Tag Archives: news

Oh no, that’s all we need.

.

From The STRAITSTIMES

Published Jul 30, 2025, 03:58 AM

Updated Jul 30, 2025, 03:58 AM

World Court climate opinion turns up the legal heat on governments

“The International Court of Justice, also known as the World Court, last Wednesday laid out the duty of states to limit harm from greenhouse gases and to regulate private industry. 

It said failure to reduce emissions could be an internationally wrongful act and, found that treaties such as the 2015 Paris Agreement on climate change should be considered legally binding.

                                     ****

What wonderful news for those who make money of the hoax of man-made climate change. Those who for some reason think that CO2 is going to burn up the planet well they can celebrate too.

But for me it is another sign that the law has turned into a gigantic ASS.  Just one hundred years ago the planet was hotter than it is today, and that is in spite of the huge tracts of earth that have been turned into concrete or asphalt, where cities create heat with huge buildings and masses of people, and yet we are still cooler than even 100 years ago. 

What about I million years or maybe 10 million years ago? Were there voices at this so-called court to talk about that and if there were did the court simply ignore them?

But I decided to dig a bit, and this is what I found,

Opinion or ruling?

In July 2025, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued an “advisory opinion” stating that countries have a legal obligation to protect the climate and prevent harm to it. The court emphasized that climate change poses an “urgent and existential threat”. “This ruling” clarifies that countries must uphold international climate laws, including the Paris Agreement‘s goal of limiting warming to 1.5°C. “The ICJ’s opinion” also suggests that countries harmed by climate change could potentially seek reparations. 

Here’s a more detailed breakdown:

  • Obligation to protect the climate:

The “ICJ affirmed” that countries have a legal duty to protect the climate system and prevent climate change-related harm. 

  • 1.5°C target is legally binding:

The “court clarified” that the Paris Agreement’s goal of limiting global warming to 1.5°C is a legally binding benchmark. 

  • Stringent climate plans required:

The “ICJ stated” that national climate plans must be “stringent” and aligned with the 1.5°C target. 

  • Potential for reparations:

“The opinion” suggests that countries harmed by climate change may be entitled to reparations or compensation. 

  • Increased legal pressure on governments:

The “ICJ’s ruling” strengthens legal arguments for climate action and may increase the success rate of domestic climate litigation. 

  • Fossil fuel phaseout:

“The ruling” is expected to increase pressure on governments to phase out fossil fuels and end subsidies. 

  • Landmark legal precedent:

“The ICJ’s opinion” is a landmark decision, providing a stronger legal foundation for climate action and holding countries accountable for their climate obligations. 

The ICJ determined that the 1.5°C temperature target is legally binding under the Paris Agreement and that all states, in particular the largest emitters, must take ambitious mitigation measures in line with the best available science. “The opinion” arrives 6 years after a group of 27 students from the University of the South Pacific began campaigning on this issue, and more than 2 years since the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) adopted a resolution requesting the “advisory opinion”.

While the “ICJ’s opinion” itself is not binding—neither on itself nor on domestic courts—it carries considerable legal weight and political legitimacy.

The ICJ has now “authoritatively interpreted international law” in a way that strengthens the legal foundation for ambitious, science-based climate action

(I highlighted the obvious contradictions.)

That may be but it has not stated or given an opinion of those who claim that this whole thing is a hoax based on Al Gore and his “Inconvenient Truth”.  They did not give an opinion on the concept that the planet has gone through more climate changes over the last few million years than any one of these brilliant manmade climate change advocates can or even will imagine.

What is regrettable to me is that those who sought to get justification or applause for their mania will claim that this “Opinion” or “Ruling” will claim victory for them and say that they now have a world court’s opinion that their hoax is real.   

Well yes, the hoax is real but the sad thing is that if they actually manage to do away with CO2 they too will perish, and probably claim to the end that they were right and the plants and sea let them down.

As an addition I read an article in Macleans titled Canada in 2060

Canada in the Year 2060

Summers lost to fire and smoke. Biblical floods. Dying forests. Retreating coasts. Economic turmoil and political unrest. It’s going to be a weird century. Here’s what it will look like—and how Canada can get through it.

