Fascism comes in many colors; ‘green,’ is one of them.

Jonathon Porritt, Chairman of the British government’s Sustainable Development Commission says

I think we will work our way towards a position that says that having more than two children is irresponsible. It is the ghost at the table. We have all these big issues that everybody is looking at and then you don’t really hear anyone say the “p” word.


Many organisations think it is not part of their business. My mission with the Friends of the Earth and the Greenpeaces of this world is to say: ‘You are betraying the interests of your members by refusing to address population issues and you are doing it for the wrong reasons because you think it is too controversial.’

The Times reports-

Porritt, a former chairman of the Green party, says the government must improve family planning, even if it means shifting money from curing illness to increasing contraception and abortion.

He said: “We still have one of the highest rates of teenage pregnancies in Europe and we still have relatively high levels of pregnancies going to birth, often among women who are not convinced they want to become mothers.

He would rather spend money on abortion and contraception than on curing people who are actually sick. I wonder what the Pope would say about that – this and this – not that his views matter very much when it comes to government policy.

One needs to be very careful when governments or their commissions begin using the word “irresponsible” about something. Its one small step – from “irresponsible” to “illegal.” Abortion is a personal choice; so is having children. And it “must” be respected; Indians still remember Sanjay Gandhi and his “family planning” program.

“The man who says to me, ‘Believe as I do, or God will damn you,’ will presently say, ‘Believe as I do, or I shall assassinate you,'” Voltaire said; he lived in an age when religion was running riot and when Catholics were persecuting Protestants. But what he says applies to every ideology, particularly environmentalism. Do environmentalists believe in individual rights? Will an environmentalist in government stay away from interfering in people’s lives all in the name of the “carbon footprint?” I say no. And this article is just one among many others that are pushing the envelope to see what kind of interference people are willing to tolerate to prevent “global warming.”

Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.


  • you12  On February 2, 2009 at 1:37 am

    I was thinking about the same topic. Where will this fear mongering take us? How will it end?

    That ‘Kachori’ Pachauri was in town Yesterday. Giving lectures to young engineering graduates at their graduation ceremony, something along the lines of how youth can tackle climate change and new challenges for engineering regarding climate change.. bla bla…. Now that he has won a Nobel prize, Pachauri has an irrefutable legitimacy and respect of the Academia and media even if he talks unproven nonsense. Everyone will listen to him and follow what he says.

    Similiarly TOI has started some “tackle climate change” nonsense specifically targeted to make the youth ‘aware’. And I suspect a large number of the “Padha Likha Aadmi” will proudly join to ‘save the planet’. My suggestion is that they should also start an campaign about how subsidized fertilizers to ‘Poor farmers’ are destroying the land, and how cattle is one of the top reasons for the ‘AGW’.

    Common sense is just not very common.Hence I can’t predict how this “AGW” nonsense will end. Although I found a few hints in a comment from the linked article.

    “The Global Warming Fraud is going to be used for mass genocide if it is not confronted head on. The environmental police have suggested we stop eating meat, abort our children, increase radioactive wastes, and reduce the amount of exhaled carbon footprints. The debate is not over yet.

    Larry, Carlsbad, USA ”


    Do you have some good links about ‘Libertarian position on Polygamy’. I was not able to find anything satisfactory.

  • Aristotle The Geek  On February 2, 2009 at 2:24 am

    Britain is going to the dogs. There, I have said it again.

    “Do you have some good links about ‘Libertarian position on Polygamy’”
    There is no “single” libertarian position because there are many kinds of libertarians. But this position is a common one-

    “I simply stated that we have a government who has decided to define marriage when it should be left up to the various religions who have their [own] definition. Furthermore, whatever consenting adults wish to do with each other is not the government’s business provided that all rights of the person are respected.”

    An earlier guest had raised the concern about abusive situations where a person might be kept against his/her will in such an arrangement. How should this situation be handled?

    “I did not see the difference between this situation and an abusive relationship within a couple. Whatever legal rights exist for a couple where one is the victim of abuse, the same laws should apply to the polygamist household. Whether they are living in polygamy or a commune or as a couple, I do not see any difference. A person is entitled to the same protection of rights and freedoms regardless.”

    You can find some articles at LewRockwell.com “Get the State Out of Marriage” is an interesting one.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s