Deus lo Vult -- but Whose God?

Fighting on multiple fronts often ends badly. Not always. Israel fought on three fronts in the Six-Day War and won but then there was no survivable fallback option. Maybe that was the pivotal factor. In any event, this isn’t about warfare in the usual sense. However, it is about survival. Survival of our way of life and the forces which threaten it.

There are many foundational features of our Western way of life. The centrality of the traditional family. National cohesiveness. Trust as a default. Free market forces. Numbers of individual freedoms. A lot to undo. Time and chance cometh even to Marxists and their ilk.

Take over schools and colleges and teach children that their sex is matter of choice; that family settings are equivalent however structured; that the contrary opinions of others are hateful; and, if white, that they suffer from racial animus consciously or not and, if of colour, that they’re victims. Promote equity, diversity and inclusion at the workplace. In other words, ennoble the old prejudice of valuing appearance over competence. And the job is half done.

1099: where is Godfrey of Bouillon when we need him?

Enter climate change alarmism. Little in common you might think with wokeism. True at one level. At another, both strike at our way of life. Cheap, reliable and abundant energy is key to progress and prosperity. Costly, unreliable and intermittent energy will make us poorer. If only that were the end of it. Impoverishing changes can’t be foisted onto societies without accompanying coercion. Such is the scale of the changes envisaged that only overwhelming force will do it. We ain’t seen nothing yet.

The inroads of renewable energy and electric cars is miniscule as of now. But imagine: everyone is made to drive electric cars; to rid their homes of all heating besides electric; to insulate their homes; and, inevitably, to economise on, and regularly shut down, their power usage. Little or no meat, more nut burgers, complemented with insect pie, if you want to get really green (around the gills). Those in charge will need to devise ways of making people and businesses obey. Free market forces on both the supply and demand side will be so compromised as to be unrecognisable.

Then comes chance, delivering the coup de grâce. To wit, Covid-19 and, its disciple, Covid-fearmongering. It could not have been better timed if it had been planned. Klaus Schwab and his billionaire fellow travellers filled a straight flush. The Great Reset (unveiled in May 2020) was off and running. Australia, The Lucky Country, is a case study into a possible dismal, unlucky, future.

From Bastard to Conqueror in 1066: never underestimate the enemy.

As I write in early June, the entire Australian state of Victoria is in its fourth lockdown after just a handful of positive tests. People hundreds of miles from the scene have been ordered to stay close to their abodes and mask up. Yet only three people are in hospital; only nineteen in the whole of Australia. None in ICUs. No-one has died of the virus this year.

In Australia, eradication is the name of the game. What this means is that the virus, unlike any virus heretofore known to man, must behave. For, if it keeps misbehaving and escaping from one of those quarantine hotels, which leak like sieves, lockdowns will be never-ending. Remember, along with North Korea, Australia shares the distinction of preventing its citizens from leaving; lest they want to return.

Greg Sheridan is a sensible and sober foreign affairs journalist. Sadly, he is one of many who’ve been struck with Covid derangement syndrome. This is a taste of his writing; this time in the Australian newspaper on June 3: “But this cunning, adaptive and supremely successful virus is by no means beaten yet... And if we ever do get to that possibly mythical land beyond Covid…”

Putting Covid behind us, you see, is akin to reaching Camelot. Pause here. There is a threatening truth in that. A $200 million 500-bed quarantine centre is to be built close to a Melbourne airport. It’s Australia; it will take a longish time to build. Most everyone will have been vaccinated. Those flying in will most definitely have been vaccinated. Those in the know obviously know something that we don’t.

Having had more infections, most countries don’t suffer from delusions of eradication. Nevertheless, it would be extremely hopeful to expect a return to reason any time soon. I suspect that the world will be tangling gormlessly with Covid or son-of-Covid for some time to come. Vaccine-resistant strains will keep on popping up. Sheridan notes that of the people infected in Victoria several of them had been vaccinated. He says that the strain called Kappa is more probably more vaccine-resistant than Delta. Can anyone keep up with this increasing menu of virulent strains?

If it were only a morbidity with less outreach; like heart disease or malaria, as examples, which kill many more people. But alas, no, Covid is striking out at some of our foundational freedoms. Freedom of movement. Freedom of assembly. Freedom from enforced medical treatment. Freedom to worship. Freedom of speech – promote Ivermectin if you dare. Freedom from discrimination.

