The NDP is proposing legislation to criminalize climate dissent

[blackbird]

The NDP is an Orwellian Big Brother that now is determined to control everyone's speech.

Wonder how this fits in with the Charter of Rights on Freedom of Speech.  

Adam Pankratz: The NDP's loathsome pitch to criminalize climate dissent (msn.com)

[Nationalist]

It doesn't.

But...some good news...

Quote

The Arctic Sea ice extent is measured by satellites and varies by day, month and year, and the yearly minimum ice extent will occur in a day of September month every year. The ice extent is much lower now (2023) than in 1978, when the satellite measurements began. However, it has not been a gradual decline. A major decline happened during the years 1997 - 2007. Before that the decline was minimal and after that period, there was no significant downward trend. Since the very low Arctic Sea Ice extent which happened in 2007, many scientists, organisations, media and communicators, including vice-president and Nobel Prize winner Al Gore, have predicted that the sea ice in the summer may completely disappear in few years or one to two decades. In that way new and shorter ships routes north of the continents will open up. These predictions ignore the fact that the Arctic Sea ice extent during the last 17 years from 2007 to 2023 – almost two decades – has been stable without a downward trend. Therefore, there is no indication that we should expect the summer Arctic Sea summer ice to disappear completely in one or two decades, as predicted. Regarding the extent of the summer (February) sea ice at Antarctic, the downward trend during the years 1979-2021 was very small, but in 2022 and 2023 a considerable decline was observed, and a decline was also clearly observed for the whole period of 2007- 2023. That was in contradiction to what happened in the Arctic. The pattern of the annual variation was not the same for the Arctic and Antarctic, indicating different drivers in the North and South. These data shows that there is no apparent correlation between the variable extent of the Arctic and Antarctic Sea ice and the gradually increasing CO2-concentrations in the atmosphere, as proposed by NSIDC, IPCC and others.

New research shows that

 

[Michael Hardner]

Nice that this posted as an Opinion post and not 'news'  

Likely because the columnist is spreading little b*llshits throughout.  A news site is telling me that the ban is on misleading advertising....

It would be great for free speech if those who valued it actually paid attention to being honest.  

Never heard of this one before.  Seems oddly opportunist since he ran for the Federal Liberals (?) and posted some pretty strong anti-Trump stuff.  Ah well.

[Legato]

8 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Nice that this posted as an Opinion post and not 'news'  

Likely because the columnist is spreading little b*llshits throughout.  A news site is telling me that the ban is on misleading advertising....

It would be great for free speech if those who valued it actually paid attention to being honest.  

Never heard of this one before.  Seems oddly opportunist since he ran for the Federal Liberals (?) and posted some pretty strong anti-Trump stuff.  Ah well.

Sorry Michael but that response is just another example of an obviously biased word salad.

[TreeBeard]

I like laws against disinformation by large corporations.  I would call it the “Be Honest or Shut the Fuc# up” bill.  

[Michael Hardner]

22 minutes ago, Legato said:

Sorry Michael but that response is just another example of an obviously biased word salad.

His or mine ?

My main point is that the proposal is a ban on misleading advertising, which is already law for other products.  We can debate that.  But isn't it ironic, don't you think, that this guy cannonballs into the wading pool of discussion with a bunch of falsehoods ?

Ironic.

Just now, TreeBeard said:

I like laws against disinformation by large corporations.  I would call it the “Be Honest or Shut the Fuc# up” bill.  

We are finally talking about taking the elitists to task and not just sharing fake memes about Bill Gates putting bio-microchips in my Cherios...

[blackbird]

14 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

My main point is that the proposal is a ban on misleading advertising, which is already law for other products.  We can debate that.  But isn't it ironic, don't you think, that this guy cannonballs into the wading pool of discussion with a bunch of falsehoods ?

You are being totally deceptive to defend your false god of man-made climate change.

The actual proposed legislation says this in part:

quote

Manner of promotion and prohibited elements

8 It is prohibited for a person to promote a fossil fuel or the production of a fossil fuel

• (a) in a manner that states or suggests that the fossil fuel, its production or its emissions are less harmful than other fossil fuels, their production or their emissions;

• (b) in a manner that states or suggests that a fossil fuel or the practices of a producer or of the fossil fuel industry would lead to positive outcomes in relation to the environment, the health of Canadians, reconciliation with Indigenous peoples or the Canadian or global economy; or

• (c) by using terms, expressions, logos, symbols or illustrations that are prohibited by the regulations.

  unquote

  So who gets to decide whether some speech promoting fossil fuels is against the law?   Of course anything that says fossil fuels are good is condemned by this legislation.  Any comment, advertisement, etc. will be illegal under this law. The whole thing is a complete violation of freedom of speech.  Wake up Michael.  You are such a naive puppet of the environmentalists and woke.

