Posts Tagged ‘National Post’

Green Energy Police

March 6, 2009

Editor:  If this does not wake you up to the scam that is the Green Energy Act of Ontario nothing will. The freedom you used to enjoy in your own home is about to be removed under the guise of saving the environment.

Welcome to Fascism in Ontario!

.

Green energy police: Is that a beer fridge in your basement?

Posted: March 05, 2009, 7:24 PM by NP Editor

Green Energy Act Ontario’s Green Energy Act, as proposed by the McGuinty government, would give the province new powers of search and seizure. Under a section dealing with “Mandatory conservation and energy efficiency practices,” the act aims to enforce energy- and water-use efficiency standards. To aid enforcement, a section of the act deals with the methods to be used. Here are some excerpts: Part IV: Inspections, Enforcement and Penalties Inspectors 15.

(1) The Deputy Minister may designate in writing any person as an inspector for the purposes of Parts I and III. Powers, Part III

(3) For the purposes of Part III and the regulations, an inspector designated under subsection (1), (a) at any reasonable time, may enter any place where an appliance or product to which Part III applies is manufactured, offered for sale, sold or leased; (b) may request the production for inspection of documents or things that may be relevant to the carrying out of an inspection or test on an appliance or product to which Part III applies; (c) upon giving a receipt for it, may remove from a place documents or things produced pursuant to a request under clause (b) for the purpose of making copies or extracts and shall promptly return them to the person who produced them; (d) may inspect and test any appliance or product to which

Part III applies to ensure that the appliance or product complies with the Part and the regulations; and (e) may require any person to co-operate in and assist with an inspection or test. Entry of dwelling (4) A person shall not exercise a power of entry conferred by this Part to enter a place that is being used as a dwelling without the consent of the occupier except under the authority of a warrant issued under this section. Search warrant (5) Upon application made without notice by an inspector, a justice of the peace may issue a warrant, if he or she is satisfied on information under oath that there is reasonable ground for believing that, (a) a person has contravened or is contravening Part I or III or the regulations; and (b) there is, (i) in any building, dwelling, receptacle or place anything relating to the contravention of Part I or III or the regulations, or (ii) information or evidence relating to the contravention of Part I or III or the regulations that may be obtained through the use of an investigative technique or procedure or the doing of anything described in the warrant.

Powers under warrant (6) Subject to any conditions contained in it, a warrant obtained under subsection (5) authorizes an inspector, (a) to enter or access the building, dwelling, receptacle or place specified in the warrant and examine and seize anything described in the warrant; (b) to use any data storage, processing or retrieval device or system in order to produce information or evidence described in the warrant, in any form;

Entry of dwelling (7) Despite subsection (6), an inspector shall not exercise the power under a warrant to enter a place, or part of a place, used as a dwelling, unless, (a) the justice of the peace is informed that the warrant is being sought to authorize entry into a dwelling; and (b) the justice of the peace authorizes the entry into the dwelling. Time of execution (10) An entry or access under a warrant issued under this section shall be made between 6 a.m. and 9 p.m., unless the warrant specifies otherwise… Penalty 16.

(1) Every person who contravenes any provision of Part I, Part III or this Part or the regulations is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not more than $10,000 or, if the person is a body corporate, to a fine of not more than $25,000.

(2) Where a body corporate contravenes any provision of Part I, Part III or this Part or the regulations, every director or officer of the body corporate who authorizes, permits or acquiesces in the contravention is a party to and guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to the penalty provided for in the offence whether or not the body corporate has been prosecuted or convicted.

National Post

Advertisements

Canadian Election 2008 – Who Are you Going to Vote For?

September 18, 2008

So – Who you gonna vote for?
What a choice!

The Plan to Disappear Canada


National Post
Canada Green Party leader sorry for not smoking pot
AFP – 18 hours ago
OTTAWA (AFP) — Canada’s Green Party leader Elizabeth May apologized on Wednesday for never having smoked marijuana, as she unveiled her election plank,
Green Party releases platform, includes GST hike National Post


Canada.com
Larsen resigns as NDP candidate
Whistler Question,  Canada – 52 minutes ago
Dana Larsen has resigned as the New Democratic Party candidate in the West Vancouver-Sunshine Coast-Sea to Sky Country riding. Whistler – Not wanting the
BC NDP candidate Larsen quits over drug links Canada.com
Coca controversy ousts NDP candidate Globe and Mail
Stoner’s NDP bid up in smoke Winnipeg Sun