BY ANNE SHIBATA CASSELMAN

And I confess I was laughing quite hard because by 2050 there will be no CO2, so there will be no oxygen so there will be no people to witness what they were predicting.  Oh, there might be a bit of oxygen floating over from China or even the USA, but not enough to sustain Canadians, who will have nothing to eat anyway.  But I realized that this will never happen in time because my grandchildren and great grandchildren and their generations will put a stop to this absolute crazy foolishness.

Yes, it’s time to re-read my copy of 1066 and all that.

The myth that the Government of Canada is a new one

Anyone listening to the histrionics emanating from the Canadian House of Ill Repute concerning the current Liberal Government of Canada being new one can easily see that is a lie.

Real questions asked either in what passes for debate or during the “Oral Questions” waste of time, determine that no answers are given to questions and in some cases front benchers such as Mackinnon or Champagne will not only avoid the question but heap contempt and ridicule upon the questioner.  I have watched two weeks of Oral Questions now and am not able to recall one question being actually answered.  Since this has been the pattern since 2015 I can hardly call this a new government. Oh wait a moment I recall one answer of NO, can’t remember who but it was the only real answer I heard.

Yes, I agree that the elementary school drama teacher devotee of Klaus Schwab and his WEF has luckily been replaced but his replacement, the no taxpaying banker from Europe (also a WEF devotee), with a suspected passion for the destruction of Canada and a blind passion for the man-made climate change hoax is hardly what we needed.

There have been in my life a few people who make the short hairs in the back of my head stand up and he is one of them.  I trust neither his word nor his motives.  He has assembled a front bench of the worst of the last cabinet and some new ones who have absolutely no clue about their portfolios.

To cap it all off we have had since the Canadian confederation in 1867 ( since added to by additional provinces and territories) several layers of governments each with its own economical responsibilities, and the 1982 version with the included Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (completely ignored by the Trudeau version of terrorists).

The federal government. the provincial legislatures and the municipal councils.  Each has their own economical responsibilities, based on local taxation, and each one supposedly controlled by its residents, as is suggested by democracy.   Regretfully that democracy has not existed in Canada ever.

But now this converted banker wants to create one economy for Canada!!!    “One instead of thirteen” he boasts, but he is forgetting all the municipal councils and indigenous councils across Canada. What a strange thing to do unless the idea is to make it easier to give Canada to the WEF.   Yet, every liberal in our house of ill repute sems to be championing this absurd idea as if it was possible without a constitutional change. 

It sounds like another Liberal pipe dream with a dry ending.

They are also boasting a tax cut to 22 million Canadians that is half the population (?) which amounts in my case to half my weekly grocery bill.    What makes me laugh is that he wants this to happen by Canada Day 2025 ?????

There is just over three weeks to get it read twice, debated, taken to committee (which hasn’t even been appointed yet) and then read/debated again and sent to the senate, and then after the same process in the senate passed and sent to the GG for approval.  Good luck.

Maybe he will learn that trying to get things done quickly in a dysfunctional parliament is a great deal harder than canceling funds and livelihoods in a bank with a simple stroke of a pen.

I also notice that almost everything he says is an admission that the last decade has been one of abject failure which he now comes in on a long white limo to fix.   I agree with the decade of failure but I do not believe he is not the man to fix it.

Maybe all new Bills should be entitled “The Banker’s Bill to:….”

Jeremy

One Canadian Economy?

3rd June 2025.

Open Letter to Mark Carney,

Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada.

Mr. Carney,

I know you have recently returned from Europe and may well be rusty in the way this country was set up but I feel I would be remiss if I did not remind you that the PM cannot change the Constitution of Canada to suit his needs as a banker or self proclaimer saviour of the country sent by the WEF. 

Your proclamation that there will be one economy in Canada completely goes against the division of responsibilities between Federal and Provincial rights and duties concerning the taxation of the Canadian people, including the rights of taxation by local town councils.  One economy would not allow for these. I am amazed that your Attorney General has not bought this to your attention, but then it is after all a Liberal government and the Rule of Law, respect, truth and openness do not apply to you, it would appear, any more than the Criminal Code applied to your predecessor.