Alesia, 46 BC: are we Vercingetorix, or Caesar?

A fellow at my gym said to me, OK don’t have the jab but don’t take up a hospital bed if you get sick. This wouldn’t be said of someone with the flu or someone whose lifestyle contributes to their sickness or makes them prone to accidents. Here’s another Australian newspaper journalist, Peter van Onselen (June 5): “Most [getting seriously ill or dying] will be anti-vaxxers who arguably get what they deserve.”

Fascism creeps down from governments to apparatchiks to journalists to woke corporations to the police to scolds on the street. And once it takes hold, will it ever really go away? Might I  be more optimistic if I lived, say, in Florida or South Carolina? I’m not sure. Can any jurisdiction hold out indefinitely against vax passports? Their citizens won’t be able to travel and move freely. “Papers please” will likely become part of the new world-wide normal.

Add it together. What do you see? I see the Great Reset or one of its possible manifestations. Big government, loss of freedoms, loss of family values, loss of social cohesion, loss of trust. Bear in mind, this anti-Enlightenment prospective leaves out the cultural dislocation which is arising from mass controlled (and uncontrolled) immigration, particularly from the Islamic world. I didn’t want to get too depressive. It’s bleak.

But not time to give up. Backs against the wall nowhere to go. Truth on our side. An empire of lies on the other.

Gretchen Whitmer in the Enbridge Pipeline Wonderland

The drama surrounding Enbridge Inc.'s Line 5 is getting tense. Michigan's governor, Gretchen Whitmer, has ordered the Calgary-based energy company to cease operating the pipeline by May 12th. Enbridge has vowed to defy that order, which it insists Whitmer has no authority to issue, and await a legal judgement. Whitmer's office has declared that "Enbridge’s continued operation of the Line 5 pipelines in the Straits of Mackinac [after May 12th] would be unlawful." Enbridge executive vice-president Vern Yu shot back, “We will not stop operating the pipeline unless we are ordered by a court or our regulator, which we view as highly unlikely."

Tempers are clearly running hot, and they have been for months. Back in November, Whitmer fulfilled a campaign promise by revoking the easement -- first granted in 1953 -- which has allowed Enbridge to operate a pipeline along the bottom of the Straits of Mackinac en route to refineries in Sarnia, Ont., arguing that any rupture in the line could devastate the ecosystems of two Great Lakes -- Lakes Michigan and Huron.

Line 5 has never had a significant leak in its nearly seventy-year history, but even so Enbridge had already proposed a solution to this potential problem -- a replacement pipeline to be laid beneath the riverbed and encased in concrete, with the object of safeguarding the straits. This was too little, too late for Whitmer and her fellow environmentalists, who pointed out that the proposed project would take years to complete.

Take that, Canada!

Some of that time, of course, is due to agencies in Whitmer's own administration dragging its feet about issuing permits and cheerfully adding extra regulatory hurdles. Most recently, the Michigan Public Service Commission, all of whose members are Whitmer appointees, decided that it was legitimate for them to take into account the environmental impact of the petroleum products the pipeline is transporting when deciding on the environmental impact of a new pipeline.

I'll say that again -- the commission is going to factor the future CO2 emissions of the oil and gas which pass through Line 5 into their decision about whether the pipeline itself poses a threat to the Great Lakes. Utterly insane, bringing to mind a certain tea party from the pen of Lewis Carroll:

Mad Hatter: Would you like a little more tea?
Alice: Well, I haven't had any yet, so I can't very well take more.
March Hare: Ah, you mean you can't very well take less.
Mad Hatter: Yes. You can always take more than nothing.”

Quite a lot is at stake in this dispute. Some 540,000 barrels of Canadian oil and natural gas pass through Line 5 every day, between 40 and 50 percent of Ontario and Quebec's total supply, including all of the jet fuel used at Toronto’s Pearson International Airport. It has been referred to as the “spinal cord of Ontario’s infrastructure,” and through Ontario, to Quebec and points further east as well. A shutdown would have devastating consequences for consumers in eastern Canada, leading to fuel shortages and price spikes. And then there's the effect on employment -- the government of Ontario estimates that killing Line 5 would cost that province 5,000 jobs directly and indirectly almost 25,000.