CTV.ca
Grits call on ‘stars’ to boost struggling Dion
Calgary Herald,  Canada – 5 hours ago
The rollout continues today when MP Michael Ignatieff, once considered the party’s crowned prince, takes to the stage to rescue Liberal Leader Stephane Dion
A big-team approach may turn the game around for Dion Globe and Mail
Stephane Dion to Bob Rae: No more help please; it’s killing me National Post


Canoe.ca
All eyes on Harper as Tories wrestle with Ritz listeriosis controversy
The Canadian Press, OTTAWA – 45 minutes ago
OTTAWA — The Liberals and the NDP clamoured for Gerry Ritz’s ouster Thursday as the campaign trail braced for Stephen Harper’s reaction to the public-health
Harper under pressure to apologize over minister’s listeriosis jokes CBC.ca
Harper says he’d protect Quebec’s on-air identity Globe and Mail
Ritz sorry for ‘tasteless’ Listeria comments CTV.ca

Perhaps the climate change models are wrong

March 24, 2008

Editor
The National Post seems to be the only media outlet asking the hard questions that need to be asked about the science of Global Warming. Where is the rest of the media in Canada?

Lorrie Goldstein from the Toronto Sun tries, but I have the feeling the owners of the paper are not allowing him to print his true feelings on the subject.

Perhaps the climate change models are wrong

Lorne Gunter, National Post Published: Monday, March 24, 2008

Icebergs near Jakobshavn Fjord, IlulissatBob Strong, ReutersIcebergs near Jakobshavn Fjord, Ilulissat

They drift along in the worlds’ oceans at a depth of 2,000 metres — more than a mile deep — constantly monitoring the temperature, salinity, pressure and velocity of the upper oceans.

Then, about once every 10 days, a bladder on the outside of these buoys inflates and raises them slowly to the surface gathering data about each strata of seawater they pass through. After an upward journey of nearly six hours, the Argo monitors bob on the waves while an onboard transmitter sends their information to a satellite that in turn retransmits it to several land-based research computers where it may be accessed by anyone who wishes to see it.

These 3,000 yellow sentinels –about the size and shape of a large fence post — free-float the world’s oceans, season in and season out, surfacing between 30 and 40 times a year, disgorging their findings, then submerging again for another fact-finding voyage.

It’s fascinating to watch their progress online. (The URLs are too complex to reproduce here, but Google “Argo Buoy Movement” or “Argo Float Animation,” and you will be directed to the links.)

When they were first deployed in 2003, the Argos were hailed for their ability to collect information on ocean conditions more precisely, at more places and greater depths and in more conditions than ever before. No longer would scientists have to rely on measurements mostly at the surface from older scientific buoys or inconsistent shipboard monitors.

So why are some scientists now beginning to question the buoys’ findings? Because in five years, the little blighters have failed to detect any global warming. They are not reinforcing the scientific orthodoxy of the day, namely that man is causing the planet to warm dangerously. They are not proving the predetermined conclusions of their human masters. Therefore they, and not their masters’ hypotheses, must be wrong.

Full story at nationalpost.com

The media snowjob on global warming

March 10, 2008

 Editor
Is the National post is the last paper in Canada?

The media snowjob on global warming

Lorne Gunter, National Post  Published: Monday, March 10, 2008

Al Gore won a Nobel Peace Prize, not a science award.Ronaldo Schemidt, AFP, Getty ImagesAl Gore won a Nobel Peace Prize, not a science award.

Just how pervasive the bias at most news outlets is in favour of climate alarmism — and how little interest most outlets have in reporting any research that diverges from the alarmist orthodoxy — can be seen in a Washington Post story on the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), announced last week in New York.

The NIPCC is a counter to the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC. The group was unveiled this week in Manhattan at the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change, along with its scientific report claiming that natural factors — the sun, El Ninos and La Ninas, volcanoes, etc, — not human sources are behind global warming.

The Washington Post’s first instincts (not just on its opinion pages, but in its news coverage, too) were cleverly to sew doubt of the group’s credibility by pointing out to readers that many of the participants had ties to conservative politicians, such as former British prime minister Margaret Thatcher, and that the conference sponsor — the Heartland Institute — received money from oil companies and health care corporations.

That’s standard fare, and partly fair, so that’s not what I am talking about.

The insidiousness I am referring to is the unfavourable way the Post compared the NIPCC report to the IPCC’s famous report of last year.

