Opinion
Making Your Opinion Known: To Petition or Not to Petition?
We all see the petition campaigns on Facebook.
“Sue Smith” has just signed to support a Ban Plastic Single Use Straw Campaign..She wants you to help. Click here to let the Canadian Government know you want them banned.
Online petitions do work, they gather thousands and sometimes millions of signatures from well meaning people who want to see the right thing done for the right reasons. However, over the last week I have noticed something that demands a closer look.
Change.org, CitizenGo,org, GoPetition, SumOfUS and iPetition are just a few of the companies whose primary goal is to allow citizens to make their concerns known around the world. To be fair, there are many great causes that have been advanced by these platforms for democracy, but as noted, they are not all created equal.
We should look for a couple of things when we consider signing on the digital line.
Firstly, what happens to our well-intentioned electronic signature?
Your signature and information is used by the petitioner, but after that it may be sold as part of an electronic mailing list to target you with unsolicited offers and other related petitions. You may get spam related to retail, political and social campaigns and newsletters.
Secondly, what is the petition for and what other causes do they espouse?
I will use the SumOfUs example.
I am a Canadian and SumOfUs has had some good campaigns, but this week I was caught aback by back to back requests.
The first one is aimed at the TD Bank and states the following:
MASSIVE NEWS — thanks to your pressure over the last two years, TD Bank just announced it is pulling the plug on fossil fuels and going net-zero by 2050.
This win is a testament to the strength of our people powered movement to combat climate change.
In 2019, TD executives underestimated the power of our movement and relayed to me that a plan to defund fossil fuels just wasn’t possible before 2050.
But thanks to all of the hard work of SumOfUs members like you over the past two years, TD executives JUST announced a plan to move away from funding fossil fuels.
I think this is an atrocious announcement and signals to me that the TD Bank has bought in to Agenda 21 and 2030/2050 from the UN of which Climate Change AND Net Zero are tenets.
Why would I, as a citizen of Alberta who benefits from the Oil Industry, continue to support this group?
Another one that caught my attention was aimed at Big Tech and their censorship and its influence on the Republican view on the election…In specific, censorship of
Joe Biden has won the US Presidency — but not on social media.
Tech giants like Facebook and YouTube have created toxic algorithms that push people to extreme content, littered with hate speech and lies. It’s one of the ways groups spreading election disinformation are able to grow by the tens of thousands in a matter of hours.
But massive pressure forced the tech giants to take new measures to slow the spread of disinformation — and evidence suggests they worked. This shows us the platforms *can* act if we force them to.
So let’s keep up the pressure on the tech platforms now more than ever, to stop disinformation and detox their algorithms. Join the call and share this widely!
Tell Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter: stop the spread of disinformation — detox your algorithms!
But our community has been relentless with our pressure on the platforms, and we’re finally seeing them act — with Facebook reducing the reach of pages and groups spreading election disinformation, and Twitter labeling Trump’s disinformation over a dozen times and counting.
Thirdly, if for instance, SumOfUs promotes such petitions, it should not be too difficult to ascertain who their masters are. By supporting such corporations, we are supporting the Soros and Gates of this world and their agendas.
Fourthly, every petition company uses two strategies to generate income and to extend their influence. They ask you to share on social media that you support their effort and they ask for a donation to help them meet targets. Share and you may help, but more likely you have just given them one more signee and funder to target.
Fifthly, do online petitions really help?
If we believe the emails, they do indeed often help a special interest group in their lobby or get an issue noticed by a social media audience. There is also the claim that an online petition got Trump banned from Britain as well. However, getting a specific message out to a large corporation is difficult and this is just one tool. Often these are just phishing expeditions but targeted audiences do impact decisions.
Sixthly, are the causes legitimate? The death of George Floyd was unfortunate but the petition that followed changed history. Most people are not aware that many other coloured men died that day from police activity as well. The violence that followed in the days afterward may have been avoided by the attention drawn to the issue by the petition.
Lastly, if you are truly concerned about an issue or special interest group, by all means sign the petition, then send real letters, phone, send emails, demonstrate or ask hard questions. Often companies do not understand the impact of their policies and can change. Make your voice heard.