Whitmer's own constituents would be effected as well -- half of the propane used to heat homes in Michigan passes through Line 5, and a great deal of oil bound for Ohio and Pennsylvania besides. But that's nothing like the effect a shutdown would have on Canada's two largest provinces.

And that makes this a tricky situation for Canada's famed green prime minister, Justin Trudeau. As Rex Murphy has pointed out, for the Canadian left, environmentalism was always supposed to be an anti-Alberta project. Though cloaked in high-flung rhetoric about saving the planet, in Canada the Green Movement has often been a cat's paw of the left-of-center parties for preventing the conservatively inclined western provinces from capitalizing on their natural resources and enhancing their economic might. But, notes Murphy:

Line 5, is not a pipeline OUT of export-blockaded Alberta, heading to the U.S. and hoping for a better market. Line 5 is a pipeline INTO Ontario, and — as Robert Frost was good enough to supply the phrase — that “has made all the difference.”

The 2019 election definitively demonstrated that the Trudeau Liberals can remain in power with essentially zero support out west, but only if they pull big numbers in Ontario, Quebec, and the Maritimes. If, however, voters in those provinces, whose fuel bills have already swelled thanks to Trudeau's carbon taxes, suddenly see their gas prices jump by, say, 30 percent, coupled with related job losses in the tens of thousands, enough of them are going to flip to one of the other parties to boot Justin from power, no matter how hard the CPC appear to be trying to lose.

2019 election by province (Wikicommons)

Consequently, the Trudeau government is desperate for the Line 5 dispute to be resolved in their favor. According to Reuters:

Ottawa’s strategy... is to repeatedly raise the issue of Enbridge Inc.’s Line 5 with numerous U.S. counterparts — including Biden — to get them to pressure Michigan’s Democratic Governor Gretchen Whitmer to keep the pipeline open.

Trudeau has apparently spoken to Biden directly about Line 5 more than once, but with no public response from the president as of yet. And Whitmer's side seem disinclined to back down -- Whitmer ally Liz Kirkwood recently remarked that “[t]he Canadians are awfully silent about our shared responsibility to protect the Great Lakes." Consequently, the Canadian government has begun flirting with more drastic measures, including invoking the (never-before-used) 1977 Transit Pipelines Treaty, which states:

No public authority in the territory of either party shall institute any measures… which are intended to, or which would have the effect of, impeding, diverting, redirecting or interfering with in any way the transmission of hydrocarbon in transit.

Suffice it to say, this is far more than they ever did for Keystone XL. And, of course, that makes this a mess of their own making, at least in part. As I wrote at the time, there was "no obvious limiting principle" to the rationale for killing Keystone, and now the same vacuous arguments are being deployed against Line 5. Had Trudeau been willing to actually defend Canadian interests then, it's unlikely that he would have this problem now. Instead, he played politics while accepting a pat on the head from the global environmentalist crowd.

Well now he's on the receiving end while Gretchen Whitmer does the same thing. Trudeau deserves everything he gets. And it's tempting to say the same for the people of Ontario and Quebec. After all, they voted for him.

After Masks and Lockdowns, Here Come the 'Vaccines'

We have been wearing masks for over a year. We have been quarantined in government facilities and in our homes. We have been rigorously locked-down in a futile attempt to control a virus that is clearly unimpressed by our efforts. The latest installment in the Covid frenzy is the love affair with the various vaccines, a mammoth suite of pharmaceutical interventions, that have flooded the market, promising eventual salvation from the ravages of the pandemic. Yet the negative side of these disparate vaccines has gone largely unreported.

While assuring us that pharmaceutical tests have been professionally run on the whole, New York Times reporter Alex Berenson writes in Unreported Truths about COVID-19 that “the companies failed to test the vaccine on the ‘right’ people—the people at high risk of dying from Covid. They failed to prove that it actually reduced deaths, leaving a tragic hole in our medical and scientific knowledge.” Berenson mentions “realistic theories about possible long-run harms from the vaccines, such as the risk that they can lead to a dangerous rebound effect on people who later become infected with COVID.” 