After reminding readers that the IPCC and former U.S. vice-president Al Gore shared the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007 for their work on climate change, the paper then, sneeringly, added: “While the IPCC enlisted several hundred scientists from more than 100 countries to work over five years to produce its series of reports, the NIPCC document is the work of 23 authors from 15 nations, some of them not scientists.”

First of all, the IPCC and Mr. Gore won the Peace Prize, not a science prize, which only proves they are good at politics. They didn’t win the Physics Prize, for instance.

Also, while the former vice-prez may have invented the Internet (by his own admission), he is demonstrably not a scientist. Yet in the same paragraph as the Washington Post lionizes Mr. Gore for his work saving the planet, it backhands non-scientists for meddling in the climate change debate, never once showing any hint it recognized its own hypocrisy.

And the paper displays its utter lack of intellectual curiosity, too.

Full Story at the National Post 

So cold it's getting hot

February 29, 2008

Editor:
Love this statement found on page 2 of the story.
General Motors chairman Bob Lutz, who recently said that he personally thought global warming was a
“total crock of shit.”

I want to take this opportunity to thank the Financial Post, National Post and the Toronto Sun for finally getting the Global Warming Fraud into the mainstream press. Please encourage them to continue to expose this farce.

So cold it’s getting hot

It may be cold, but CBC reassures us that calamity still looms

Terence Corcoran, Financial Post Published: Friday, February 29, 2008

Ah, the weather. It’s cold as hell out there. How cold is it? It’s so cold the CBC had to rush to assure all of us that global warming is still a big, big problem. With record snow falls, record cold snaps, the return of sea ice to the north, snow in the Middle East and a deep freeze in China, any sensible person might begin to wonder and even have doubts about global-warming theory and climate change. A little skepticism might begin to creep into the public sphere and threaten to undermine public belief in global warming.Fear not, says the CBC. We have nothing to worry about: climate calamity still looms. The good news is that the polar caps are still going to melt, hurricane risks are still mounting, drought conditions are more likely, forest fires are set to rage, and it’s going to get hot, hot, hot.

In response to the current global cool-down — provocatively labelled a possible New Ice Age by National Post columnist Lorne Gunter — the CBC has presented a full range of explanations and reassuring reports to calm a troubled population. At least three explanations exist:

This cold is normal According to Environment Canada’s David Phillips, the warm winters of recent years have been unusual, and what we have now across the country is just a return to the kinds of winters we used to get.

La Nina According to CBC Radio’s The Current, the cold is a function of La Nina, which is the cold sister of El Nino, the periodic weather system that makes things warmer than normal. Today’s cold is a La Nina effect.

But not so fast.

Climate change could be the problem. Under climate theory, as we know, all weather can be explained as part of the global-warming scare. Extreme weather events, such as frost on the Nile or wherever, are exactly the kind of weather developments we should expect from global warming. If it gets really cold suddenly, that’s because of global warming.

This explanation was offered up by a World Meteorological Organization official on CBC Radio. How cold is it? It’s so cold it’s getting hotter.

Above all, however, under no circumstances are we ever to begin to think that evidence of a cooler climate or colder weather (different things) are a sign that the great climate change theories of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and Al Gore might be weak or even wrong.

As reassurance on this, on Wednesday night CBC Television’s The National brought in Andrew Weaver, of the University of Victoria and a lead author on IPCC reports, for the following exchange with reporter Kelly Crowe, introduced by host Peter Mansbridge:

Mansbridge So with all this talk of brutal cold and all those bulky snow banks, you might be wondering how an old-fashioned Canadian winter can still exist in these days of global warming. It’s a question scientists studying climate change get all the time. The CBC’s Kelly Crowe now with their answer.

Crowe It’s been such a wintery winter, Canadians can’t resist asking: Whatever happened to global warming?

Weaver Oh, it’s … it drives you nuts.

Page 2 Financial Post

Carbon tax flim-flam

February 26, 2008

Carbon tax flim-flam

Terence Corcoran, Financial Post  Published: Tuesday, February 26, 2008

Mark Jaccard’s one-man crusade to hook Canada up to a monster new global warming policy nightmare popped up again yesterday. This time he emerged in Ottawa with David Suzuki at a news conference that offered Canadians an economic miracle: Big new carbon taxes, lower income taxes, reduced carbon emissions, more government revenue, and a growing economy.

