By now, the plight of government scientists is reasonably well-known. Despite the Harper propaganda machine's vehement campaign to deny the practice, more and more Canadians have become aware that the regime has been systematically muzzling its scientists, whose research and hard data frequently contradict and expose as lies the ideology that passes as truth in our debased democracy.
Because we have a collectively short memory, every so often we need to be reminded of some harsh realities, as was done on September 16 when scientists rallied against government efforts to suppress much-needed information.
David Schindler, described as the Killam Memorial Professor of Ecology emeritus at the University of Alberta, has a well-written piece in today's Star reminding all of us of the government's odious practices.
Entitled Remove the muzzle from government scientists, the article begins by reminding us of the proud and often pivotal role Canadian science, much of it governmental, has played in some far-reaching environmental initiatives, including the fact that
Canada was the first country to regulate phosphorus in sewage and detergents, leading to the recovery of many lakes from algal blooms.
Canada also led global efforts to decrease emissions of ozone-depleting chemicals, resulting in the Montreal Protocol.
...policies to control acid rain, based largely on science from government departments, were implemented.
Shindler himself left government science when things began to change. The first changes were somewhat subtle, beginning in the 1990s:
Scientists ... were warned to avoid directly criticizing government policies, even environmentally harmful ones. Rebukes were mild for a scientist who challenged his political masters. At worst, a scolding letter was “put on your file.”
Things steadily deteriorated, with restrictions reaching their nadir once the Harper regime became ensconced:
Shortly after it took office, scientists were told they must have permission from bureaucrats to speak publicly. Bureaucrats and communications officers issued “speaking lines” that must be used to avoid criticism of policies. The permitted lines were often so inane that most scientists chose to remain silent rather be embarrassed by using them.
This weakening of the scientific voice had dire consequences, including the collapse of the cod industry, but much worse was to come:
The government divested itself of the Experimental Lakes Project, government contaminants programs, climate projects and the Arctic PEARL project. The Fisheries Act and the Navigable Waters Act were changed to provide less protection, while expediting large industrial developments.
And now, of course, we have the almost daily spectacle of government ministers defending the indefensible, with lies about subjects ranging from greenhouse gas emissions to oilsands and protection of fisheries.
Shindler ends his piece with the following sobering thoughts:
We must take government science back from politicians who would twist or hide science that reveals flaws in their policies. We deserve to know the truth about the impacts of proposed developments on our environment, in order to avoid mistakes that will be costly to future generations.
Government science once provided this information, and it must be changed to do so again. The health of not only our environment, but of Canadian democracy, depends on it.
We can expect the Harper cabal to continue to fight any such ideas vigorously, as is the wont of repressive regimes everywhere.