In Berenson’s judgment, “regulators failed at every point in the development of these vaccines—the preclinical work, the major clinical trials, and the approval process”—though he gives them the benefit of the doubt, owing to the pressures they were under and still recommends that people be vaccinated. Nonetheless, all the vaccines accomplished was to “reduce moderate illnesses in people who were at low risk from COVID anyway.”

A little jab'll do ya.

The ramifications of the vaccines are far worse than that. Symptomatic reactogenicity is not uncommon. In just a few months, a spectrum of concerning side-effects have appeared, ranging from blood clots, erythema, cardiovascular ailments and Bell’s Palsy to anaphylactic reactions, swollen lymph nodes, chronic pain and untimely deaths. It should be no surprise that the general population will be constantly assured by a complicit network of authorities and pseudo-authorities that adverse reactions are statistically insignificant and should not be heeded. The incurious will be easily persuaded, especially as countervailing reports will be duly censored.

A typical example of what is really happening comes from British Columbia doctor Charles Hoffe who, in a letter to the Ministry of Health, reports “numerous concerning allergic reactions and neurological side effects from the vaccine,” and observes that “In stark contrast to the deleterious effects of this vaccine in our community, we have not had to give any medical care what-so-ever, to anyone with COVID-19.” He concludes that “this vaccine is quite clearly more dangerous than COVID-19.” 

Equally worrying, mysterious problems of contagion from vaccinated to unvaccinated women have also arisen, causing serious and perhaps lifelong menstrual irregularities and reproductive dysfunctions following Covid vaccines. Dr Christiane Northrup, a leading authority in women’s health, argues that the vaccines do not entail a normal immunization program but create harmful synthetic proteins within the body, whose effects are transmissible. Naturally, she has been accused by the mainstream media of spreading disinformation, but the evidence for this newest pathology is compelling.

The effect on pregnant women is also very much in question. Children’s Health Defense (CHC) refers to Dr. Sherry Tenpenny, “a triple-board certified osteopathic medical doctor and an expert on the potential adverse impact of vaccines on health, who… brings up a most critical point, that we simply have no idea what the potential effects of these warp-speed developed, Emergency Use Authorized, experimental mRNA vaccines might have on a developing fetus.”

What potential effects these injections might have on the population at large is no less moot. The CHC editorial concludes with the rider:

This article contains a growing list of deaths that occurred after the experimental COVID vaccine was administered. The death reports are culled from the media and from social media, as well as from the CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) and reporting systems outside the US.

A Freudian slip by a newscaster reporting on a growing trend of vaccine refusal may have some truth to it. People are unwilling to be “euthanized,” he said, before correcting to “immunized.” The CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) considers the vaccines “safe and effective,” yet reports 2,794 dead, 56,869 injured following experimental Covid injections through April 5, 2021. Even CNN uncharacteristically reports that “5,800 fully vaccinated people have caught Covid anyway in US.”

The results from the U.K. are distressing, as they are from Norway and India. The news from Israel is no less disturbing. The mortality rates recorded in many sites are truly alarming. Other sites and fact-checkers downplay or scoff at these numbers as inflated, remarking instead on an infinitesimal percentage of adverse consequences. Sometimes the statistical accounts are so complex as to be difficult to assess. Obviously, the warnings will be contentious and the numbers disputed.

No thanks, I'll take my chances.

The truth is that reliable vaccines require ten or more years to develop and test, moving from the (1) exploratory to the (2) pre-clinical to the (3) trial and (4) post-licensure stages before they can be approved as safe for public distribution. Otherwise, not only their immediate efficacy but their future impact remains uncharted.

This fact is so glaringly obvious, it boggles the mind that it is rarely mentioned and commented on, or that it remains inadmissible in debate and discussion. A vaccine that arrives in just a few months when a decade or more is needed to create a reliable product cannot be trustworthy. They may, quite plausibly, be hazardous. What is known as “Operation Warp Speed” may pertain to the Starship Enterprise but is contraindicated in vaccine production. Slow and careful are the watchwords.

One can see the problems. We know the vaccines are clinically precarious for an undetermined number of recipients, but we do not know, regardless of what we are told, whether the vaccines are, on the whole and for a majority, actually effective, or merely placebos. Plainly, there are no means for ascertaining their effectiveness in the present moment—one takes it on faith.

