Summary of Criticism for "Mother Canada" / Green Cove Project

Joe Ward Follow Me

Posted this 2015-06-27 5:34 PM ADT (updated 2015-06-30 12:00 AM ADT)

Here's a summary of complaints about Parks Canada and the "Mother Canada" Project at Green Cove, Cape Breton taken from surveying media reports from the initial announcement up to present (June 27th, 2015):

What are some other key issues not listed here?
Which of these concerns do you share?

Which concerns do you feel are unsubstantiated or invalid?
How would you "fix" the project?

Important Notes on Data:

Data was extracted by quickly reviewing the majority of news articles on the subject, as listed in Google News search.
This chart summarizes criticism noted in the media. It is not intended to be validated criticism. This is left for discussion.
Date of first occurrence of criticism, or if it has since been deemphasized is not indicated.

There is no weight assigned based on frequency of occurrence. Some criticisms are frequently repeated. Others may have been single instance.
There is no weight assigned to "authority" of the person or group waging the criticism, though some sources are noted.
There is no indication of the proponents of the project or the various arguments in favor of the project. It is only intended to help understand what factors are being criticized.

Chart to Show Relative Scale:

Posted by Joe Ward
Receive news by email and share your news and events for free on goCapeBreton.com
SHOW ME HOW

Like 3 Dislike 0

FOLLOW 6

4,847 49

Criticism of the "Mother Canada" project at Green Cove and Parks Canada has been a hot topic in the media. Here are the summarized objections.

