Climate Depot reports that another prominent green, Robert F. Kennedy Junior, has called for climate “deniers” to be jailed. Is it just me, or is there something very wrong with a political landscape in which people find it acceptable to demand their opponents be jailed for disagreeing with them? Watch the video.
RFK Jr wants to jail energy CEO’s for “Treason” Laments no current laws to punish climate skeptics:
RFK Jnr is not alone in demanding people who disagree with him do time – the Google search http://google.com/search?q=jail+climate+deniers returns over 200,000 hits.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The thoughts a 10 year old would know not to express in public, in a republic.
Makes one wonder……….
Unfortunately the politicians have no knowledge on what is climate change. Let them worry on how much pollution/greenhouse gases are pumped in to the atmosphere through wars in recent years — more particularly after 1951. Let these politicians look at before making such statements!!!
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
According to this website Kennedy part owns three oil companies.
http://aun-tv.com/oil-company-part-owner-robert-kennedy-jr-blames-oil-companies-in-pj-media-video-confrontation/
I think drones above are controlling his neck muscles. He already died a few years ago. He is now the twenty million dollar man. His empty goal is to identify the low IQ citizens of America, once and for all.
Interesting edit of the start of that video. I wonder exactly who he was suggesting should be jailed. Appears to me that some context is missing.
Wow. No clue there. Wanna buy one?
Of course they want “deniers” to be jailed. But that’s only to set a precedent. What they really want is all opponents of Marxism to be jailed. Anybody who has the “wrong” thoughts must be silenced.
I must say that a criminal trial of a climate skeptic would be extremely annoying, but would also offer an unparalleled opportunity to deliver devastating critiques of orthodoxy in a court of law, where witnesses must face cross-examination rather than simply pamphleteer, write propaganda for newspapers or the like.
All the greatest freedom fighters have ended up in court and all have proven themselves to be rather superior to the judges, the barristers and the prosecuting witnesses.
The interesting question is in which countries unbiased and significant coverage of the trial would be allowed by the authorities, since that would tell us a great deal about where true democracy and free speech is currently allowed to flourish on this planet.
I suspect that if the defendant(s) was(were) American(s), then RT would give it plenty of coverage. I suspect so would Tony Abbott’s lot in Australia. Beyond that, who knows? Breitbart?
One suspects that the new media, social media and the like would be most likely to cover it honestly, since there is a strong push for a uniform Global Establishment line to he taken and China is now appearing to move closer toward that tent.
However, it would still probably become one of the most studied trials of the 21st century to date.
1. Free speech vs ‘threat to humanity’? (Well, I don’t think there is one, but that’s the party line, isn’t it?)
2. ‘Clean’ vs ‘dirty’ energy? (An evaluation of just how dirty ‘dirty’ energy is and just how ‘clean’ clean energy is)
3. Political programmes vs ethical science?
4. Government propaganda vs rigorous journalism?
5. Corporate will vs democratic accountability?
A perfect brew of the central issues of our times…….all you need is for one of the defendants to be a participant in a gay marriage whilst being avowedly atheist and you’d add in religion as the last piece of the jigsaw!!
I’m saying this in all seriousness, so no mocking intended, but he does seem to have an intellectual disability. I’m not familiar with him, other than I know who he is, so maybe someone that side of the pond can confirm if he does or not. Just an observation from the clip posted.
You know if those guys who sold videos about the moon landing being a fake could have thrown everyone in jail who knew basic science they could have sold a LOT more videos! Same thing here, skeptics are a threat to the gravy train of grants and funding for studying global warming. If only you guys would stop showing those irritating plots of global average temperature, you’re going to destroy my cash cow!
Just an FYI the Google search result number is not accurate.
Agreed – clicked on the http thingy and Google says it’s “about 267 000”.
What happened to free speech and free opinions of which the USA ethos is based on?
They were buried by decisions regarding the commerce clause, like the rest of the constitution. The commerce clause was intended to keep states from having unfair advantages over each other and to regulate trade with foreign nations. It has been reinterpreted to mean that the federal government has little or no restriction on what they can control. If you give me a penny you find on the ground in NY and there’s a chance I might go across the country and buy a piece of gum then that penny could possibly affect commerce in California. Anything that may affect commerce in any way may be regulated under the commerce clause. And everything that may affect commerce is regulated by the feds.
What a great proof that brains are not inherited!
Far Out! I don’t have to give up my gas guzzling luxury vehicle until somebody buys me an electric car. . . .Hallelujah!!!
Article III, Section 3, Clause 1 US Constitution: “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.”
Hey Bob jr. <–[RFK, Jr. ~ mod.] How does denying CAGW fit under the constitutional description of treason? What you're describing, jailing them based upon your say so without trial is called a bill of attainder. It is constitutionally prohibited at both the federal and state level. (Article I, Section 3, Clauses 9 and 10) Maybe that's why you want them at the Hague, to avoid having to allow them those pesky rights and protections the Constitution puts in your way. But what's the Constitution when it comes to enforcing your "rational minded" opinion about science?