Pangloss Posted February 8, 2008 Posted February 8, 2008 David Suzuki, one of the most prominent scientists in the western hemisphere evangelizing that humans are responsible for global warming, the recipient of 22 honorary degrees from Canadian, American and Australian universities for his hard work in promoting this cause, the recipient of Canda's most prestigious award, the Order of Canada, recipient of the UN's Kalinga Prize, hailed by the Canadian Broadcast Company as one of the "Top Ten Canadians", author of 43 books including a best-selling series of children's books about science, has proposed that politicians who don't push the ecological agenda forward should be arrested and incarcerated. Toward the end of his speech, Dr. Suzuki said that "we can no longer tolerate what's going on in Ottawa and Edmonton" and then encouraged attendees to hold politicians to a greater green standard. "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," said Dr. Suzuki, a former board member of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association. "It's an intergenerational crime in the face of all the knowledge and science from over 20 years." The statement elicited rounds of applause. So much for scientific inquiry. After all, the debate is over, so shut the F up. Or else.
Daecon Posted February 8, 2008 Posted February 8, 2008 Those who don't "push" it or those who downright deny it, in the same way a creationist denies science?
Sayonara Posted February 8, 2008 Posted February 8, 2008 Pangloss: Is your question here one of whether or not he is right about them committing a criminal act? I presume from what he said that the only politicians he is interested in locking up are the criminal ones, and I really can't say I object to locking up criminals.
D H Posted February 8, 2008 Posted February 8, 2008 Pangloss omitted describing the "crime" of which politicians are guilty of violating. Hint: It's not taking bribes or any other related crime that politicians are wont to commit. http://www.canada.com/topics/technology/science/story.html?id=25ce9ba8-8395-48ab-b0bf-94a552146478&k=24195 Toward the end of the extemporaneous speech, he said that, "we can no longer tolerate what's going on in Ottawa and Edmonton" and then [encouraged attendees to hold politicians accountable for what he called an "intergenerational crime" of dismissing the evidence of climate change. "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," said Mr. Suzuki, who then received vigorous applause. The crime is dismissing the evidence of climate change.
Pangloss Posted February 8, 2008 Author Posted February 8, 2008 Pangloss: Is your question here one of whether or not he is right about them committing a criminal act? I presume from what he said that the only politicians he is interested in locking up are the criminal ones' date=' and I really can't say I object to locking up criminals.[/quote'] You're focusing on the "see if there's a legal way" quote while ignoring the "in the face of all the knowledge and science from over 20 years" quote. He's not talking about criminal penalties on a law to enforce carbon emissions. He's talking about finding a way to lock up politicians who do not pursue new legislation that does what he wants it to do. Would you make that leap if he was talking about passing law that would lock up people who don't support teaching creationism alongside evolution? No, you wouldn't be talking about not objecting to locking up criminals then, you'd be talking about "chilling effects" on scientific inquiry and screaming for court intervention in the insanity. And so would I.
DrDNA Posted February 8, 2008 Posted February 8, 2008 Toward the end of his speech, Dr. Suzuki said that "we can no longer tolerate what's going on in Ottawa and Edmonton" and then encouraged attendees to hold politicians to a greater green standard. Strong words. What are they (Suzuki, Ottawa and Emonton) gonna do, hit somebody with a hockey stick? BTW: If any of you say that the world isn't round, I'll hit you with a dinner roll....so you had better not. PS: I came to this post thinking that "Don't support GW? Go to jail." ...was in reference to fearless leader
swansont Posted February 8, 2008 Posted February 8, 2008 Would you make that leap if he was talking about passing law that would lock up people who don't support teaching creationism alongside evolution? No, you wouldn't be talking about not objecting to locking up criminals then, you'd be talking about "chilling effects" on scientific inquiry and screaming for court intervention in the insanity. And so would I. That's the opposite case, though. People that support teaching creationism are the analog of the people that have dismissed the evidence of global warming, because they have dismissed the evidence of evolution. It would be similar to the case if the government had done nothing to try and warn people that smoking is bad for them, despite all of the evidence. If that had been the case, wouldn't it be justified to think the politicians might be criminally liable?
bascule Posted February 8, 2008 Posted February 8, 2008 http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=290513 I'm going to chalk this up to another case of sarcasm detectors failing to register...
