Skip to content

Letters: Please dig deeper into protesters’ finances

Richmond News readers have their own take on the fate of the Save Old Growth protesters
save-old-growth-massey
Richmond News readers have their own take on the fate of the Save Old Growth protesters

Dear Editor,

Re: “Crown seeks jail time for protester” and “When is breaking the law justified?” News, Aug. 11.

Last week’s editorial suggested the protestors at the Richmond courthouse were on trial because they had done “the wrong thing for the right reason.”  I would argue that both the actions and the stated reasons deserve scrutiny.

Where did the money come from to purchase the commercially-produced signs held up to the cameras?  Who was paying for the defence lawyers, who in all likelihood had coached their clients in how to elicit the maximum amount of sympathy from the judge?

Behind the scenes, there are well-funded organizations encouraging and supporting the protest actions.

The organization now calling itself “Save Old Growth” (SOG) is federally incorporated as non-profit under the name “Eco-Mobilization Canada.” It both solicits donations through its website and receives funding from the US-based Climate Emergency Fund.

Previously protesting as “Extinction Rebellion,” SOG has rebranded under the old growth issue in the hopes of creating a “much-needed win for the environmental movement” and spurring more climate action. (What they don’t say is that “more action” also means “more donations.”)

Climate change and old growth are both hot-button topics right now, but the science linking the two is not black and white. Whether logging raises or lowers carbon emissions over the long run depends on many different things.

Climate science is complex, as are human motivations. While the three protesters in court no doubt strongly believe in their cause, their conviction alone does not automatically entitle them to claim their demands are “right.”

Alice Palmer

RICHMOND