By If the eco-facists have their way I guess I could be on trial for “crimes against peace”:
A campaign to declare the mass destruction of ecosystems an international crime against peace – alongside genocide and crimes against humanity – is being launched inthe UK.
The proposal for the United Nations to accept “ecocide” as a fifth “crime against peace”, which could be tried at the International Criminal Court (ICC), is the brainchild of British lawyer-turned-campaigner Polly Higgins.
The radical idea would have a profound effect on industries blamed for widespread damage to the environment like fossil fuels, mining, agriculture, chemicals and forestry.
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. [The Guardian via Tim Blair]
Just think that not too many years ago this woman would be considered mentally ill and now today this rubbish is taken seriously by many politicians and the mass media. She is just another example of these ideological facists trying to take your freedoms away using global warming as the excuse to do so.
2:37 pm on April 13th, 2010 1
Well, she's a nut job. Speaking of nut jobs; she's not a "10" by any span of the imagination but not too ugly either. I'd consider letting her nibble on my naughty bits, if provoked and slightly tanked, but I swear it would go no further. What the hell, right?
4:39 pm on April 13th, 2010 2
'Mass' destruction of ecosystems might be an idea, but companies can simply fall under the jurisdiction of government agencies like the EPA. The ICC could deal with irregular cases, like Saddam pumping crude oil into the Persian Gulf and igniting the oil fields.
But applying a law to climate skeptics is quite stupid. That would be an attack on the right to freely speak your mind and question things that are questionable.
6:14 pm on April 13th, 2010 3
Q: 'What is your reaction to Arctic ice increasing?'
Al Gore: 'I don't like ambush journalism'…
7:39 pm on April 13th, 2010 4
I looked at the last paragraph/sentence of the quote and wondered if the UN scientists that recently were caught manipulating data would have this applied to them as well?
9:02 pm on April 13th, 2010 5
I get the feeling Polly Higgins is not concerned about trifling matters like Constitutional rights.
10:21 pm on April 13th, 2010 6
"but not too ugly either". You must be joking ???
11:21 pm on April 13th, 2010 7
There are some sick bastards out here on the interwebtubes.
11:41 pm on April 13th, 2010 8
Which Constitutional rights are you alluding to?
11:45 pm on April 13th, 2010 9
Perhaps freedom of speech?
12:48 am on April 14th, 2010 10
Yes, but which Constitution? The UK has no single document that consists a written constitution (i.e. no Constitution). The rights of its citizens are guaranteed by other conventions.
So, I'm guessing he was alluding to the US Constitution…Bringing up the US Constitution in a matter that concerns the International Criminal Court?
3:33 am on April 14th, 2010 11
Teadrinker,
"So, I’m guessing he was alluding to the US Constitution…Bringing up the US Constitution in a matter that concerns the International Criminal Court?"
Whoa there, cowboy…
You might not get too many attaboys here if you even hint at being sympathetic to the possibility that restrictive and agenda-driven rulings by some sort of international court should affect the long-standing rights of American citizens by overriding the United States Constitution's protection of free speech.
It is very proper to bring up the American Constitution when speaking of international courts that wish to project their power upon the domestic affairs of American citizens.
…and it kinda makes one think of the Second Amendment just as much as the First.
Besides, in the Americentric crowd, is there any other constitution of importance to talk about?
8:02 am on April 14th, 2010 12
Teadrinker, freedom of speech in some form is normally considered a benchmark for a nation to be considered free and enlightened. Most bedwetting leftists normally go into seizures over the issue. But if they want to be hypocrites to further their religious beliefs, so be it. But its worth a call out.
9:28 am on April 14th, 2010 13
…but he love Michael Moore…hey wait a second that's hypocritical! I thought better of the man whose home consumes more power than 28 times the national average.
10:49 am on April 14th, 2010 14
I liked it better when they just wanted skeptics to die slow and painful deaths from cancer. Dying painfully in prison just seems like overkill…
12:32 pm on April 14th, 2010 15
Chris…It has nothing to do with the American Constitution (some would call bringing it up an example of American arrogance). Had he brought up the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, he would have actually had a damned good point.
12:42 pm on April 14th, 2010 16
Dude…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_th…
1:33 pm on April 14th, 2010 17
Teadrinker, thanks for the link.
The quotes by John Bolton said about everything I wished to say concerning process, accountability and motivation… summed up nicely by…
"the ICC’s authority is vague and excessively elastic, and the Court’s discretion ranges far beyond normal or acceptable judicial responsibilities, giving it broad and unacceptable powers of interpretation that are essentially political and legislative in nature. "
…and…
"Subjecting U.S. persons to this treaty, with its unaccountable Prosecutor and its unchecked judicial power, is clearly inconsistent with American standards of constitutionalism. "
Instead of re-posting my opinion expressed in my previous post, read it again and put intensifiers in front of each adjective.
7:41 pm on April 14th, 2010 18
Actually, the International Criminal Court follows the principles of international criminal law, has 3 elected judges and one prosecutor. Frankly, the reasons sited by the US government for not signing the agreed are plain old BS.
7:45 pm on April 14th, 2010 19
While we're on the topic of questionable UN entities… I don't hear the US government talking about abolishing permanent seats from the Security Council.
9:24 pm on April 14th, 2010 20
In any case, it's in human nature to shape the environment to our needs. Case in point: our lack of fur and our opposable thumbs.
9:45 pm on April 14th, 2010 21
I didn't mean to imply just US constitutional rights. I shouldn't have capitalized the "c" in constitution. Take a look at this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by…
Lots of examples of freedom of speech. Even some international rules on the matter!
Look, you have a point to some extent. The international notion of freedom of speech differs from the US one and invoking it in an international tribunal may not get you far. But at the same time taking this position is sort of like dismissing DPRK putting a NorK in a labor camp for calling Kim Jong Il a no good poopie pants global warmist because DPRK law doesn't protect such a comment. It's certainly true, but do you really want to go there?