Because someone may not or does not contract the disease following receipt of the vaccine is no proof of its potency; one may be already immune or resistant, or may suffer from the virus weeks or months later. And in the absence of longitudinal studies several years in duration, future side effects linger in a region of empty speculation and deferred research. People could find themselves suffering from any number of unexpected maladies—anemia, cognitive decline, clinical depression, or physical disorders as yet unspecified. Vaccines released years too early will likely have unpredictable pathogenic effects. Given their all-too-rapid and kluge-like development, the current rush to COVID-preventive jabs and boosters is a fools’ errand.

This fact has not prevented Big Pharma from scaling up its profit margin. Former Pfizer Vice President and Chief Scientist Dr. Michael Yeadon claims that new, top-off dosages designed to fight viral variants will be released without “clinical safety studies” and that these variants are in any case incapable of “immune escape,” that is, they are so similar to the original virus—“samients,” Yeadon calls them—that they are easily recognizable and controllable by a healthy immune system. Moreover, current “vaccines” consist of “superfluous genetic sequence for which there is absolutely no need or justification” while the ultimate purpose of these superfluous top-offs, Yeadon believes, is to surreptitiously give every person “a unique digital ID” in concert with the plans behind the Great Reset for global hegemony.

You'll take it and you'll like it.

Even Merriam-Webster has joined the quasi-medical cult, newly defining the word “vaccine” as “a preparation of genetic material (such as a strand of synthesized messenger RNA) that is used by the cells of the body to produce an antigenic substance (such as a fragment of virus spike protein).” In reality, this is not a vaccine, which introduces antigens into the system to activate antibodies, but an invasion of one’s genomic substance in order to generate an alien protein.  Adding a layer of vexatiousness to the issue is the question involving the Nuremburg Laws. The informed consent principle was defined as a human right and was intended to prevent forced medical interventions in any form, including vaccines. The first principle in the Nuremberg Code reads in part:

The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should…be able to exercise free power of choice, without…any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion, and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved, as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision.

The code’s application in the current circumstances is debated by many “fact-checking” venues, unconvincingly in my opinion. The fact-checkers need to be checked for their facts; when one considers that accounts critical of the vaccines are regularly suppressed by Big Tech and generally unreported or massaged in “the Marxist Mainstream Media” (the phrase is Dr. Steve Turley’s), one must be skeptical of unrestrained vaccine advocacy. The central fact remains that the efficacy of these drugs comes without proof, as should be obvious considering the conditions under which they have been fabricated: as noted, neither immediate nor long-term confirmation of their outcomes is realistically possible. Ignorance may be bliss, but only temporarily. 

A historic court judgment in Weimar, Germany illuminates the overall dilemma. The vast majority of studies rely on “a purely mathematical estimation or modeling study based on theoretical assumptions without real contact follow-up.” We are proceeding without valid epidemiological knowledge. We do not know the precise extent to which our governments and their salaried health officials and media collaborators are lying to us or are simply incompetent and cowardly. We have no idea what may be coming down the pike. We do not even know if the vaccines work as they are advertised. One does not need statistics, only common sense, to be doubtful and even suspicious of their viability. 

Caveat vaccinator.

Erin O'Toole's Carbon Tax Flip-Flop

As I mentioned the other day Erin O'Toole has foolishly decided to flip-flop on the topic of Canada's carbon tax. And that's is the only way to describe this. While running for leader of the Conservative Party of Canada, O'Toole signed a pledge which read as follows:

I, Erin O’Toole, promise that, if elected Prime Minister of Canada, I will: Immediately repeal the Trudeau carbon tax; and, reject any future national carbon tax or cap-and-trade scheme.

That pledge, of course, was a big part of the reason that O'Toole beat out Peter MacKay for leadership. O'Toole appealed to the western provinces by calling MacKay a squish on resource issues. MacKay hit back, accusing O'Toole of secretly supporting the Trudeau climate agenda in one particularly heated debate. Here's Ezra Levant reluctantly commending MacKay for having O'Toole's number, and offering this conclusion on the current leader:

O’Toole supporting the carbon tax is disqualifying because he promised he wouldn’t, and he received support in return for that promise. So he’s untrustworthy. He’s a liar. It’s disqualifying because a carbon tax is a terrible idea, bad scientifically, bad economically.

