debate, they say. “You can disagree with us but you need to be able to have that discussion,” says McEachern.

“The general public should be concerned,” echoes Page. “What the federal government is generally trying to do is stifle public commentary and criticism of its actions.” Besides, today’s attack may be on environmental groups but next month it can just as easily focus on another sector. Then there’s the $8 million the government is putting anew into the hands of the Canada Revenue Agency toward auditing charities, a move that may have a chilling effect throughout the sector.

What’s more, adds McEachern, some of the changes would effectively exclude Canadians from participating in environmental reviews of big projects, like Northern Gateway. “We want to make sure people understand and speak up for their need to have a voice in theses decision on the future of energy supply, water, climate, something that all Canadians have a right to be involved in.

Assess this (please)

Reviews are essential, after all. Yet, the National Energy Board – a science-based panel that determines if a project is in Canadians’ best interest — will see its power decrease. And the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act is being replaced with a new law, one that will see the federal government playing a lesser role in protecting Canadians from harmful developments, deferring instead the decisions on the environment to the provinces. The new rules, moreover, will have the potential to be applied retroactively to projects already underway.

Let’s talk for a moment about the oft-misunderstood environmental assessment. It’s based on the theory that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound in cure, explains Page. Essentially, before a shovel hits the ground on any project, the government assesses the risks and determines whether they outweigh the benefits or vice versa. At top-of-mind, always, is the question: is it in the public interest to proceed?

Today both the federal government and the provinces can partake in assessments, as the constitution divides authority on many enviro-related issues between the two. But the proposed changes may alter that balance of power as the feds defer to the provinces. The problem? As far as environmental groups are concerned, federal assessments are more rigorous; making deferral problematic.

Take a proposed mine project in the central interior of British Columbia two years ago. Both the federal and provincial governments underwent independent environment assessments, with BC determining the risks were insignificant. The federal government, however, was horrified by its findings. They concluded the project, which would turn portions of a lake and river into a tailings pond, would effectively wipe out a significant lake known for its abundance of fish. The project was turned down. “The change that’s proposed would now mean that the BC system prevails,” says Page. “BC’s laws are geared a lot more toward approving projects.”

Success defined

Leading up to the blackout, it seems the coordinated effort is paying off. “We’re feeling pretty good,” says Page of the response. “They [the government] wanted the public not to pay attention; they depend on apathy.” But with plenty of groups throwing their support and positive media response, the mood is positive.

So, how would the group define success? For McEachern, awareness and participation is step one. “We’re hoping to have many groups from all walks of Canadian society take part with the goal of raising awareness among the general public about what this means for the environment, for democracy, for the future of our water, our air,” says McEachern.

The blackout should influence Canadians to speak out, she adds. “That includes making sure political leaders, elected officials, understand the concerns, effectively pushing back on the direction the government is heading.” In the long-term, she adds, the hope is for Canada to retain environmental safeguards and preserve the right to raise concerns and have open debate about big decisions that affect the future of the country.

According to Page, success is achieved simply: when the government changes its course of action. “This government has proven, time and time again that once they chart a course they seldom listen to the public that opposes it,” he says. “There have been a few cases where they have; we want to be one of those cases.”

Practically speaking, that means separating the bill’s traditional budget items from the substantive environment laws, and other laws for that matter; ensuring parliamentary debate around those bills and any substantive changes to environmental law; and allowing for public consultations on any impacts thereof. Environmental projects are simply too significant to be precluded from debate, he concludes.

Government retraction is an ambitious goal, to be sure, one shared by blackouts alluded to earlier. How did they fare, you ask? Well, New Zealand’s blackout led to the removal and redrafting of the controversial section of the law in question. However, two years later, the government re-introduced a watered-down version of the legislation, passing it under urgency. In the U.S., a number of supporters of the two American bills — prominent members of Congress to boot — withdrew their support thanks to the blackout. Moreover, protests forced key provisions to be stripped out of one bill, while the Obama administration shared its concern. In the end, determining SOPA and Pipa were not ready to go to a vote, they were sent back to the drawing table. Of course, as they are still “on the agenda”, the long-term impact of the SOPA blackout is still anyone’s guess.

No matter what transpires, Page claims the situation has just made them more determined to stand up and speak out. What’s more, he sees any legislative changes as potentially ramping up their workload. Whether the blackout achieves their goal of getting the government to step back from the legislation, the time is ripe for Ecojustice and other environmental groups, he says. “I think we’re at a stage when we’re really grappling with environmental issues, with appropriate policy and law. There’s never been a better time to do what we’re doing.”

Elisa Birnbaum is a freelance journalist, producer and communications consultant living in Toronto. She is also president of Elle Communications and can be reached at: info@ellecommunications.ca.

Please note: While we ensure that all links and email addresses are accurate at their publishing date, the quick-changing nature of the web means that some links to other websites and email addresses may no longer be accurate.