The all-in-one package is in a report by Prof. Jaccard, of Simon Fraser University, for the David Suzuki Foundation. Titled Pricing Carbon: Saving Green, the report ran through some economic modelling exercises to see what might happen if Canada were to impose a tax on all carbon emissions of between $75 and $200 a tonne by 2020. Before any government gets to assessing the report — which doesn’t mention that a $200-a-tonne tax would raise the price of gasoline by about 50% to $1.60 a litre; nor does it do much to highlight the $45-billion in annual lost growth by 2020 — we suggest a tracking device be attached to Mr. Jaccard to monitor his role in the rise of carbon tax on the Canadian agenda.

When B.C. Finance Minister Carole Taylor’s budget last week announced a version of a carbon tax, Mr. Jaccard and his private research company, M.K. Jaccard and Associates, were the only authorities named. The B.C. plan, moreover, contained all the propaganda tricks Mr. Jaccard raised in the Suzuki version. The tax would raise billions, but voters should not worry because it would be “revenue neutral” and would be “recycled” back in tax cuts or direct payments. As a marketing ploy, the B.C. government said it would immediately send out $440-million in Carbon Tax Credit cheques to citizens, before the carbon tax was even imposed.

In his Suzuki report, Mr. Jaccard begins with a pithy epigraph: “The atmosphere can no longer be considered a carbon dump.” Turns out Mr. Jaccard is quoting himself and his coauthors, including one Jeffrey Simpson, from their book Hot Air. While short and emphatic, the quote is also pure rhetoric unhindered by fact. The atmosphere will continue to used as a dump so long as humans are allowed to exist.

Then the Suzuki report says that “several recent studies” show that a price on carbon is the best way to cut carbon emissions. Of two studies cited, one is from Mr. Jaccard. Reference is later made to recent carbon-tax research by the National Round Table on the Environment — research Mr. Jaccard had a hand in.

The progress of the carbon tax idea to yesterday, including the joint conference with Mr. Suzuki and the B.C. budget carbon tax gimmick, shows Mr. Jaccard has a way with policy makers, politicians and activists. So far he’s made no headway with the Harper Tories or Finance Minister Jim Flaherty, whose budget today was clearly the focal point behind the timing of these events.

The Jaccard carbon tax studies are gigantic exercises in economic modelling. Using models Mr. Jaccard controls, the study asks what would happen to the economy 12 years from now under different levels of carbon taxation and methods of government disposal of the cash raised. If the tax were $100 a tonne, governments would raise $62.5-billion; at $200, the tax take is $100-billion a year — three times what the government collected last year in GST. That would be bad for the economy, depending on how the government spent it. It would reduce carbon-based energy consumption, hurting growth. But if the government took that money and “recycled” it back into the economy in beneficial ways, the bad impact of the tax would be neutralized.

Well, not quite. Even Mr. Jaccard’s black box couldn’t come up with that much of a miracle. Different things happen, depending on the policy. If the government used 14% of the carbon tax money to subsidize green energy and carbon capture technology, gave 40% to industry and used the remaining 46% to reduce payroll or income or other taxes, then there might be offsetting benefits. But not enough to offset the losses from the tax, which would still leave the economy in the red by upwards of $45-billion a year, a figure that increases annually with the loss of compounding growth.

The Suzuki report spends a lot of time ventilating the idea that there might be a “double dividend” in a carbon tax. Bring in a tax, the government recycles it back to taxpayers, and then everybody collects an environmental dividend. In the end, though, the report concedes (most clearly in a footnote) that there is a growing consensus in economics that the prospect of such a double dividend is “weak.”

The Suzuki-Jaccard study is premised on the theories of Arthur C. Pigou, a 20th-century economist who believed you could use taxes to change behaviour. Mr. Jaccard calls his tax the “Pigovian carbon price.” The trouble with Pigovianism is that it requires revival of the ancient and discredited economic art of central planning, using taxes as substitute for prices. But a tax is not a market price. It’s a bureaucratic planning device–as Mr. Jaccard’s elaborate economic modellings prove. And it’s no way to run a market economy.

 The National Post

Suzuki's foundation should lose status

February 15, 2008

Editor:
Once you understand what Suzuki is up to, you might ask for his Order of Canada back. Ask David why China and India are exempt from Kyoto. Those two countries have close to half the worlds population. Ask David about CIDA, set up by his mentor Maurice Strong. From there Canadian tax dollars were used, under the guise of environment, to influence politics in Brazil and other countries. David is just doing what he has always done. This time he is doing it Canada. David if you want to be in politics then it’s time you threw your hat in the ring.

When the fraud of global warming is finally exposed, will you claim ignorance or will you move to China with Maurice Strong.

