“Baird said the Canadian government actions include regulating big polluters, a hydrogen initiative in B.C., encouragement of carbon capture and storage efforts, an electricity grid between Ontario and Manitoba and support for tidal power generation in the Maritimes.
“Harper was hoping to convince European leaders that his plan for fighting greenhouse gases is a good one, despite criticism from environmentalists.
“Unlike most of Europe, Canada and the U.S. oppose any new climate change pact that would exclude major polluters, such as China or India.”
Nothing in this article indicates that Harper advocates the restoration and protection of property rights in Canada and a common law type of approach towards pollution.
Everything in this article indicates that Harper believes in continuing the state central planning of the environment and economy in Canada.
Everything in this article indicates that Harper (and his boss in the U.S.administration) buy in to man-made global warming propaganda and the idea that the production of non-polluting carbon dioxide gas needs to be controlled.
“Prime Minister Stephen Harper urged France Tuesday to fight a European ban on seal products and asked the French to help Ukraine join NATO.
“PMO officials said Harper is pressing France and other EU leaders to cut trade barriers between the EU, a market of 400 million people, and Canada.”
Fighting the seal products ban is fine with me.
Reducing trade barriers sounds fine (if that’s what it really is rather than a push for global government).
But Ukraine’s defence policy is no business of the Canadian government.
The purpose of Canada’s defence policy should be to defend Canada, not Ukraine.
It seems to me that expanding NATO to Ukraine might provoke Russia. Why would Harper want to provoke Russia? I don’t think that is in the best interests of Canadians. Probably it’s in the best interests of weapons manufacturers and other businesses that benefit from war. And no doubt it’s an assignment from Harper’s boss – the U.S. government. Just like carbon capture technology (the “war” against carbon dioxide) will benefit some companies at the expense of Canadians in general, wars against human beings will benefit weapons manufacturers and other special interests at the expense of Canadians in general.
The purpose of NATO is to act as a war-making tool for the West and to provide a cover and backing for as many wars as possible. Collective “security” means “all for one and one for all” and is one of the most dangerous ideas in the world and the complete opposite of “mind your own business”. Since the latter is the most sensible and politically incorrect policy, I am not allowed to mention it, because it rules out resource grabs in Africa that pose as “humanitarian” interventions.
Are Canadians ever going to get a vote on whether we should be part of NATO? Will continuing membership in NATO and the expansion of NATO provoke war with the rest of the world and involve Canadians in other peoples’ conflicts? Yes, I think that’s the idea. Not much “security” and “defence”.
Why do we have to be enemies of Russia and China? And Iran? And Muslims?
Give the whole thing a rest and shut down NATO.
Alternatively, if NATO “expanded” (its main function apparently) to encompass every nation – and merged with a global U.N. force – then that would achieve the ultimate “one world government”. In that case, all war-making would be directed towards dissenters and separatists on a global scale. I suppose that’s the “ideal” for some. Surveillance, ID cards, control of speech, small arms, culture, religion, currency, trade, resources, and suppression of civil liberties. To shore up the power of those who already have power, and to finish off the individual rights of taxpayers and bring the scope of their lives within narrow boundaries determined by the latest lies about terrorist threats and global warming. When NATO reaches this point, the ruling ideology of power – “capitalism”, “communism”, “conservatism”, “environmentalism”, whatever – will have finally “won” the Cold War that NATO was created for. Hey, hmmm.. that can’t be right.
It sounds unlikely, but I suppose it’s possible to imagine each national leader selling out their nation’s sovereignty in order to cash in on that kind of global enterprise. After all, that’s what the leaders of Canada and Mexico do with the Security and Prosperity Partnership – they sell out Canadian sovereignty, civil liberties and independence to U.S. sovereignty. This is one of the major flaws in the idea of the modern nation state. Our leaders know they’re temporary and have no vested interest in representing the best interests of Canadians – protecting property rights and allowing us to keep what we earn. They would rather prance around the world advocating on behalf of other governments and commercial interests, and negotiating the means of our oppression.
This is where we need to be creative and consider solutions such as replacing the idea of government by representatives with the idea of direct democracy where people can argue for and defend their rights directly. I would like to see a forum or “virtual parliament” where ordinary citizens can debate and decide important questions such as NATO membership.
May 29th, 2008