D H Posted February 8, 2008 Posted February 8, 2008 It would be similar to the case if the government had done nothing to try and warn people that smoking is bad for them, despite all of the evidence. If that had been the case, wouldn't it be justified to think the politicians might be criminally liable? Many politicians from Kentucky did just that (denied the Surgeon General's reports) and they did not go to jail. The Surgeons General simply issued their reports. Politicians that disagree remain free to do so. Many politicians advocated (and some still do advocate) teaching creationism, and they did not go to jail. The Supreme Court simply issued their rulings. Politicians that disagree are free to do so. What is so special about global warming that warrants deeming any questioning of it as a terrible thought crime? The outward appearance is that the evidence is so weak that critics must be vilified and now criminalized.
CDarwin Posted February 8, 2008 Posted February 8, 2008 I'm sorry but I find it just a bit hard to care. Talk to me when someone actually goes to jail, but I don't think that prestigious Canadian scientists' rhetoric holds legislative power. I think this is a good example of the partisan affinity for scouring the press looking for any tiny thing to make a cause out of.
Sayonara Posted February 8, 2008 Posted February 8, 2008 Would you make that leap if he was talking about passing law that would lock up people who don't support teaching creationism alongside evolution? No, you wouldn't be talking about not objecting to locking up criminals then, you'd be talking about "chilling effects" on scientific inquiry and screaming for court intervention in the insanity. And so would I. No, I would not. You lock up people who disobey the law - it's for the courts to decide if those laws were broken, and ultimately if those laws are the right way to go about things.
Pangloss Posted February 8, 2008 Author Posted February 8, 2008 http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=290513 I'm going to chalk this up to another case of sarcasm detectors failing to register... I'm not. "He sounded serious," said McGill Tribune news editor Vincci Tsui, who covered the event. "I think he wanted to send home the message that this is very crucial issue." Of course his spokesman said he was just kiddin' around. No, I would not. You lock up people who disobey the law - it's for the courts to decide if those laws were broken, and ultimately if those laws are the right way to go about things. So he was just making a bland, off-topic remark about the importance of law enforcement in a civil society that just happened to fall in the middle of a rally on global warming. (hehe) Okay, guy.
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted February 8, 2008 Posted February 8, 2008 It's not about law enforcement. It's about law creation.
iNow Posted February 9, 2008 Posted February 9, 2008 It's not about law enforcement. It's about law creation. Exactly. We have laws for man slaughter. We have laws for murder. We have laws protecting endangered species. We have laws preventing companies from dumping toxic sludge. We have laws saying you cannot smoke around others in public places. We have laws saying you cannot euthenize someone. When taken in the spirit of the precendents I've listed above, tell me again why you have a problem making a law that holds politicians accountable for what he called the "intergenerational crime" of dismissing the evidence of climate change? Failure to act literally will result in the death of a lot of life. Pull your head out of the sand. You're not an ostrich, and this isn't an issue of freedoms, it's an issue of ethics, morality, and responsibility.
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted February 9, 2008 Posted February 9, 2008 So he was just making a bland, off-topic remark about the importance of law enforcement in a civil society that just happened to fall in the middle of a rally on global warming. (hehe) Okay, guy. Would you make that leap if he was talking about passing law that would lock up people who don't support teaching creationism alongside evolution? No, you wouldn't be talking about not objecting to locking up criminals then, you'd be talking about "chilling effects" on scientific inquiry and screaming for court intervention in the insanity. And so would I. Note any inconsistency?
Sayonara Posted February 9, 2008 Posted February 9, 2008 So he was just making a bland, off-topic remark about the importance of law enforcement in a civil society that just happened to fall in the middle of a rally on global warming. (hehe) Okay, guy. So, again: Is your question here one of whether or not he is right about them committing a criminal act? If not then what are we supposed to be doing in this thread? Bitching about Suzuki's opinion?
