Poaching is generally divided into two groups: those that poach animals to sell on the black market, and those that poach to survive. The question that was addressed in this “Planet Earth” documentary, and the one that I pose to you now, is when it comes to feeding a starving family, or protecting the health of an animal population, which is most important?

In short, which do we value more, a protected animal or a human being? Survival poaching will continue, especially in areas of the world where the food itself, not just the means to buy it, is scarce.

This debate between people who are trying to survive and conservationists trying to save a species really drove home for me that *poverty* is always part of the equation.

Thoughts, anyone?

As a precursor to the April 12th post, please enjoy the below brief video of some of the wonder of our planet.

What made this particular refugee claim newsworthy? Thousands of refugee claims are processed in Canada every year that are the result of violent racial discrimination and oppression. Why was Huntley’s case singled out as newsworthy… was it because he is caucasian? Is it SO rare that a white person from another country applies for refugee status as to make it newsworthy? Is it really that rare; are white people universally privileged and immune from racial oppression? Oh, but wait… this story gets better!

Huntley’s refugee claim is now under review after last week’s media coverage. Why, you ask? No, it’s not because his claim of being violently attacked is being investigated; and no, it’s not because the voracity of his claim is being challenged. In response to the media coverage of Huntley’s case, the South African government released a statement saying that “white South Africans live in peace”. So, the Canadian government, apparently taking this statement at face value, has put his claim in review. Why would he need refugee status if his government says that you all live in perfect harmony?

The legitimacy of Huntley’s claim aside, I find the statement made by the S.A. government to be just a tiny bit ludicrous. Is there a population in ANY country where an entire demographic of people live in total peace with one another? Moreover, why hasn’t the mainstream media picked up on the larger story? If the government is seriously saying that the white population of South Africa lives in peace, are they not indicating that white people are immune to the corruption and turmoil that has existed in South Africa for so long?

It seems to me that this is a topic that should be questioned endlessly – else we conclude that the most overt example of white-skin privilege can be found in South African, and be endorsed by our own government as it tosses out a refugee claim because Huntley is white – and therefore “lives in peace”.

Any thoughts?

There’s a new buzz word that I really dig that’s being used to describe this conundrum – eco-discrimination. The hot topics of the day, such as the unanimous (albeit grudgingly) support in the Saskatchewan Legislature of nuclear power, or the equally hot debate surrounding Regina’s new stadium, often neglect that massive amounts of discrimination go into decisions like these. Especially when it comes to location – and the consequences are grave.

There’s a reason that Regina’s landfill is located just outside the city, right by our penitentiary. No one wanted a damn landfill in his or her neighbourhood. The consequences? Environmental standards require that garbage dumps be built on top of at least 8-10 feet of clay when they’re in proximity to a water supply or aquifer. Regina’s landfill is built above only 2 feet of clay, putting an aquifer that supplies vast numbers of Regina citizens with water at risk. It was viewed as the only acceptable place… and we will pay the price.

Mosaic Stadium, home of the Saskatchewan Roughriders, was built in one of the lowest income communities in Regina. Why? Because these citizens had little means of protesting it – unlike the successful protests that prevented the stadium being built elsewhere. Moreover, let’s set aside the accompanying noise levels for a moment. Stadiums have the ability to bring communities together with sport and cultural events – if they can afford to go to them. So, how nice for little Timmy or Suzie, getting to watch all the people going to events in the stadium across the street that they don’t have the money to attend. Does anyone else see the irony here?

As a last example of eco-discrimination, take the Saskatchewan government’s newfound collective support for nuclear power. Numerous Indigenous communities are bracing themselves for the inevitable battle for environmental and human rights. The fact remains that many lucrative, beneficial, yet environmentally invasive projects are situated incredibly close to Indigenous communities whose opinions are neither valued nor wanted by industry or government. One needs only to look to natural resource industry for existing examples.

Location matters – both of those making the decisions, but also the communities that will be affected. We must think critically about why certain locations are chosen for projects like stadiums and power plants, and who comprises the communities that live in proximity. Eco-discrimination takes many forms, but the underlying commonality is that it takes advantage of communities with little recourse to defend their rights. If you are in favour of Regina’s new stadium or prospective nuclear power plant, I ask you – whose backyard should they be built in?