I feel I should respond to “Activism unwanted” (The News, August 16). I followed the writer’s recommendation, and did some research on UNESCO and their policies.
From their website: “UNESCO works to create the conditions for dialogue among civilizations, cultures and peoples, based upon respect for commonly shared values.
“It is through this dialogue that the world can achieve global visions of sustainable development encompassing observance of human rights, mutual respect and the alleviation of poverty, all of which are at the heart of UNESCO’S mission and activities.”
After reading that, could the writer of the aforementioned letter fill us in on what plans UNESCO would like to see for our biosphere, if environmental policy is not in their interest?
I assume that the so-called activism was advocating an environmental policy, but we haven’t really been informed about these views.
Instead we’ve just been provided with a labelling that strikes fear to the heart of any good capitalist.
To me it would seem that a conservation policy with the goal of restoring cultural appreciation of our forests, ensuring sustainable development of resources therein, and acknowledgement of our rights as people to protect the environment that sustains us, should be in line with UNESCO’s goals.
If not, then I ask again, what role does UNESCO have in our biosphere? Are they just a facade? If so, do we want them deciding “what’s worth saving” in our backyard?
The writer makes comparison of the organization, were it to advocate these environmental views to that of the Boy Scouts, who, were they to advocate against drunk driving, may lose their funding and stakeholder engagement.
That would be a shame indeed, those activist Boy Scouts getting distracted trying to save lives.
C. Pahl
Parksville
