The above is Polly Higgins a British lawyer. Last week she called for introducing international laws through the United Nations which would make it a crime against humanity to question the reality of man-made global warming.
Under the guise of going after big corporations and polluters for the war crime of emitting the gas that humans exhale and plants breathe, the proposal would actually target individuals and those who merely express scepticism towards man-made global warming.
Supporters of a new ecocide law also believe it could be used to prosecute "climate deniers" who distort science and facts to discourage voters and politicians from taking action to tackle global warming and climate change reported the Guardian.
Some respondents to the article agreed that merely questioning whether man-made climate change was real should be criminalized - literally calling for the establishment of a UN-run thought police that would prosecute anyone who expressed dissent against the AGW belief system.
Research shows that Higgins is on the board of a company called DESERTEC which is a "charitable initiative of the Club of Rome".
The Club of Rome was founded in 1968 by the elite kingpin David Rockefeller and counts amongst its members some of the most influential power brokers on the planet, including current and former heads of State, UN bureaucrats, high-level politicians and government officials, diplomats, scientists, economists and business leaders from around the globe.
Ms Higgins certainly has friends in high places and is determined we lose our choice to decide about the climate issue. Here is the full article.
Posts
16 comments:
Pure Spanish Inquisition stuff.
I doubt modern schools include that part of history these days. It would be a dead giveaway because all the methods are exactly the same.
Worth reading up on.
Hum....
I deny man made global warming.
Arrest me.
PS: Do they not have shampoo in her house? Her hair looks clammin'
Definitely worth reading up on LI, especially the Club of Rome which I hadn't heard about until now.
Careful now Tris, us lesser mortals as easy targets for these people.
Having already done a bit of reading on this, I think you are completely missing the difference between environmentalism and conservation.
This proposal isn't to punish those who don't believe in climate change. There is nothing it could do against the individual, or to stop you from driving your car, using filament bulbs or whatever.
What it will allow is for the prosecution of oil companies who dump pollutants at sea, countries who ship their waste out to the oceans for dumping, companies who ship toxic waste to developing countries and so on.
It's not part of any climate change agenda, it part of an attempt to prevent anything like the Bhopal toxic waste dumping, which is still causing health problems in India, from happening again and destruction of the unique environment we live in.
Unless of course, industrial pollution is acceptable?
As for the guys saying it could be used to take climate change deniers to court, for every political ying, there is a yag somewhere.
A minority of devout climate change deniers rally to Lord Monkton and hold protests, a minority of devout climate change believers rally to an extreme group. It doesn't mean either side with triumph over a reasonable middle-way which will be hammered out through international diplomacy.
And considering the general inability of the UN to swat a fly--I wouldn't take much comfort from what they might do against the rape of the environment or bad in infringement of liberties.
Jeanne, I would think some of her friends in the Club of Rome are employed within the UN. Just a case of signing on the dotted line perhaps.
No I don't think I am Hythlodeaus. I understand the difference fully. I also understand many do their best to include pollution in the climate change argument when it's an issue which should be treated separately.
Did you read the Club of Rome's website. I found their aims and objectives sobering. Will this law only apply to large global organisations? I doubt it. It's so much easier to go for the little guy.
Meanwhile, of course, we'll continue to give billions to China, India etc so as they can pollute the atmosphere as much as they like.
Industrial pollution is not acceptable and hasn't been for many years now. We have laws in this country to deal with it.
Will these laws over-rule our own? You bet.
Hmmm... David Rockerfeller - the hand up the www.350.org sock puppet useful idiot activist gaggle that paint their (or their children's) faces blue and parade around in 350 circles to attempt to convince us of their received wisdom interpretation of a disputed trend observation? sheesh.
.
How many times does one have to say it ...? Science isn't "hammered out through international diplomacy" Emperor's clothes and all that good stuff.
.
There are ways of addressing the pollution alluded to which are already in place. There's an agenda here and it isn't a healthy one. My understanding is that Rockerfeller is a "huge fan" of global governance, specifically with him and his acolytes in charge. I've this image of a sunlit Californian hilltop with a 70's circular Star Trek temple filled with chanting glassy eyed long haired folk in hospital gowns... nurse... nurse!
Will somebody please tell me I'm wrong?
I can't tell you you're wrong Gordon - not since I've discovered more information about the Club in Rome. Global governance appears to be their main aim and using climate change is part of the process.
The Club of Rome are also the people who were quite certain we would all starve to death in the 70's because it would be impossible by then for the world to produce enough food to feed us all.
Or maybe it was the 90's, but my point's the same.
I think they were also probably agitating for action to prevent the onset of another Ice Age in the 80's.
These sorts of tossers only cause problems when they manage to capture the power of the State; our basic problem is that the State is too powerful. If we could just ignore them, as we did for the last several millennia, that would solve the problem.
If they capture the UN then they get the go-ahead WY. Seems like they're well over half way to doing that already.
The Club of Rome, Bilderberg, Davos? Fact is if their existence is known it's because they want to be known.
Their tactics or purpose behind this exposure we can only surmise as being far more devious and self serving. But what cannot be questioned is their ultimate goal of global dominance.
It's quite conceivable the recent financial meltdown and resultant recession has been contrived by them to emphasise the effects they can create by merely flexing their muscle.
On paper they may show billions in write downs, but profit and money is only of minor interest as long as they can dominate and control the markets and the development of these markets.
Democracy has no place in their aspirations (in its true sense democracy is a rampart against their objectives). To this end they aim to reduce the role of the State to that of a human resource department where ideologies, freedoms and citizenship are paid ever diminishing lip service while wars, hot, cold or tepid are contrived to stoke the fears of the gullible and the profits and control of the greedy.
In the last thirty years we have seen the advance of capitalism and the boom of free markets; both having been allowed by them being released from any semblance of social responsibility. During the same period government in the UK has also gone out of its way to increase taxes, controls and legislation against its citizens while relinquishing any responsibility for the effects or the qualities associated with them.
Fact is, whether global warming is a scam or not. Whether Iran's nuclear position is a threat any more than Israel's, we no longer place any trust in their actions or their words.
Trust is a major building block in the foundation and coherence of democracy, but they just don't get it. Which is why they will ultimately fail.
Thanks for your concise comment RA. Yes of course the website of the Club of Rome is only the public face of these powerful people. The other 99% will not be available anywhere for the public to access.
I do hope they fail but I'm sceptical right now.
Post a Comment