A&E Libraries, Museums & Heritage

49

Depth
Mathew Georghiou Follow Me 2015-06-28 1:35 AM ADT Reply 2 1 Nice post Joe. Infographics are certainly useful in situations like this. I have been in some of the many discussion on Facebook about the Memorial and it's very frustrating to hear the same things repeated. Something like this could have helped early in the process ... now there are articles flying left and right. I did notice some of the myths in your chart. Maybe it would be good to highlight them or something. Examples are PRECEDENT (already been done in many other places in Canada), TOO RUSHED (first community meetings were I think 2 years ago), USE OF MONEY (it's private money so it's not the government moving money away from veterans or anywhere else). Might also be good to list the reasons people support it. Joe Ward My Post Follow Me 2015-06-28 10:35 AM ADT Reply 1 0 When hearing people complain about the project, I found that it was somewhat difficult to determine what the key issues against it actually were. Even the higher profile news media seemed to use overly grandiose language as a take down on the project. I found that personally irritating in its pretentiousness. So my goal was simply to understand what it was that people were actually saying, and get it all in one place for discussion. I am for the project, though some changes in vision may be warranted. Some concerns have a good basis, while others are not well founded. Within the chart, I include criticisms that I disagree with as well as those that are either false, flawed, or (likely) not fully understood by the person/group that raised the issue. I did encounter some refutation arguments within the articles I read, however, they were out of scope for the chart I was creating. Time permitting, I may explore some of the indications of why people support the project later. Hopefully, with some discussion around this chart, many of those things will be to emerge as well. I did tweet to the project asking for a business case and other questions that have been ignored up to the time of this posting. I found that discouraging, but it is probably more of a reflection of an organization that does not know how to manage social media communication effectively. Richard Lorway Follow Me 2015-06-29 4:18 PM ADT Reply 2 0 Thanks for hosting this discussion, Joe. One argument I have not seen to date is how some Ingonish residents might perceive this initiative as the federal gov't reneging on a promise. To explain further, there were a number of families in the area who had their family farms and homes expropriated when the park was established. (And paid very little in the way of compensation.) At the time, they were told that it was "for the greater good," that the purpose was to preserve the natural environment, etc. In any case, they had little choice but to walk away from their homes. Then along comes a politically-connected private foundation, and Parks Canada is willing to compromise these ideals and give them land to build within the park? Would you not feel you had been lied to? That the gov't had acted in bad faith? And the gov't has given the foundation money, so it's not privately funded after all. Yet another misrepresentation of the facts. My point is that this is also a moral issue, but the solution is simple: Build it outside the park. Joe Ward My Post Follow Me 2015-06-29 4:24 PM ADT Reply 0 0 I think an update of the chart is due - to include the point you raised (something you had mentioned to me before as well) as well as some other factors that Parker Donham raised on his blog that weren't accounted for in the list. I also have to fix a typo. :) Shooting for sometime in the next 24 hours. :) Mathew Georghiou Follow Me 2015-06-30 10:54 AM ADT Reply 0 0 People who attended the 2 meetings in Ingonish have told me that the high majority of people at those meetings were in support of the Monument ... including many people who had land expropriated. They say that they are happy to see the land used in this way. So, it seems it is a non issue. Joe Ward My Post Follow Me 2015-06-30 11:11 AM ADT Reply 0 0 If you had 200 people in a room, 199 were in support, and 1 screamed in opposition: > A responsible headline would be: "Community Supports Project" > A more tempting headline would be: "Protesters Rally Against Project" The use case I'm describing is just a bit of an extreme case for discussion purposes. However, relying on a subjective interpretation of support or opposition is a very bad idea. I would think Parks Canada and/or the project sponsors would commission some Canada wide (and local) phone polling to gather more quantitative input on level of support, lack thereof, or on the key issues of concern. IMO, those in opposition are not doing a great job except to the extent they do spark media (<-- by accident, ha ha) coverage. If those who are serious about their opposition aren't studying the above chart (or similar) and don't have it printed and sitting on their desk, then they are not very well organized. ;) I don't get the "monstrosity" idea. The bigger the better for me. I never fail to take an interested glance at the Mastodon in Stewiacke when coming to or from Halifax. And I would really enjoy seeing any