Setting up a “free trade” system among provinces is not creating one economy and I am afraid that just like Trudeau you are imagining yourself as a Canadian god and by your language you are trying to create false realities.

You managed to successfully convince many frightened old Canadians to support you in the recent election, but I am also a senior and I do not fear Trump, who actually amuses me, and the more you feed his reality show host persona the more you urge him on;  but I do fear that your actions are smoke and mirrors and are going to do the opposite of what you have promised.

You do not have my trust and you absolutely do not have my consent to meddle with the Canadian Constitution.

Rule of Law in Canada?

26th May 2025

Last night somehow, I found myself watching CPAC on which there was a panel of three Supreme Court of Canada judges at UVIC answering questions.

One came from a usual member of the public, who had no idea about the court system, requesting the judges’ reactions to bail hearings setting people free after serious crimes. The supreme court does not offer bail as they are a stage way beyond that, however the chief justice in reply mentioned that in Canada the principal is “innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt” so bail, except in extreme cases, is almost mandatory and immediate.

Instantly the case of Tamara Lich came to my mind, where she was arrested on the charge of “mischief” (such a violent, viscous and hateful crime !) and was kept in jail – not a comfortable prison- but in jail, solitary confinement yet, despite not having been convicted of anything for 2 weeks before a bail hearing was even held. Meanwhile, Canada’s bail laws continue to allow habitually violent offenders loose after just a few days or maybe even hours in custody.

The Canadian Criminal Code states: “Persons who are charged with an offence are constitutionally entitled to be released from custody unless Crown Counsel is able to justify their continued detention … including consideration of the background of the accused and risk to the public.” It’s inconceivable that Lich could be considered a risk to anyone. Times Colonist Gwyn Morgan Mar 21, 2024 2:01 AM

Back to the CPAC program, several times “the rule of law” was mentioned by the trio of judges and it has long been my contention that the rule of law does not actually exist here in Canada, after all, how could there still not be any end to the trial of Barber and Lich after over 3 years. On the other hand, a primary school drama teacher turned politician who used hate speech against that Convoy and all its supporters (and that included me) was not charged with anything under the Criminal Code. Lets not also forget the enactment of the Emergencies Act when a simple conversation could have solved the problem. Rule of Law applied to him? Hell no.

To my mind both the Rule of Law and the Charter of Rights a Freedoms were both abandoned by Trudeau and it remains to be seen if this WEF banker will reinstate them.

Somehow I doubt it.

Canadian Government Hypocrisy

The Honourable Melanie Joly

Canadian Minister of Foreign Affairs

WEF Devotee

MP for Ahuntsic-Cartierville

15 April 2024

I have been trying to find anything that either Trudeau or you said about the Israeli attack on the Iranian embassy in Damascus, and I regret that I could not find even a single word, never mind one of condemnation.   Perhaps you both have your heads so buried in the sand that you did not even notice such a deliberate attack against an embassy.

It would be charitable to think so, but I know I am mistaken in that thought.

As a watcher on CPAC I saw you today in your asinine talk to the press gallery about the middle east, really an Iranian rant.

An Israeli attack on an Iranian embassy in Damascus killing 16 people inside it, (and blowing out the windows of our embassy) is not even worth a mention by you or this government even though it is contrary to all international laws.   But a display of rockets aimed at military targets and meant to test the defense system of Israel and cost them quite a chunk of change and which killed NOBODY caused you all to lose your twisted minds.

You and Trudeau do not speak for Canadians, you speak on behalf of the Jewish lobby in Canada and the WEF.   Thus, we are tarred with a brush of your choosing not ours.

This unwavering support of the most obnoxious people in the world is unworthy of Canada, and I am sure it only happens because of your terror of the Jewish lobby here. 

You announced that you are flying to Italy tonight and I hope you make it very clear that you do not represent the people of Canada, but you can speak for the Canadian Jewish Lobby.