Before you donate to any environmental fund read the Cloak of Green by Elaine DeWar. You will never look at the environmental movement the same again.

Thanks again to Lorrie for doing his best to get the story out. You won’t get the story from the CBC.

Suzuki’s foundation should lose status

By LORRIE GOLDSTEIN

fctAdTag(“bigbox”,MyGenericTagVar,1);

Is there anyone who doesn’t think, based on his own words, that David Suzuki wants voters to throw out Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Conservative Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach in their upcoming elections?

If so, why hasn’t the Canada Revenue Agency revoked the charitable status of the David Suzuki Foundation?

CRA’s website says charities are “prohibited” from participating in “partisan political activity,” meaning anything that “involves direct or indirect support of, or opposition to (my emphasis) any political party or candidate for public office.”

Recently, in a speech at McGill University, Suzuki basically suggested Harper and Stelmach should be jailed for indifference to climate change, although a Suzuki spokesman later said he wasn’t speaking literally.

According to the National Post, Suzuki said: “What I would challenge you to do is to put a lot of effort into trying to see whether there’s a legal way of throwing our so-called leaders into jail, because what they’re doing is a criminal act.” Sounds literal to me.

Sarah Babbage of the McGill Daily reported: “(Suzuki) gave a scathing critique of Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach, chastising them for neglecting the environment in favour of economic growth and development of the tar sands, (adding) It is an intergenerational crime that … they keep dithering as they are.’ ”

Vincii Tsui of the McGill Tribune reported on Suzuki, “singling out (Harper and Stelmach) for prioritizing the economy over the environment.”

The Post reported Suzuki said: “We can no longer tolerate what’s going on in Ottawa and Edmonton.”

I’m guessing he wasn’t talking about the Liberals.

Last year, the Calgary Sun reported on Suzuki attacking Harper before an audience of elementary school children as he accepted $835 they collected for his foundation.

“The only thing he cares about is getting re-elected with a majority government,” Suzuki said. “I don’t believe there is a green bone in Harper’s body — he has never, ever indicated he cares about the environment …” That’s non-partisan?

In June, in Toronto, Suzuki claimed the Harper Conservative government was harassing him by repeatedly auditing his foundation. According to the Globe and Mail, he said: “I am being hounded by the current government because I have a foundation that has my name and so they’re trying to take away my charitable (status),” adding he now had to preface remarks with: “Everything I say is my personal opinion, has nothing to do with my foundation.”

Really? Quick — name another member of the Suzuki Foundation aside from Suzuki.

Visit the foundation’s website, davidsuzuki.org. You’ll see a picture of Suzuki at the top beside “David Suzuki Foundation.” Both are to the left and slightly above the “DONATE Now!” icon.

Click on the first featured article, (Feb. 6): “Who will pay for our failure to act on global warming?” where Suzuki criticizes Harper and Stelmach.

How can anyone distinguish the views of David Suzuki from the David Suzuki Foundation?

In June, a government spokesman denied Suzuki’s allegations, saying politicians don’t launch CRA audits. Stephen Hazell, executive director of the Sierra Club, told the Post the CRA had dramatically increased audits on environmental groups in recent years but: “This is something I would not blame the Conservative government for …”

Charities can spend 10% of their budgets for non-partisan political activities to influence public opinion, policy and relevant laws, including organizing conferences, lectures, rallies, letter-writing campaigns etc.

But what Suzuki’s doing? C’mon. This isn’t about free speech — he can say whatever he likes.

But if partisan political activity is “prohibited,” why does his foundation have charitable status, meaning it doesn’t have to pay income taxes on its $6 million in annual revenues (2006) and can issue tax receipts to donors? If you agree, call the CRA’s charity directorate at 1-800-267-2384 and complain.

Source

David Suzuki says he wants anti-Kyoto politicians thrown in jail.

February 7, 2008

By any means necessary

David Suzuki says he wants anti-Kyoto politicians thrown in jail. How did environmentalism become this totalitarian?

Terry O’neill, National Post Published: Thursday, February 07, 2008

(See hardcopy for Photo Description)Brent Foster, National Post(See hardcopy for Photo Description)

No one knows how many forests have been felled to print all the stories that have been published about David Suzuki, Canada’s much-honoured but continuously controversial environmental crusader. The dead trees probably number in the many thousands, a (supposedly) global-warming-causing harvest so plenteous as to lead one to assume that preacher Suzuki might have begun moderating his apocalyptic sermonizing, lest he trigger yet another round of clear-cutting.But no. Instead, Suzuki has lately pumped up his rhetoric with even more frantic language, apparently as part of an all-out, last-ditch attempt to persuade Canadians that the world is fast approaching an environmental meltdown. It’s not clear whether he’s changing any minds with his new bellicosity, but he has at least been doing his bit to keep the country’s loggers busy.

