Home CommentaryOpinions The Irony is in the name

The Irony is in the name

by Callie Giaccone September 24, 2019
The Irony is in the name

If we need to push the agenda on climate change, arguably the single most important focus in this year’s election, then why should we avoid voting for the Green Party?

They have answered that question for us. Throughout their campaign, they have shown a lack of social awareness. Their direct, tunnel-vision approach to the environment is detrimental to the needs of society.

The Green Party has been criticized for defending Bill 21. According to Global News, Elizabeth May, Leader of the Green Party, is encouraging her candidates not to comment when they do not feel like they want to.

“If you don’t have an opinion, you’re allowed to say: I don’t have an opinion,” May said.

Although this comment may seem diplomatic, it is far from it. What May does not seem to realize is that not having an opinion is an opinion. When people with platforms shy away from selective social and political issues, they are sending a message that the issue they are ignoring is not important. Complacency and avoidance are political positions. Let’s use Danny Celovsky as another example.

Danny Celovsky is a Green Party candidate for Bay of Quinte. According to the PressProgress, this year, Celovsky jumped in on a Twitter discussion in hopes to end an argument regarding a person who raised a Nazi Swastika flag in May this year in a small village called Keilliher, Saskatchewan.

His stance was that this issue is not as important as the environment. Celovsky’s reaction speaks directly to his priorities as a candidate and a leader. When Celovsky tries to bring the conversation “back to the planet,” he is pushing the conversation away from humanitarianism.

He said the opposing comments, “focus too much on distractions made by some that are designed to distract us from the immediate crisis” — “the future of all life on our planet.”

The article also states that although Celovsky believes in equality, he doesn’t care to “focus on racism.”

He is lacking awareness of his position in society. Not “focusing” on racism is easy to do for him as a white man.

There are other cases that uncover the skewed perception of Green Party Candidates.

Jonathan Richardson, a former NDP candidate, spoke openly about his opinion of Jagmeet Singh’s religion and culture. According to the National Post, Richardson said Singh was having trouble finding a candidate in New Brunswick because of his race and religion.

In an article for CBC, May explained that even though she believes every woman has the right to a safe, legal abortion, her party members are allowed to want to reopen the debate. May does not seem to realize that by defending members in this way, she is condoning their concerning behaviour.

In another article by CBC, former Green Party candidate Monika Schaefer openely denied the existence of the Holocaust. She said in a video, “This is the biggest and most pernicious and persistent lie in all of history.”

I wish that was all. Unfortunately, I just scratched the surface.

Let’s look at the facts. According to ScienceDirect, “those people who are most vulnerable to the adverse environmental and health consequences of climate change include poor people, members of minority groups, women, children, older people, people with chronic diseases and disabilities…” etc.

The Green Party is operating carelessly and dangerously, highlighting their privilege. Wake up. Climate justice and environmental issues are closely linked to social justice. Ignoring these elements is oversimplifying a multidimensional issue, and will create a harmful result.

Without this understanding – we are just watering dead grass.

 

Graphic by Victoria Blair

Related Articles