The Canadian environmental radical, David Suzuki, is at it again. Not content with denigrating humans as “maggots” that go around defecating on the environment, he now wants to add a “right” in the Canadian Charter to “a clean environment.” As I will explain below, such a “right” would be anti-human as it would destroy Canada’s prosperity and subvert individual liberty.
The campaign, like most radical thrusts, is long on the warm fuzzies and short on specifics to hide its ruinous intent. It uses propaganda–pretty pictures of nature and ugly ones of industry–to persuade the uninformed to jump on the radical environmental bandwagon.
Let’s take a brief look at the campaign, and then I will explain why it is so dangerous. First, Suzuki essentially says we are just another animal in the forest, albeit one that has a unique sense of the future. From the video:
The human brain invented an idea called the future. No other animal has a sense of the future as we do. And because we invented this idea of a future, we are the only animal that said we can affect the future by what we do today.
It is true, of course, that biologically, we are animals. But Suzuki is using the term in its moral sense–creating a moral equivalency between us and them. Otherwise, he would have said, “Unlike animals, humans understand the future.”
Make no mistake, that was on purpose because that is what Enviros believe these days.
To understand why the idea is so destructive, catch this quote from one of the Blue Dot representatives:
Imagine a world where decision makers can only move forward on the environment, working toward a future that is healthier and more secure.
Suzuki then equates the right to a clean environment with defeating racism, sexism, and gay rights. That is a prescription for absolutism.
But here is the thing: We need environmental laws and regulations–but they need to be balanced against individual liberty and the right of enterprise. That’s why environmental governance belongs in the political realm–so that differing views can have input and sway.
However, if you invent a new and fundamental “right” to a clean environment–indeed, one equivalent to civil rights protections–that would eliminate political deliberation over these ideas, as the “right” would be absolute and subsume all other considerations, such as economics and individual freedom.
Indeed, Suzuki makes clear he wants to create a right that forces all levels of government to pass laws and regulations that drive (if he will excuse the term) only in the same Green direction. In such a milieu, the ”environmental” would always prevail over free enterprise, the rights of property, and indeed, individual liberty.
It would also create a huge new field for litigation. Imagine the lawsuits to impede any enterprise that one claimed somehow interfered with the right to a clean environment. The suing would never end!
And that is the intent: Squelch capitalistic enterprise; collectivize economic decisions by requiring all laws and business initiatives run a radical environmental gauntlet. The effect would be to shut down industry, prevent the use of pesticides in agriculture, etc., and thwart individual initiative.
In short, the Blue Dot Campaign would be catastrophic to human thriving. Indeed, the ”right to a clean environment” is the same subversion as “nature rights” and “ecocide,” only with a warmer, but decidedly faux, pro-human veneer.
Let’s hope that Canadians see through the pretense.