Three current public appeals cry out for public debate: the reaction to restrictions on “cosmetic pesticides/herbicides”, Smart Centre’s “Do you want another shopping centre” and Colin Mayes “The Gang’s All Here”. All three divert attention from the core issues, attack the credibility of those who do not agree with them, and appeal to the basest motives of fear, greed and calculated ignorance.
The common disappointment in my decades of experience as counsellor and mediator, has been the assumption that if I really listen to someone, I must be agreeing with them. Conversely, if I raise some objection to what they are saying, I must be in opposition. Seldom do I encounter a situation in which everyone benefits from the respectful exchange of ideas.
Last summer’s broadcast debates by the candidates for National Chief of the Native Brotherhood were a refreshing exception. Not only did each candidate hear the others out, he even risked agreement and acknowledgment of the validity of their various points of view. What a contrast to what passes for “debate” in the dominant culture!
Locally, I see our community entangled in “information” exchange, apparently attempting to overwhelm perceived opposition with an avalanche of “facts and figures”. Meanwhile, the process and possibility of consensus is neglected. The much-praised public hearing last year was a classic example – at no time was there any dialogue to challenge underlying assumptions and conclusions, leaving those defending their points of view free to bad-mouth any contrarians.
I join Ian Wickett in calling for regular public forums that nurture a non-partisan exchange. When the original plans for council chambers in the new city hall were publicized, I thought that they might provide a suitable setting – but the end result is more like a bear pit. The new First Nations extension at OUC would be ideal, and perhaps might access the same respectful tradition to which I alluded earlier.
Tim Lavery
Guest Contributor
leahsalmonarm
Ian Wickett
Don Sawyer
Bill Remphrey
Bill Grainger
2 responses so far ↓
Steve Mennie // November 3, 2009 at 6:10 pm
Dave says:
“…. Meanwhile, the process and possibility of consensus is neglected. The much-praised public hearing last year was a classic example – at no time was there any dialogue to challenge underlying assumptions and conclusions, leaving those defending their points of view free to bad-mouth any contrarians…”
Must say I agree with Dave…the debate about the viability of Smart Centres development on the flood at times seems to be taking place inside a giant echo chamber far removed from what seems to me to be the heart of the matter. As each side attempts to bury the other in a blizzard of stastistics, claims and counter-claims we willfully ignore our abiding faith in the God of eternal growth..a faith that puts the lie to all of our best intentions.
We seem to have dismissed the idea of limits. But our dismissal of them does not make them go away..there are always limits and our vaunted technology – while it may move the posts or effect the specific manner inwhich we interact with those limits – it too operates within those limits.
And if we are unable or inwilling to limit ourselves as a species then Mother Nature (as the saying goes) will. In order to place limits on our behaviour vis a vis the planet, we need to know what we value as a people.
This is, for me, the missing element in the present debate.
Ian Wickett // November 4, 2009 at 7:18 am
Steve raises the question of limits to growth, as did a letter-writer in last week’s Observer. I agree completely with the over-arching importance of this question.
That said, I am certain that Salmon Arm will face growth pressures in the next ten years for many reasons such as immigration, ease of communication, increasing transportation costs within large centres, and retirements.
It is vitally important for us as a community to ensure that this growth takes place in a manner which minimizes the impact on the land and minimizes the consumption of energy.