of the statues shown in the size comparison chart above. The record holder will be 182 metres. Wow! I know the some of the detractors that want to position it as ugly or kitschy will want to know if I'll expect cotton candy with that. Nah, but maybe a box of Cracker Jacks. ;) To clarify: I'm not rejecting all criticisms outright. I do however like the design and the concept. Joe Ward My Post Follow Me 2015-06-28 10:42 AM ADT Reply 1 0 Some quick notes on the key elements you raised: Too Rushed: Though some criticism here was related to time frame for public feedback, there was also an indication that the environmental aspects were not given sufficient time. There was indication of this within the academic community. Public Versus Private Money: There was some valid concern here (IMO). It seemed that the project costs varied greatly from $25-60 Million estimates, that Parks Canada had make the $100k investment already (public money), and that there was already discussion of how public money might have to make up the difference in what could not be raised privately (PPP strategy). Parks Canada would also be responsible for maintenance, though it was noted that they also wanted to do further fundraising for an endowment fund. I did not research precedent on turning over protected lands to private interests. But I was thinking to myself how Parks Canada has all kinds of sites that are man made structures and are not limited to protected, natural ecosystems. We only have to look to the Fortress of Louisbourg for an example. Parker Donham Follow Me 2015-06-29 3:23 PM ADT Reply 1 1 Matthew, I am surprised to hear you parroting the falsehoods promoted by the advocates of this monstrosity as if you were debunking "myths." No park land has ever been turned over to a private individual to erect a monument of this scale. It is intrinsic to the notion of National Parks that they are set aside and protected in perpetuity. Second, the proponents and Parks Canada deliberately misled people into believing this was all private money. Trigiani hadn't even raised half a million when he came begging the government for a secret $100,000 handout. The first -- of only two -- public meetings was last fall, and these meetings have been limited to Ingonish, a community with longstanding hostility to the park. Some residents were conned into believing the the unsupported claim the monument will bring economic development. Others are intimidated into speaking out. This wasn't a consultation; it was flimflammery. Mathew Georghiou Follow Me 2015-06-29 4:37 PM ADT Reply 2 1 Hey Parker ... I support progress. I support projects that uplift our local economic potential. I get annoyed when people think it is constructive to (repeatedly) say the Monument is "ugly". Is the proposed location of the monument in Ingonish not the right place to hold the meeting? Should it be held in Vancouver ... or worse, Halifax :-) It is a National Park and a National monument for all Canadians, so maybe so. Wasn't some of that $100k to hold the meetings that people are saying never happened (or now are saying happened, but in the wrong place)? Won't the Park make back the $100k multiple times over with increased visitor revenue? Won't this revenue help maintain the cost of the entire park? If the pretty pink rocks are so scientifically important, then what tangible advancements have their study brought about for our community? I love science, but not hobby science ... I want it to improve the lives of real people (not just scientists). This Major General lists commercial activities in other parks: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/let-mother-canada-take-a-stand/article25098041/ I know all about "flimflammery consultations" (Read my Epic History of the CB Tech Sector). But, this is a statue, not a power plant or even a windmill. It takes up 1/65,000 of the space of the Park. It will deliver value to Cape Breton and the country. Or, let's beat it down and do nothing - and get nothing - and scare other progress away too. That will show us. We seem to be doing ok economically on our own, no? Steve MacNeil Follow Me 2015-06-29 5:15 PM ADT Reply 0 0 Why do you persist in declaring that it's all or nothing? Let the foundation buy land outside the park and put their monument there. At that point, who besides the investors would even get a say in how ugly it is (or isn't)? I'm not even going to get started on your notion that pure science (or as you dismissively call it, "hobby" science) has to justify that it's worthwhile. Let's all agree that everything happens because of the whims of the gods, because who needs knowledge? Mathew Georghiou Follow Me 2015-06-29 8:39 PM ADT Reply 0 0 Hey Steve, YES, down with ALL science AND knowledge. That is exactly what I said. Thanks for reacting appropriately :-) As to the location, I am perfectly OK with the Memorial being put in my back yard. But, I get to collect all revenue ... don't ask me to share with supporting the costs of the Park. And, come to think of it, since the Park is partly mine too, I think I would prefer the Park be free of all human activity ... I want it purely natural ... so I would like to propose the immediate removal of all roads, camp grounds, port a potties, trails, etc. ... oh