[blackbird]

This would completely destroy the natural gas industry as the NDP wants to do.

No more exporting LNG either, even if LNG can replace coal-fired electricity plants in China and India.

[TreeBeard]

1 minute ago, blackbird said:

So who gets to decide whether some speech promoting fossil fuels is against the law?

We have these things called courts that determine matters of law. 
 

1 minute ago, blackbird said:

The whole thing is a complete violation of freedom of speech. 

Should cigarette companies be allowed to tell you that smoking is good for you?

[Michael Hardner]

3 minutes ago, blackbird said:

You are being totally deceptive to defend your false god of man-made climate change.

I didn't read anything past this line.  Here's your editorials summary:

"NDP MP Charlie Angus thinks he has found the answer: criminalize fossil fuel promotion."

Who's deceptive, now ?
 

[TreeBeard]

1 minute ago, blackbird said:

This would completely destroy the natural gas industry as the NDP wants to do.

Aren’t they building LNG in BC?  

[blackbird]

Just now, TreeBeard said:

We have these things called courts that determine matters of law. 
 

Should cigarette companies be allowed to tell you that smoking is good for you?

If you think fossil fuels are so bad and living in a fossil fuel world is the same as smoking cigarettes, why are you living in a building, riding in motor vehicles, and eating food all produced by fossil fuels?  Don't be a hyprocrit.

[Michael Hardner]

Promotion of Fossil Fuels is, of course, not addressed on its own.  Only propaganda.

And the oil puppets are leaping out... some of which are paid, and some of which (as I suspect our OP is) just use their "own the libs" ideology to drive everything they do and say...

[blackbird]

Fossil fuels good. NDP bad.  New promotion line for Conservatives.  Wipe these Orwellian dictators off the map.  They are the real threat.

[TreeBeard]

10 minutes ago, blackbird said:

If you think fossil fuels are so bad and living in a fossil fuel world is the same as smoking cigarettes, why are you living in a building, riding in motor vehicles, and eating food all produced by fossil fuels? 

Unfortunately, I didn’t make the world we live in. The only solution to all those things you mentioned is to kill myself. You’ve told me that’s a sin, so here I am….  stuck trying to get governments to change the world for the better. 
 

Should cigarette companies be allowed to tell you that smoking is good for you?  Is that free speech?

[Nefarious Banana]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

Nice that this posted as an Opinion post and not 'news'  

Likely because the columnist is spreading little b*llshits throughout.  A news site is telling me that the ban is on misleading advertising....

It would be great for free speech if those who valued it actually paid attention to being honest.  

Never heard of this one before.  Seems oddly opportunist since he ran for the Federal Liberals (?) and posted some pretty strong anti-Trump stuff.  Ah well.

Everything Liberal/NDP is good . . . for you.

Carry on.

[Michael Hardner]

3 minutes ago, Nefarious Banana said:

Everything Liberal/NDP is good . . . for you.

Carry on.

Easier to tag somebody rather than address their points.

You are a panda in a top hat !  Argument complete !

[suds]

2 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

We have these things called courts that determine matters of law. 
 

Should cigarette companies be allowed to tell you that smoking is good for you?

Of course not, because everyone knows cigarette smoking is bad for you. But in some cases the use of natural gas to replace coal as a short term solution could benefit the environment and people's health. Section 8 of the Bill makes it illegal for NG producers and retailers to even discuss these possibilities openly with the general public. I have to think that Section 8 goes one step too far.

Edited February 8 by suds

[TreeBeard]

1 minute ago, suds said:

Of course not, because everyone knows it's bad for you. But in some cases the use of natural gas to replace coal as a short term solution could benefit the environment and people's health. Section 8 of the Bill makes it illegal for NG producers and retailers to even discuss these possibilities openly with the general public. I have to think that Section 8 goes one step too far.

I’m not inflexible.  Amend it. 

[herbie]

3 hours ago, blackbird said:

If you think fossil fuels are so bad and living in a fossil fuel world is the same as smoking cigarettes, why are you living in a building, riding in motor vehicles, and eating food all produced by fossil fuels?  Don't be a hyprocrit.

Run your car in your closed garage. Heat your tent or camper with fossil fuels.
Noe really stretch your imagination and imagine the Earth by looking at a 12" globe. The atmosphere would be half the thickness of a pin to that scale. Just keep talking as if it's not also a "enclosed" environment.