He might have added that it specifically disqualifies him as a leader, since -- if reports from the Toronto Star and National Post are true -- his own caucus wasn't briefed on the change. “We all first heard about this from the CBC article,” one Tory M.P. told the Post. How can he ever have the confidence of parliament if he does things like this to his own members?

Of course, not everyone was upset by this development. Some were delighted. True North highlights this tweet from Trudeau crony Gerald Butts:

True North also points out a few notable and underdiscussed green goodies contained in the O'Toole proposal:

Other measures... include a study on “new taxes on frequent flyers, non-electric luxury vehicles and second homes to deter activities that hurt the environment.” A Conservative government would also spend $1 billion on domestic electric vehicle manufacturing and an additional $1 billion to deploy hydrogen technology.

Which is to say, he's all in.

Of course, O'Toole's counter to all of this is, first, that it is necessary for winning Ontario, and second, that at least his carbon tax is better than Trudeau's. I previously mentioned Dan McTeague's refutation of the first point. To the second, I would point to Derek Fildebrandt's argument in the Western Standard that the Tory plan is actually the worse of the two:

Under Trudeau’s plan, the federal government taxes consumers in provinces that do not have their own federally-approved carbon tax, and rebates a portion of it back to those consumers to spend as they see fit. Under O’Toole’s carbon tax, the federal government will impose a similar carbon tax, but instead of rebating it, will put into ‘green cards.' These green cards will be managed by a group of bankers appointed by O’Toole, and allow carbon taxpayers to spend the money collected on government-approved green purchases.... The real difference between the Trudeau carbon tax and the O’Toole carbon tax boils down to how taxpayers are allowed to spend the money collected from them. And on this front, Justin Trudeau’s plan is somehow, unambiguously better than O’Toole’s.

Several commentators think that this gamble will hurt the CPC's electoral prospects and O'Toole's career (Brian Platt mentions Patrick Brown as the nearest analogue, who outraged the conservative grassroots when he endorsed the carbon tax, so he had no one to back him up when other scandals arose, forcing him, finally, to resign). But the ever-cheerful sage Rex Murphy is concerned about its effects on the future of Canada itself:

The Conservatives are, if the rumours are true, about to enter an election, as a pale and timid version of the Liberal party, as near-partners to the NDP and the Greens. Out West voters will throw up their hands, sigh very deeply, stay at home, and really start thinking separation is the only way to go. Really, this policy is acid to Conservative support in the West and will, for some, force a rethink of their place in Confederation.

Back when O'Toole won the leadership race, I called on him to follow the advice of his fellow Ontarian, Shania Twain, to "dance with the one[s] that brought" him, meaning the Albertans and Saskatchewaners whose support gave him the 'W'. Instead, he's listened to the political consultant class who have long held that the path to Conservative victory is to copy the Liberals in every particular and to ignore the voters that they find embarrassing.

Well that choice seems to already be paying off... for Justin Trudeau. The latest polls suggest that, going into the rumored snap election to which Murphy alluded, Liberal support sits at 39 percent, six points above what they received in the 2019 General Election, which saw them barely hold on to power with a minority government. The Conservatives, meanwhile, are down seven points from the same election, at about 27 percent.

We tried to warn him.

Canadian 'Conservatives' Offer Carbon Tax

The CBC has gotten their hands on a copy of the Conservative Party of Canada's all new Climate Change plan, and boy are they excited:

After years of criticizing the Liberal carbon tax, the Conservative party is proposing a climate plan that also puts a price on carbon for consumers.... Under [Erin] O'Toole's plan... Canadians would pay a carbon levy, initially amounting to $20 per tonne of greenhouse gas emissions, every time they buy hydro-carbon based fuels, such as gas.... The Conservative party's carbon price... would increase over time to reach a maximum of $50 per tonne.

For comparison, Trudeau's carbon tax structure (not counting the Clean Fuel Standard, a second carbon tax in all but name) has the tax increasing $10 each year until it reaches $170 per ton in 2030.

The other notable provision of the plan is, frankly, bizarre. In the Liberal scheme, Canadians can have their carbon tax expenditures (the direct ones, not the indirect, cost of living ones) rebated back to them at tax time (more or less -- what would be the point if some of that money wasn't skimmed off the top?). In O'Toole's plan, tax revenue would be diverted directly into a "personal low carbon savings account" established for every Canadian, which could be accessed for expenditures "that help them live a greener life."