and scientists too :-) If we want natural, let's go all the way. Steve MacNeil Follow Me 2015-06-29 9:37 PM ADT Reply 0 0 Tough luck for all the communities who'll be cut off north of the park! But it may be an opportunity for some enterprising boat charter businesses :-P Regardless of what you or I think, the fact is that 29 former Parks Canada wardens have gone on record in an open letter, saying that this proposal is contrary to what the Parks Canada charter permits, and it would be a mistake to allow it. People are encouraged to discount my opinion as internet crackpottery, but these wardens' deserves more consideration, I think. Joe Ward My Post Follow Me 2015-06-29 6:10 PM ADT Reply 1 0 I just started searching for "pink granite". I'm not getting the indication that it's all that rare within the park or at other locations in the world, though the outcropping may be visually interesting. What types of things would they study about it? What types of study would be disrupted if it was partially covered by a structure? I get the impression that, within the academic geological community, it's more about the ideological commitment to preserving it untouched as opposed to having significant scientific value beyond visual observation. For instance, when was the last time that it was studied with a research basis, and when is the next time there is a planned research project related to it? There is a Geological Survey of Canada document indicated it was from 1965 that addressed the type of rock formations. http://parkscanadahistory.com/geology/misc-report-5-1965.pdf 50 years later, is there still more research value to be obtained? Perhaps it is reasonable to ask how much more study this area requires in terms of its geological formations - all other criticisms aside for the moment (including arguments about conflicts with Park Canada's mandate). Note: This is, of course, just one aspect of the arguments against. Christian Murphy Follow Me 2015-06-29 8:25 PM ADT Reply 1 0 Kelly's Mountain has literally tons of it. Parker Donham Follow Me 2015-06-29 8:30 PM ADT Reply 0 0 Matthew. Why are the comments so narrow, at least as rendered in the Chrome browser, after you get down two of three levels? It's horrible to write in lines that max out at 13 characters. Mathew Georghiou Follow Me 2015-06-29 8:41 PM ADT Reply 0 0 Parker, it's because we have dual comments with native comments on the left and Facebook comments on the right, so there is little room to work with once you get down to the 3rd level of replies. We chose to use threaded comments so they would appear indented and easier to follow, but sometimes it doesn't work as well.
Christian Murphy Follow Me 2015-06-29 10:13 AM ADT Reply 1 0 I have not truly followed this development project beyond some skipped over media exposure, purposeful disinterest, I tire of the nay Sayers that abound. But hey let's look at it from the prospective of investment. If someone is willing to invest, whether government or private sector, perhaps we should take the "we are open for business" stance. It's a small plot of land, in the middle of nowhere and may attract a few visitors. In the big scheme of all our issues, why the heck are we focused on stopping something for the sake of stopping it. This I believe is the vocal minority speaking for the silent majority......If they want to pay people to build a freaking statue, then I say all the power to them. Joe Ward My Post Follow Me 2015-06-29 1:26 PM ADT Reply 0 0 I would agree that there are definitely positive elements of the plan, and from my own perspective: there are always ways to adjust any strategy or plan to mitigate the issues that are raised. If this isn't going to work, it's at least fixable. It appears that many of the issues raised can be refuted. However, there are also some significant voices of authority that are critical of the project as well. They may have some bias, but not necessary a good fit with the idea that they (in particular) would just be stopping something "for the sake of stopping it". It is within 10 kms or so of Ingonish. So I'm curious if there may be other suitable sites in close proximity that are not within the protected region of the park. One particular concern is the variance in costs ballooning from $25 Million up to $60 Million. If you don't have accurate cost estimates, then you can't have a certain timeline, and you don't have certainly on project viability or who is paying the bill. If I submitted those kind of numbers to the Spark Cape Breton contest, they'd tell me to come back when my cost estimates didn't vary by over 100% depending on who I'm talking to! ;) In other words: Projects of this scope need to be more closely scrutinized and ensure that they have real business plans, not just enough polish to make the idea look good at first glance (or conceptual drawing). Imagine if we ended up paving over an area for a parking lot and built the base, and then discovered that funding fell through to finish the statue. They need to have those numbers locked down, or I wouldn't support it proceeding. That's a major cautionary flag for me. Joe Ward My Post Follow Me 2015-06-29 1:26 PM ADT Reply 0 0 Note: Comments based on news media suggestions of cost only. I would