The governmental reaction to this mess sickens me and I cannot condone it, agree with it or support it.

Jeremy Arney

“Civil disobedience becomes a sacred duty when the state becomes lawless and corrupt.”  Mahatma Ghandi

The unelected “WHO” and it’s ridiculous attempt to take over the world.

The Honourable Melanie Joly Minister of Foreign Affairs

The Honourable Arif Virani Attorney General and Justice Minister

The Honourable Anita Anand Treasury Board

The Honourable Mark Holland Minister of Health

The Honourable Pascale St-Orange Minister of Canadian Heritage

5th April 2024

Ladies and gentlemen,

As members of the cabinet of the current Canadian government, you must be aware that the 77th World Health Assembly is set to take place in Geneva, Switzerland, May 27-June 1.

The subject is all about the WHO’s International Health Treaty that is supposed to be binding under international law. Quite apart from the obvious fact that international law is not being abided by at this time by multiple partners (including Canada), to have an unelected privately owned entity try to assume dominion over the world is somewhat ridiculous even by this Canadian Government’s standards.

The basic agreement has some logic to it as to possible “recommended” actions promoted by real scientist and doctors, but the amendments or regulations, just as in every piece of Canadian law, are very much against the people of any country foolish enough to sign, since they change the entire concept of the law or in this case treaty, instead setting up mandates..

From :

The Defender  https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/who-power-grab-pandemic-treaty-support-letter/?utm_source=luminate&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=defender-wk&utm_id=20240331

(So much more reliable than the Canadian mainstream propaganda outlets)

“If you don’t pay attention to anything else, you must pay attention to Article 18 of the IHR amendments,” Lindley said.

According to Article 18 of the proposed IHR amendments, “Recommendations issued by WHO to States Parties with respect to persons may include the following advice”:

  • Review proof of medical examination and any laboratory analysis.
  • Require medical examinations.
  • Review proof of vaccination or other prophylaxis.
  • Require vaccination or other prophylaxis.
  • Place suspect persons under public health observation.
  • Implement quarantine or other health measures for suspect persons.
  • Implement isolation and treatment where necessary of affected persons.
  • Implement tracing of contacts of suspect or affected persons.
  • Refuse entry of suspect and affected persons.
  • Refuse entry of unaffected persons to affected areas.
  • Implement exit screening and/or restrictions on persons from affected areas.

“Even more troubling,” Roguski said, are proposed amendments to Annex 6 which “empower the WHO to be the sole authority empowered to determine which ‘vaccines’ or other prophylaxis would be deemed to be acceptable for international travel.”

So where is Canada going to stand on this? 

With the WHO (and WEF) or with the Canadian people whose almost ruined healthcare system will be destroyed by such a “treaty”.

The eagerness, willingness and false earnestness the Prime Minister showed in creating fear – almost panic – among Canadians ever day for months over a fake event but to his eventual financial gain (through his family foundation and Aquitas) should have taught us something, but apparently not.  Fear, hate speech and coercion were the order of the day, and we are being asked to go there again but next time by the WHO.

We will have fewer doctors as many of those who submitted the covid plandemic orders because their provincial professional colleges coerced them to, may well object to another unelected overseas entity telling them what they can and cannot do or say.  Nurses and health practitioners of all stripes may well join in because their oath is also “to do no harm” and then we will truly see people die off here in Canada.  It is to be regretted that Canadian politicians pledge an oath to a foreign king rather than the people of Canada who they are supposed to represent.

What about those Canadian people? Do we fit into this picture in your vision at all?

We do not have Democracy in Canada,

We have no Rule of Law in Canada,

We do not have a Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Canada that is recognized by this government.

Are you willing to give away our sovereignty as well?

Once again, I state that I do not agree with or give my consent to the government of Canada giving these sovereign rights to an unelected, privately sponsored international entity (WHO), and I have no intention of submitting to it’s current or future dictates.

“ I am a Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship in my own way, free to stand for what I think right, free to oppose what I believe wrong, or free to choose those who shall govern my country. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself and all mankind ”― John G. Diefenbaker (The 13th prime minister of Canada)

Jeremy