This reminds me of the old joke that a camel is a horse designed by a committee. "Personal low carbon savings accounts" are a camel if ever I saw one, and they'd be a nightmare to administer.

But that aside, is the 'Carbon Tax, but cheaper' play a wise one for O'Toole's Conservatives? Some smart politicos think so. Here, for instance, is Matt Gurney arguing that Canadians want to feel like their government is addressing climate change, but don't really want it to affect their lives in any way. In that case, a cheaper carbon tax might do the trick -- assuaging the consciences of enough voters in the eastern half of the country to make Erin O'Toole prime minister.

But I find Dan McTeague more convincing. By McTeague's reckoning, the O'Toole plan wouldn't merely cost the CPC a few  points of support out west, it would decrease their support in Ontario -- the big fish -- by as much as 10 percent! After all, Ontario made Doug Ford premier just three years ago on the strength of his opposition to the carbon tax. For every voter in the Greater Toronto Area who might give the CPC a second thought based on this plan, two or three more in the rest of the province might just stay home, disgusted.

That's just another way of saying 'Trudeau Majority."

Brown Contra Mundum

Last week I wrote about the Canadian Supreme Court's deciding that the carbon tax is constitutional, with particular focus on the majority decision, authored by Chief Justice Wagner. Today I would like to briefly point out the strong dissent by Justice Russell Brown.

In a notable contrast with the majority opinion, which is full of pearl clutching about the "existential threat" of climate change, Justice Brown focuses chiefly on the law itself.

[N]either the Attorney General nor the majority fairly or completely describes what the Act does.... they downplay significantly what [it] actually authorizes the [Federal government] to do, and ignore the detailed regulatory intrusion into matters of provincial jurisdiction [it] authorize[s]... The result is a permanent and significant expansion of federal power at the expense of provincial legislative authority ⸺ unsanctioned by our Constitution , and indeed, as I will explain, expressly precluded by it.

The majority, he avers, misapplies the Peace, Order and Good Government clause of the Constitution, which was intended to govern instances where provincial governments couldn't act because they lacked the jurisdiction. This law, however, "is premised on provincial legislatures having authority" to act, as it sets a minimum carbon pricing standard to which they must conform, or else be subject to a federal tax. This is not at all how Canadian government is supposed to work, and Brown describes it as a “new... supervisory model of Canadian federalism" which "rejects the Constitution and rewrites the rules of Confederation.”

Now, it could be argued that this doesn't matter. Trudeau got his carbon tax, the fight is over. But Brown's dissent is garnering some attention as a rare challenge to Canada's legal monoculture. Sean Speer says that Brown's dissents are becoming "an intellectual beachhead for a nascent conservative legal movement," similar to that which began in America in the 1980s, but which has never migrated north.

One criticism I received about Friday's blog post was that my shot at Stephen Harper's not reorienting Canada's judiciary was unfair, since there simply weren't enough conservative lawyers for him to appoint. Well, to his credit, Harper did appoint Brown, and if Speer is correct, his work is gaining recognition among young lawyers who recognize how shallow their country's constitutional jurisprudence generally is. Rome wasn't built in a day, and countercultural revolutions can take time.

In the meantime, here's hoping that Brown can help nurture the kind of a constitutional revival which Antonin Scalia did in the States. If so, maybe the next carbon tax case will go the other way.

In Canada, Nowhere to Run from Carbon Tax

In a 6-3 split decision issued this week, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled the Trudeau government's carbon tax constitutional. The majority decision, written by Chief Justice Richard Wagner, held that Ottawa could legally impose the tax on all provinces because of the Peace, Order and Good Government clause of Canada's constitution, which allows the federal government to legislate on matters of national concern on which provincial governments are unable to act. Justice Wagner assumes that "unable" can also mean "unwilling," and then leans heavily on the "concern." He writes,

This matter is critical to our response to an existential threat to human life in Canada and around the world.... [Climate change] is a threat of the highest order to the country, and indeed to the world... The undisputed existence of a threat to the future of humanity cannot be ignored.

Faced with this histrionic language, it is worth noting that Wagner was first appointed to the court by Conservative PM Stephen Harper, before he was made chief by Justin Trudeau. Just another example of Harper's failure to tilt the Canadian judiciary in a broadly conservative direction during his nine years in office. Trudeau's government isn't making the same mistake.