also like to see their projections and market research on how they anticipate it increasing the current rate of 200,000 visitors a year to that region, and trickle down tourism to the rest of the Cape Breton region - including impact of # of jobs created, and tourism spending increases, etc. Steve MacNeil Follow Me 2015-06-29 1:36 PM ADT Reply 0 0 So you haven't followed the story, but you're weighing in anyway. Great idea! Here's a few things I'll take issue with: 1. A blanket endorsement of any and all business ventures is, to put it as kindly as I can, a foolish idea. Yeah, the second someone expresses any interest in spending some money in the area let's just give them carte blanche! Who cares about negative repercussions? That's just "nay-sayers"! Nothing bad has ever happened as long as money is being spent! 2. It's just just flat-out wrong to say that people are opposed just for the sake of stopping it (But of course you yourself said you haven't read about it, so don't let me get in the way of your conclusion-jumping.) In fact, it's possible to accommodate people on BOTH sides of the issue, simply by building it someplace else. But the "pro-monument" side seems more determined to poke the "pro-park" side in the eye than to find a compromise. 3. If you DID decide to read a bit more, you'd see the majority opinion appears to be in opposition to it. Saying you're part of a "silent majority" is a convenient political construct to defend an unpopular position. 4. I tire of this debate, too! Mostly from having to defend the idea of leaving "a small plot of land" intact. How much room is there outside the park? Much more than inside. And I'm beyond tired of listening to people who are unable to see the value of undeveloped spaces because they only think in terms of dollar value, and seem to have no respect for the fact that some of us might appreciate leaving some small corner of the earth with as few human fingerprints as we can. Joe Ward My Post Follow Me 2015-06-29 2:14 PM ADT Reply 0 1 I think there is a bit of tendency for both sides to be (a) biased, and (b) not highly informed - to varying degrees. Exaggeration and strawman type arguments occur quite frequently as devices to try to weaken the others' positions in a lazy way. I started out with the question of: Why are people so opposed to the project? No single news article I read seemed to have all the answers and many seemed to be downright preachy. One additional question I was left with after skimming all the articles is: How much support is there for one side or another - in quantitative terms? News media is about headlines. They are going to bring whatever headlines are interesting to readers. Has any polling been done? I do recall reading that there is some strong support for it in the area. Parker Donham Follow Me 2015-06-29 3:10 PM ADT Reply 2 2 So you are affecting a posture of neutrality, but you actually support the plan. Thank you for clearing that up. You have performed a useful service by assembling many of the arguments against the project in one place, but your complaint that opponents have been ill-informed puts the onus in the wrong place. This project was hatched in secrecy, and pushed through cabinet before anyone in the public knew anything about it. Since then, proponents have insisted it cannot me modified in one iota. But they also refuse to be pinned down on project details. There is no detailed engineering plan for the statue, just a lo-res graphic. Its cost and height have varied all over the map. This is unheard of at the environmental assessment stage. The only public meetings came after all key decisions had been made, and they were deliberately limited to two sessions in Ingonish, where many residents are hostile to the park, many have been conned into believing there will be great economic benefits, and many fear intimidation if they speak out. CBHNP is not an Ingonish park; it is a National Park of Canada--set aside with the promise it would be protected in perpetuity. Yours is a good list, but it is harddly the first. See Contrarian.ca back on Nov. 12. The fact is there are so many tyhings wrong with this monstrosity, it's impossible for one news story to capture them all. Joe Ward My Post Follow Me 2015-06-29 4:03 PM ADT Reply 2 0 I was hopeful I explained my approach, but I'll make an attempt at clarification. When I first heard of the project - a headline type intro as simple as "large memorial statue" - I liked the idea. I still do. Of course, I didn't know the details. Then I realized there was criticism, but it wasn't clear to me precisely what that criticism was, how valid it was, how authoritative the sources were, or how pervasive those opinions were, etc. Was it just one big partisan scrap, or a 93 year old veteran's comments that make for great headlines? Since then I've seen a great deal of what is likely biased interpretation and grandiose commentary. However, I've begun to understand the case against, and which parts of that argument may be stronger than others. If anything, the summary chart I've provided isn't neutral in context. It creates an opportunity for biased interpretation of the criticisms without balance from supporters. Likewise, it doesn't give indication of frequency or