So what exactly has Suzuki, who is on the university-lecture circuit these days, been saying? For starters, he told a University of Toronto audience last month that the next federal election ought to be about the environment. No problem there. However, as reported by a student newspaper, he then opined that government leaders who aren’t acting quickly enough to save the environment “should go to jail for what they’re not doing right now … What our government is not doing is a criminal act.”

His allegation of law-breaking was apparently no mere slip of the tongue. Speaking a few weeks later at McGill University, Suzuki again equated governments’ alleged inaction on the environment with a criminal act; in fact, he is reported to have said students ought to find a legal way to throw politicians in jail for ignoring climate-change science.

The geneticist-turned-broadcaster had particularly harsh words for Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Premier Ed Stelmach of Alberta because of their alleged favouring of economic growth over environmental protection. “It is an intergenerational crime” — there’s that concept again — “that, in the face of the work of scientists over the last 20 years, they keep dithering as they are,” Suzuki declared.

Suzuki’s alarmism is nothing new, and more-prudent scientists have long ago answered his hyperbole and exposed his faulty logic. And it’s also long been abundantly clear from his speeches and books that his position is driven by both a quasi-religious zeal and a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of humanity’s relationship with the natural world.

On this latter matter, he told the McGill crowd there is actually no difference between human beings and the environment in which they live. “We are the environment. There is no distinction,” he declared, thereby equating, for example, a newborn baby with a mud puddle. How heartening.

But this is old ground. What we haven’t seen from him until now is such an incendiary call to arms. Taking to the streets to protest climatechange inaction is one thing. Calling for the jailing of politicians is quite another — especially considering the fact that, the last time I checked anyway, there is nothing in the Criminal Code of Canada to prevent the Prime Minister from attempting to enhance both the country’s economy and its environment. It’s called balance.

We shouldn’t really be surprised at Suzuki’s latest tactic. Eco-pirate Paul Watson, formerly of the Sea Shepherd Society, has long argued that he answers not to the law of man, but to the law of nature. And we’re not talking here about his need to take bathroom breaks while chasing down whaling ships on the high seas. Suzuki now seems to be adopting a similar philosophy: that human-written law should be subordinate to that of Mother Nature (except, of course, when it comes to incarceration; human-constructed jails are so much more reliable than caves or thickets). And, of course, it’s only Watson and Suzuki’s special hot-line to Gaia that allows them to interpret nature’s law; the rest of us unenlightened ones need not apply.We should also not be surprised at the intolerance that permeates Suzuki’s “lock ’em up” rhetoric. After all, despite the multicultural mantra that we “celebrate our differences,” there’s a disturbingly illiberal tendency these days (as shown in the recent “human-rights” prosecutions of Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn, for example) to censor those with whom one doesn’t agree. It’s only a very small step to try to throw such disagreeable persons into prison, too. Perhaps U.S. author Jonah Goldberg ought to be thinking of adding a chapter to his high-profile new book, Liberal Fascism, to explore this subject further.

Actually, Czech President Vaclav Klaus (who, coincidentally, is up for reelection tomorrow) has already done a lot of thinking in this area and has concluded that environmental zealotry poses as great a threat to human freedom as did communism. Klaus, whose book Our Planet is Blue not Green will soon be translated into English, believes that climate-change alarmists persuade governments to launch costly and unnecessary programs that have the ultimate effect of impoverishing people, thereby making them less free.

“When we look at it in a proper historical perspective, the issue is — once again — freedom and its enemies,” Klaus wrote last year. “Those of us who feel very strongly about it can never accept the irrationality with which the current world has embraced climate change (or global warming) as a real danger to the future of mankind, as well as the irrationality of [anti-globalwarming] measures because they will fatally endanger our freedom and prosperity.”

Suzuki is actually supporting a more direct attack on freedom than that which worries Klaus. Suzuki’s plan would lead to a loss of freedom, not though punitive economic measures, but through the incarceration of politicians with whom he disagrees. I have a better idea: Let the court of public opinion decide this at the polls. And if Suzuki doesn’t like the democratic outcome, he can always show his displeasure by giving us back his Order of Canada medal.

oneills@telus.net – Terry O’Neill is a Vancouver editor and writer.

Source National Post