Locally, in my protection of history, I had stated a petition to protect and save Red Deers oldest building (1899) and over the course of a month had garnered close to 400 signatures. During the process, others helped by manning tables and getting signatures. In the end, we did not save the building, but did manage to change official policy and make international news. You never know what your actions will do if you empower people and value their opinions.
Petition organizer tries to save historic Red Deer hotel | CBC News
The silent man loses every argument and those who rustle the bushes have a chance of changing the landscape one leaf at a time.
Get involved but be cautious.
Energy
Ottawa’s emissions cap—all pain, no gain
From the Fraser Institute
By: Julio Mejía, Elmira Aliakbari and Tegan Hill
According to a recent analysis by the Conference Board of Canada think-tank, the cap could reduce Canada’s GDP by up to $1 trillion between 2030 and 2040, eliminate up to 151,000 jobs by 2030, reduce federal government revenue by up to $151 billion between 2030 and 2040, and reduce Alberta government revenue by up to $127 billion over the same period.
According to an announcements last week by Premier Danielle Smith, the Alberta government will use the Alberta Sovereignty within a United Canada Act to challenge Ottawa’s proposal to cap greenhouse gas emissions from the oil and gas sector at 35 per cent below 2019 levels by 2030.
Premier Smith, who said the cap will harm the economy and represents an overstep of federal authority, also plans to prevent emissions data from individual oil and gas companies from being shared with Ottawa. While the federal government said the cap is necessary to fight climate change, several studies suggest the cap will impose significant costs on Canadians without yielding detectable environmental benefits.
According to a recent report by Deloitte, a leading audit and consulting firm, the cap will force Canadian firms to curtail oil production by 626,000 barrels per day by 2030 or by approximately 10.0 per cent of the expected production—and curtail gas production by approximately 12.0 per cent.
Deloitte estimates that Alberta will be hit hardest, with 3.6 per cent less investment, almost 70,000 fewer jobs, and a 4.5 per cent decrease in the province’s economic output (i.e. GDP) by 2040. Ontario will lose 15,000 jobs and $2.3 billion from its economy by 2040. And Quebec will lose more than 3,000 jobs and $0.4 billion from its economy during the same period.
Overall, the country will experience an economic loss equivalent to 1.0 per cent of the value of the entire economy (GDP), translating into lower wages, the loss of nearly 113,000 jobs and a 1.3 per cent reduction in government tax revenues. Canada’s inflation-adjusted GDP growth in 2023 was a paltry 1.3 per cent, so a 1 per cent reduction would be a significant economic loss.
Deloitte’s findings echo previous studies. According to a recent analysis by the Conference Board of Canada think-tank, the cap could reduce Canada’s GDP by up to $1 trillion between 2030 and 2040, eliminate up to 151,000 jobs by 2030, reduce federal government revenue by up to $151 billion between 2030 and 2040, and reduce Alberta government revenue by up to $127 billion over the same period.
Similarly, another recent study published by the Fraser Institute found that the cap would reduce production and exports, leading to at least $45 billion in lost economic activity in 2030 alone, accompanied by a substantial drop in government revenue.
Crucially, these huge economic costs to Canadians will come without any discernable environmental benefits. Even if Canada entirely shut down its oil and gas industry by 2030, eliminating all GHG emissions from the sector, the resulting reduction in global GHG emissions would amount to a mere four-tenths of one per cent with virtually no impact on the climate or any detectable environmental, health or safety benefits.
Given the demand for fossil fuels, constraining oil and gas production and exports in Canada would likely merely shift production to other countries with lower environmental and human rights standards such as Iran, Russia and Venezuela. Consequently, global GHG emissions would increase, not decrease. No other major oil and gas-producing country has imposed a similar cap on its leading export sector.
The Trudeau government’s proposed cap, which still must pass the House and Senate, would further strain an already struggling Canadian economy, and to make matters worse, do virtually nothing to improve the environment. The government should cancel the cap plan given the economic costs and nonexistent environmental benefits.
Julio Mejía
Policy Analyst
Elmira Aliakbari
Director, Natural Resource Studies, Fraser Institute
Tegan Hill
Director, Alberta Policy, Fraser Institute
Opinion
Ontario mayor refuses to cave in to demands after town rejected ‘pride’ flag
Mayor Harold McQuaker of Emo, Ontario
From LifeSiteNews
Emo, Ontario mayor Harold McQuaker said he will ‘absolutely not’ pay a fine or attend re-education classes, emphasizing that ‘I will not be extorted.’