Pangloss Posted February 9, 2008 Author Posted February 9, 2008 The purpose of this thread was to point out that this SCIENTIST wants to render illegal any dissention on the issue of global warming. And that opinion is holding sway here not because it's a good idea to criminalize dissent (an issue you're simply chosing to ignore), but because the dissent being demonized is on the issue of global warming (so it's seen as ok). You don't like it when conservatives do it. But you're just fine with it when liberals do it. And I have absolutely nailed this case.
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted February 9, 2008 Posted February 9, 2008 The purpose of this thread was to point out that this SCIENTIST wants to render illegal any dissention on the issue of global warming. No he doesn't. He wants to find ways to establish that it already is illegal. He says that what the politicians are doing is a "criminal act", not that it should be.
Sayonara Posted February 9, 2008 Posted February 9, 2008 The purpose of this thread was to point out that this SCIENTIST wants to render illegal any dissention on the issue of global warming. And that opinion is holding sway here not because it's a good idea to criminalize dissent (an issue you're simply chosing to ignore), but because the dissent being demonized is on the issue of global warming (so it's seen as ok). If I were "choosing to ignore" elements of the OP I would not be providing you with so many opportunities to ignore questions. I asked you if your question was one of him being right because he says, in his words, that he wants to lock them up "because what they're doing is a criminal act". If we disagree that they are committing a criminal act then we can agree that he is a nitwit, job done. You don't like it when conservatives do it. But you're just fine with it when liberals do it. I can assure you Pangloss that I have no interest in favouring either side of the US political system. They are both equally amusing to me as a UK citizen. And I have absolutely nailed this case. Then what is this thread for?
Pangloss Posted February 9, 2008 Author Posted February 9, 2008 Obviously iNow disagrees with you, Captain, so I'm not the only one who sees this also as a cry for new laws. But let me see if I can produce a counter example that you may agree with, as an alternative to the example I gave earlier about Creationists, which was found to be objectionable (gee, what a shocker). Are you and Sayonarra basically saying that if someone were to call for the arrest of scientists who were subverting the federal ban on embryonic stem cell research (using federal funds to conduct this kind of research in direct violation of the ban), that you would support their arrest and incarceration in compliance with the law? Is that your position, in a nutshell? The problem with that reasoning is that we all know full well that no laws have been violated here. That part of his message is so fully and completely understood to be inapplicable that bringing it up is simply an exercise in dancing around the real issue, which is doing something to stop any and all dissent on global warming, no matter what it takes. And this thread has played right into that garbage, hook, line, and sinker. If you want to believe that maybe we can dig something out of some obscure Tome of Forgotten 19th Century Laws, go right ahead. But you're just avoiding the issue.
iNow Posted February 9, 2008 Posted February 9, 2008 When taken in the spirit of the precendents I've listed above, tell me again why you have a problem making a law that holds politicians accountable for what he called the "intergenerational crime" of dismissing the evidence of climate change? Failure to act literally will result in the death of a lot of life. Pull your head out of the sand. You're not an ostrich, and this isn't an issue of freedoms, it's an issue of ethics, morality, and responsibility. Obviously iNow disagrees with you, Captain, so I'm not the only one who sees this also as a cry for new laws. Maybe I should have said making "or enforcing."
Sayonara Posted February 9, 2008 Posted February 9, 2008 Pangloss, I am making no statements about the veracity of Suzuki's claims. I am simply trying to establish what it is you want to discuss with everyone in this thread.
Pangloss Posted February 9, 2008 Author Posted February 9, 2008 Pangloss, I am making no statements about the veracity of Suzuki's claims. I am simply trying to establish what it is you want to discuss with everyone in this thread. What I want to discuss is the fact that a well-known and well-respected scientist wants to silence by force any dissent on this issue. That sort of thing is extremely contrary and deleterious to a free society.
DrDNA Posted February 9, 2008 Posted February 9, 2008 What is the mechanism at his disposal by which he can use to silence anyone on any issue? Unless I'm missing something, he's just throwing cotton balls at a rock wall.
Recommended Posts