weight of any particular criticism. Concerns about the project turning the park into Disney get equal weight in the graphic to that of private money gaining control of protected national park lands. As someone who thinks this project would be worthwhile proceeding with some adaptations, I might be doing a disservice to it in that regard. Joe Ward My Post Follow Me 2015-06-29 4:03 PM ADT Reply 1 0 The motivation for creating the chart wasn't to be first, except to the extent that I didn't find any other source that had everything concisely listed in one place, stripped of narrative, and easy to read. Therefore, I see significant value in it for anyone, who like me, wasn't up to speed and wanted to learn what the fuss was all about. In that regard, the chart acts as the best simplified resource. A quick skim over it, and most readers will have a very strong understanding of the multiple factors contributing to the controversy - from the perspective of those against the project or just concerned with elements of it. Of course, it could also be thought of as a tool for those who support it to understand the criticism; then correct or mitigate them. Previously, I said: "I think there is a bit of tendency for both sides to be (a) biased, and (b) not highly informed - to varying degrees." Referring to "opponents" is too abstract. So when I suggested the presence of bias or lacking of information, I noted it was to "varying degrees", and applied this to both sides. There are lots of different types of stakeholders represented in the media reports. I think the future of news media is one that includes them doing a little legwork. It only took me a few hours to collect this "in a nutshell" type intro, though starting out with only a vague understanding of the nature of the criticism. I love words, but I love communication more. IMO, a summarization chart was more effective for what I had in mind. Here is the link to Parker's list from Nov 12th, which provides an analysis on several of the issues related to the project: http://contrarian.ca/2014/11/12/whats-wrong-with-the-colossal-monument-at-green-cove/ To the extent that this topic helps to spark a conversation with those much more informed than I could hope to be on the topic, that's a big win. We, the general public, need our cheat sheets! :) Mathew Georghiou Follow Me 2015-06-29 4:40 PM ADT Reply 1 0 Sorry Parker, but I don't think it is fair for you to attack Joe on his post. If you follow Joe's posts you will see that he was trying to help the discussion for both sides. Forget the conspiracy theories ...sometimes people don't have an agenda other than to help good things happen. Steve MacNeil Follow Me 2015-06-29 3:10 PM ADT Reply 1 0 P.S. I wore my cranky pants to work today. Joe Ward My Post Follow Me 2015-06-29 4:06 PM ADT Reply 2 0 I work at home, sans pants. :P Christian Murphy Follow Me 2015-06-29 6:53 PM ADT Reply 2 0 OK Steve I respect your opinions and I will defend your right to have them. I would like to respond in kind. 1) This was not a blanket endorsement, I just don't see the problem with a static structure that for all intensive purposes has no negative health implications that I can see.....if it was nuclear powered, I would probably be a bit more concerned, but statues are not in my understanding inherently dangerous. You can't tell me that in Cape Breton there doesn't exist a bit of an anti-business attitude not to mention a typically default "I'm Against It" attitude. 2) If there exists a third alternative, that's fine, if not that's fine too. But I personally would prefer to see money spent and people working, sorry but that's my view. 3)If they are opposed to development so be it, but they also need to accept their role in stifling investment in Cape Breton and ensuring more out migration. Not that this thing will make a big difference either way, but every little bit helps. 4) This is your opinion, you don't want it. I am pragmatic, if it is built fine, if not, that's fine too. Will not change my world one iota. If my pro business stance offends, I make no apology, I am tired of watching this island decline. Great to see you have a job to wear your cranky pants to. Steve MacNeil Follow Me 2015-06-29 9:22 PM ADT Reply 1 0 Once the weather warms up a little I'll be switching to my cranky shorts. I'm not offended by anyone's pro-business stance; far from it -- but we need to demand responsible development, and not just roll over and be receptive to any proposal that comes along because there's a chance that it'll result in a few jobs. Christian Murphy Follow Me 2015-06-29 9:28 PM ADT Reply 1 0 I may have to borrow your cranky pants while you're wearing your shorts Steve. I agree there has to be balance Steve, with a leaning towards jobs versus public opinion at times. In any event, thanks for sharing your thoughts. Steve MacNeil Follow Me 2015-06-29 9:39 PM ADT Reply 2 0 I'll wash and iron them first. Wear them in good health, but be careful! They're my only pair. Mathew Georghiou Follow Me 2015-06-30 10:56 AM ADT Reply 2 0 Hold off on that washing. I find that dirty and stinky cranky pants are more effective. It also makes those around me cranky. It just amps up the cranky level to 11. Steve MacNeil Follow Me 2015-06-30 1:52 PM ADT Reply 1 0 Tomorrow being a holiday, we should all remember to wear our happy pants on Wednesday! Cranky pants optional the rest of the week.
Joe Ward My Post Follow Me 2015-06-29 2:26 PM ADT Reply 0 0 I just tracked down the Facebook group for local supporters: https://www.facebook.com/groups/267595840065428/ [comment deleted] Posted 2015-09-02 7:25 AM ADT Joe Ward My Post Follow Me 2015-09-02 2:03 PM ADT Reply 0 0 I have access to the group. I was hoping to find some time to summarize the pros. There are some smart and very well informed people in there that are building a case, and providing counter arguments to some of the media coverage. It would have also been my advice to keep that group open for discussion. Not sure why they decided against it, but I believe there may have been some distribution in the group at one point by those opposed to the project. I would critique the foundation itself most of all for poorly handling the backlash emphasized in the media. I don't think they have done much to provide a better business case for the project, and are relying on the website to do the work for them. I don't think that it does so adequately, and their non-dynamic response will ultimately allow the naysayers to build either a more compelling or more visible case for it being cancelled.
Joe Ward My Post Follow Me 2015-06-29 2:28 PM ADT Reply 0 0 Here is the website for "Friends of Green Cove", in opposition to the project: http://www.friendsofgreencove.ca/
Parker Donham Follow Me 2015-06-29 8:56 PM ADT Reply 1 0 Matthew, I am replying to you here because I just can't stand writing in the cramped space allowed for multiple level comments on comments. It annoys you that I call it ugly—which is about the mildest term I can apply to this grotesque monstrosity. It infuriates me that you would cram it down the throats of Cape Bretoners--and all Canadians--and in doing so, betray the promise that these spectacular lands would be preserved forever. Of course there should have been a meeting in Ingonish. But to have the only meetings in Ingonish is a cheap political stunt. Do you seriously not understand the concept of a NATIONAL park? It's not the Ingonish and Area Campground and Theme Park. It's not a make work project, or a local economic benefits initiative. It's part of a decades old national commitment to protect and preserve the most spectacular places in our country—one of the greatest projects the country has ever undertaken. Just look at the magnificent heritage preserved in our National Parks: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_National_Parks_of_Canada#National_Parks_and_National_Park_Reserves. This incredible landscapes don't belong to the nearest local hamlet. They are the shared heritage of all Canadians. Meetings should have been held in Sydney, in Halifax, and probably in Ottawa. They weren't held in those places because the cynical, manipulative promoters thought they could hornswoggle local residents into believing mana would fall from heaven, and intimidate any others who might speak out. Even so, the meeting I attended drew many, many opponents--though not as many as would have been present had a range of venues been permitted. The proposed statue combines dated Roman Catholic iconography with Stalinesque monumentalism and creepy spiritualist sentimentalism. Mother Canada is "welcoming home" the soldiers. What does that even mean? Mathew Georghiou Follow Me 2015-06-29 9:18 PM ADT Reply 2 0 Hey Parker ... looks like we have to agree to disagree on this one. I don't see this as some covert militarization or even commercialization of our society or how it cheapens our National Parks. I think it improves them, just like I bet most people in South Dakota would say about Mount Rushmore and the 3 million visitors it gets every year (in a state with only 850,000 people). I think the design is beautiful and appropriately non-sectarian (my second choice is a fiddle-playing lobster :-) And, I'm certain it will result in lots of positive economic activity for Cape Breton. Since the National Parks are owned by all Canadians, and since this Memorial only takes up 1/65,000 of the space of the Park, it seems we only need 539 Canadians to agree to give up our shared space of the park. Count me in. At the end of the day, it’s just a statue, not a power plant or garbage dump. We are better off putting our negative energy and superpowers into something that deserves it more … goodness knows there are many worse injustices happening in NS. Christian Murphy Follow Me 2015-06-29 9:23 PM ADT Reply 0 0 Here is a link to the new Crazy Horse Monument on Mountain Peak. http://www.npr.org/2013/01/01/167988928/the-slow-carving-of-the-crazy-horse-monument Joe Ward My Post Follow Me 2015-06-29 9:21 PM ADT Reply 0 0 Who initiated the meetings, Parks Canada or the project founder? Does Parks Canada have a standard process (documented) that they do in all cases related to application for use of protected lands? Does it included meetings, and is there precedent for other projects that had public input conducted in a different way? Were the meetings obligatory? Did they violate process? The point about it being a national park is a good one. I.e. It's not only local input that needs to be taken into consideration. Has there been any polling done whatsoever to get a quantitative sense of opposition/support, or is it all a subjective reading of the media reports? Mathew Georghiou Follow Me 2015-06-29 9:32 PM ADT Reply 1 0 Parker I agree with you that this should not be an issue about patriotism. That's not helpful and it should not be part of the discussion. But using the term "rich man with a secret plan" is not very helpful either. Nor is "grotesque monstrosity." As experienced communicators, we both know that you are using these terms as weapons. It's also not helpful when the NO side says the money should be used to help the veterans directly. That may be true, but it's not our money. It's money provided and raised by a private citizen, and if this is how he chooses to use his money and many of us accept his project as a gift, then so be it. This is all made possible because the good guys won the big wars.
Parker Donham Follow Me 2015-06-29 9:08 PM ADT Reply 1 0 The bullies behind this project have continually denigrated the patriotism of those who oppose it. As if support for veterans were synonymous with support for allowing a rich man with a secret plan and political connections to run roughshod over one of Canada's national treasures. The end of World War I saw Canada coping with the loss of a generation of young men. It was a national calamity. The country responded with a magnificent community driven effort to honour the war dead. Citizens in cities and towns from one end of the country to the other came together to select prominent places at the centres of their communities, where they constructed monuments etched with the names of the young men they lost. Canadian communities built 6,293 of these monuments. The became part of the fabric of these towns and cities. A century later, they continue to be honoured solemnly—in Remembrance Day services that grow larger with each passing year. Those community-built, human-scaled monuments—together with our shared commitment to preserve the magnificent landscapes set aside as National Parks—are the best measure of our commitment to honour veterans and what they fought for. [comment deleted] Posted 2015-09-02 7:19 AM ADT
Christian Murphy Follow Me 2015-06-29 9:42 PM ADT Reply 0 0 So I was thinking, which can be dangerous at times, but I would like to submit a proposal to turn Cape Clear into a carving of Steven Harper's head. It would be magnificent!
Joe Ward My Post Follow Me 2015-06-29 10:24 PM ADT Reply 2 0 I updated the post to add a chart I found that demonstrates its scale compared to other popular structures including our Big Fiddle. Mathew Georghiou Follow Me 2015-06-29 11:42 PM ADT Reply 2 0 I'm surprised at how small the Memorial is in comparison. I guess it should be BIGGER :-) Joe Ward My Post Follow Me 2015-06-30 12:05 AM ADT Reply 2 0 Added another graphic. It appears that the world's tallest statue will be 182 metres when completed. Spring Temple Buddha already comes in at 153 metres. The Colossus of Rhodes was only 30 metres. The blueberry in Oxford is only 2.5 metres. ;)
Mathew Georghiou Follow Me 2015-06-30 4:34 PM ADT Reply 2 0 It seems most of our POWER COMMENTORS are on this one post, so I wanted to let you all know that we just made two improvements to our commenting system. First, you can see that the column width of NATIVE comments is now wider and we shrunk the width of the FACEBOOK comments. Second, we have changed the SORT ORDER of comments so that the oldest comments are always at the top. The old sort order was causing confusion when displaying comment replies. We are also going to improve our comment editing/deletion directions. Thanks to all of you guys for filling up a post with so many comments that we were able to catch this, and thanks to Parker and Joe for your specific suggestions!
Christian Murphy Follow Me 2015-07-02 10:22 PM ADT Reply 1 0 "Moncton — In a last-ditch effort to lure youth home, the Government of New Brunswick is funding the construction of a grotesquely massive statue just outside the Greater Moncton International Airport. The statue, to be created by first-year NBCCD students as part of a forced group project, will depict a New Brunswick mother with a can of Alpine in one hand, a cigarette in the other, and a you’d-better-get-yer-arse-back-here-right-now-or-there’ll-be-hell-to-pay look on her face." - Shauna Chase, The Manatee http://themanatee.net/2015/07/02/gigantic-mother-new-brunswick-statue-to-beckon-youth-home-from-alberta/
[comment deleted] Posted 2015-09-02 9:14 AM ADT Joe Ward My Post Follow Me 2015-09-02 1:56 PM ADT Reply 0 0 Valid point. At the time the graphic was created, I just wanted to understand the criticism. It was a fast, but extensive read through of all the media reports I could find. I know they did mention maintenance as a part of the budget, but I'm not sure how accurate those numbers were, or if they examined other similar projects as you have done for comparison. There was variability in the reported project costs. I don't know if that was the result of media error, distinctions between multiple project phases, a change in project scope, or some combination of those factors. However, wide variability in cost estimates is definitely a risk factor.