Last month, the Ontario Human Rights Commission ordered the township of Emo to pay the LGBT activist group Borderland Pride $10,000 for voting in 2020 not to fly a “Pride” flag. Mayor Harold McQuaker was ordered to personally pay $5,000 — and take a re-education course titled “Human Rights 101” to boot. We covered both the original story as well as a follow-up, detailing Borderland Pride’s threats and demands.
There is a new development in the case: Mayor Harold McQuaker is flatly refusing to do what is being demanded of him. Asked by the Toronto Sun if he will pay the fine or attending re-education classes, the 77-year-old McQuaker was blunt. “Absolutely not,” he replied. “I will not be extorted.” He also stated that he will not host Drag Queen Story Hour at the local library, either — one of the demands laid out in an open letter published by Borderland Pride.
Emo Township is a small town of just over 1,200 people located 380 kilometers west of Thunder Bay. The township now has to decide whether to pay the LGBT activist group as demanded by the Ontario Human Rights Commission or refuse to do so. McQuaker has made up his mind. “I utterly refuse to pay the $5,000 because that’s extortion,” he stated. “I have a lot of respect for our four councillors. We have a special meeting of council, and they will decide that and what to do next, either pay the fine or appeal it.”
McQuaker grew up in the area and owned a construction company there for 50 years, and he cannot be pushed around easily. “I will not pay the $5,000 I have been fined and will not take the training,” he emphasized to the Sun. “The council will decide on the fine levied to it. I did not do anything wrong … if anybody needs training it’s the LGBTQ2+ to quit pushing their weight around and making demand that people can’t live with.”
Ironically, the Emo town hall doesn’t even have a flagpole — but that didn’t matter to Borderland Pride, which has, in addition to other demands, stated that it expects a written apology as well as “diversity and inclusion training for council, and a commitment to adopt Pride proclamations in the future without stripping out their 2SLGBTQIA+-affirming language.” Borderland Pride insisted that despite the lack of flagpole the LGBT flag could have been displayed somewhere else, “such as in a window or on a counter in the municipal office.”
McQuaker emphasized that he “doesn’t hate anyone” and that he will not tolerate the accusations being leveled at him by Borderland Pride. “I am a husband to my wife for 51 years, father of two, a grandfather of seven and a great grandfather of one,” he said. “I consider myself a very reasonable person and a good leader for our community and I would have a lot of support if there was an election.”
In response, Doug Judson of Borderland Pride suggested that the mayor should be happy to learn from the LGBT group because his role:
(A)ctually requires that the mayor ‘participate in and foster activities that enhance the economic, social and environmental well-being of the municipality and its residents.’ Part of showing this kind of community leadership is to set the tone for civil debate and to demonstrate a willingness to learn and adapt one’s perspective on issues that, for various reasons, they may have more limited understanding of. It seems obvious enough that the mayor does not have many ties to the queer community. We hope that the training that was ordered by the tribunal will assist him in his leadership role moving forward.
In short, Judson and his LGBT activist buddies hope that forcing the 77-year-old mayor of a small town to take re-education classes will create “ties to the queer community” and that he will be a good boy from now on and do what they demand the first time. Harold McQuaker isn’t having any of it — and we need more like him. Godspeed to the mayor — I hope that the council follows suit.
-
Business2 days ago
Taxpayer watchdog says Canadian gov’t needs to use Trump ‘blueprint’ and create efficiency agency
-
illegal immigration2 days ago
Court rules in favor of Texas in razor wire case
-
Frontier Centre for Public Policy2 days ago
Health Risks from Water Fluoridation are not just in RFK’s Head
-
Daily Caller2 days ago
Let Them Eat Cake
-
National2 days ago
2SLGBTQIA+ group bullies small Canadian town for rejecting ‘pride flag’
-
Environment1 day ago
Activist shares how Canadians can fight globalism through local action
-
COVID-191 day ago
Canadian doctor ordered to pay back $600k she earned through mass COVID vaccination
-
Alberta1 day ago
Parents in every province—not just Alberta—deserve as much school choice as possible