The National Post tries to put the majority's thinking in context, explaining that, for the carbon tax to achieve its declared goal of rescuing humanity from anthropogenic climate change, no province may be able to opt out, because of the danger "of carbon leakage, where an industry in a province with carbon pricing might just locate to a neighbouring province without it."

That is, if the tax is imposed only on provinces which support the Liberal government in Ottawa, then businesses hoping to avoid the tax might just move to places like Alberta and Saskatchewan, which don't. But couldn't that reasoning be extended further? Why wouldn't businesses look to relocate out of Canada altogether?

CPC leader Erin O'Toole made just this point, warning of the "same risk of leakage of jobs and investment” to the United States, the great boogie man of Canadian political discourse. But I am thinking of countries like China, which will happily accept the jobs that western virtue signalers no longer want in their own country. Of course, China doesn't have the same concerns about carbon emissions that are so common in the west, but for our environmentalists, "out of sight, out of mind" is a key principle.

In any event, it seems that the only hope that foes of the carbon tax have going forward is for the Conservatives to win an election and repeal the law. And they might soon get their shot. Hopefully they don't screw it up.

Murphy Rex

I have long felt that Rex Murphy is not only Canada’s premier columnist but in many ways the soul of this country—at least before it began its plunge into political correctness and neo-Marxist conformity. Now he is one of the few waging valiant battle against its slide into the political doldrums.

I recall how many years ago I would listen to his open-line radio show Cross Country Checkup, which took the pulse of Canadian culture and sentiment. I admired his astuteness and hospitable accessibility, as well as his deep but lightly-held erudition. I never thought I would ever get to know him, but now I am honoured to call him a friend.

As is evidenced by the interviews he's been doing on his excellent YouTube channel, Rex TV, in all those years Rex hasn't lost a beat. Take a gander at my own recent appearance on RexTV below.

We are fortunate to have him continuing what has become an uphill fight to restore pride of country and a degree of public sanity. The U.S. has Tucker Carlson. We have Rex Murphy. Long may he prosper.

The Wearin' of the Green

The Conservative Party of Canada are having their (virtual) policy convention this weekend, and one potential inclusion in their new platform is causing quite a stir in that country's monolithically left-wing media. This CBC headline tells the tale: "Conservatives debate whether to declare that 'climate change is real' at policy convention."

The language recognizing the reality of climate change was put forward by the Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier riding association, which added that, "[w]e believe that Canadian businesses classified as highly polluting need to take more responsibility in implementing measures that will reduce their GHG emissions and need to be accountable for the results."

The CBC's report is hysterically transparent, spending some time gawking at delegates who would dare to oppose this change in the platform -- one attendee said "she couldn't support any green policies until the health and safety concerns of 'industrial wind turbines' are better understood," although the writer assures us that this isn't a real issue.

The story then pivots to a discussion of Conservative leader, Erin O'Toole, who is famous for taking every position on every issue and saying whatever he needs to say to get good press:

O'Toole has promised the party's election platform will contain a climate change plan that could cut greenhouse-gas emissions. To attract new supporters — especially millennials — O'Toole has said he wants a made-in-Canada net zero approach that sees government partnering with and pushing companies to bring their emissions down, and carbon pricing that targets only industries, not individuals. "You're going to see a very detailed plan... that will, I think, make our commitments probably faster than Mr. Trudeau without a running-out-of-control federal carbon tax that he's already promising."

Sounds like witchcraft to me.

It's likely that some kind of green language will ultimately end up in the CPC platform, and it will probably get O'Toole a nice pat on the head for not being as backward as his party's voters. But in the end that will just be used as a pretext for the Liberal's positioning getting even more radical, and it won't help him, or his party, come election time.

Meanwhile, Canadian businesses and Canadian workers will be the ones who suffer.

From Canada, the Return of Rex Murphy

Now that we've all done our bit during Two Weeks to Flatten the Curve/Fifteen Days to Slow Spread -- and that only took a year, so well done, all! -- the ice is finally breaking and the productive members of society are emerging from their unconstitutional house arrest to resume activity. Here's Rex Murphy, Canada's beloved curmudgeon and commentator, announcing his return to the streaming airwaves: