Intimidation is the mildest description of the reputation British Columbia has acquired after decades of radical environmental activism. On closer examination, the more appropriate word choice is violence.
The World Health Organization defines Violence and Collective Violence in the following terms:
An overarching definition of Violence
“The intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, that either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment or deprivation”
Source: Epidemiology and Community Health (1)
Collective violence “…the “instrumental use of violence by people who identify themselves as members of a group…against another group or set of individuals, in order to achieve political, economic or social objectives”.11 Collective violence includes war, terrorism and violent political conflict between or within states, violence perpetrated by states (genocide, torture, systematic abuses of human rights) and organised violent crime such as gang warfare. It may include all categories of violence, be these physical, sexual, psychological, or characterised by neglect or discrimination.
Source: Epidemiology and Community Health (2)
I am certain that the actions of radical environmentalists in British Columbia over several decades, including tree spiking, sabotage, arson, and attacks on occupied worker camps, meet the World Health Organization’s definition of violence.
One has to question the intent of the perpetrators of these crimes. They often claim they are attacking “big corporate interests.” But that is a lie. Corporate leaders are not on site, or anywhere near it. The violence and sabotage can only harm workers.
They may argue that corporate executives can always call the workers off, send them home, or invest elsewhere. That, too, is an attack on workers.
Corporations are not a single person with a family, and they have insurance. Temporarily stopping work or moving to another jurisdiction is not life-changing in the way it is for a logger who only gets seasonal work.
What about mainstream environmentalists? Where do they fit in? We hear statements rejecting violence as a tactic. Is it time they considered doing more? It can’t be denied that those committing these crimes operate under the umbrella of the broader environmental movement. And they have resources, lots of resources.
I have been involved in labour disputes where violence was a very real possibility.
The union I was active in sent trusted, responsible members to areas up and down the coast with the intent of managing situations where there was the potential for violence. The union took an active role in maintaining calm, protecting property, and protecting people.
The union’s leadership wasn’t always able to stop everything bad, but they took responsibility. They did more than condemn violence. They openly and actively tried to stop it.
It’s not that the environmental movement is bad. It is much like the trade unions and social justice movements, in that they are made up of people with different motivations and goals. They range from passive participants, to foot soldiers, to committed organizers, to leaders, to emotional demagogues, and then to those who believe the cause morally justifies violent acts.
The real moral responsibility is for leaders of mass organizations, where there is the potential for violence, to try to stop it when they can and help ensure that the violence is dealt with justly.
It is time to own British Columbia’s history of environmental violence, from the 1980s, when, according to Paul Watson himself, he led the spiking of North Shore forests on moral grounds, to the most recent act of violence on Vancouver Island.
On January 2, 2026, Lake Cowichan RCMP began an investigation into the burning of two grapple yarders and a log loader. The crew were prevented from returning to work after the holidays, and an estimated $500,000 worth of damage was done.
Collectively and naively, since the 1980s, violence in British Columbia’s resource sector has been normalized.
This is a problem, as we are about to undertake a wide range of major projects in the North and make a serious effort to stabilize the forest industry across the province, in the national interest. Something must be done.
I believe the normalization of violence in rural British Columbia was the result of thirty years of economic policy that championed urban life. High- and low-paying service jobs were prioritized, while resource industries were portrayed as mature and declining. There was a collective lack of seriousness.
Today, in all of Canada — especially British Columbia — the reality is that we are taking resource industries seriously and making them, once again, the foundation of our future. We can’t carry on with the War in the Woods, Fairy Creek, TMX and Site C delays and rising costs, or a repeat of the Coastal GasLink conflict. Not in this economic and geopolitical situation.
The political and social situation has changed. First Nations and corporations have forged stronger relationships that are getting projects done to the benefit of many communities.
There is a growing consensus that now is the time for British Columbia to build for the next generations. Success will depend on restrained rhetoric, goodwill, and a common purpose.
The moral responsibility in this moment is for governments, First Nations, the environmental movement, communities, unions, corporations, and public institutions to come together to reverse the normalization of violence by radical groups and work to get things done in the best way possible.
Jim Rushton is a 46-year veteran of BC’s resource and transportation sectors, with experience in union representation, economic development, and terminal management.
Resource Works News
