Connect with us

Opinion

Making Your Opinion Known:  To Petition or Not to Petition?

Published

8 minute read

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.

Photo by Jeff Stokoe

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.

 

Tim Lasiuta is a Red Deer writer, entrepreneur and communicator. He has interests in history and the future for our country.

Follow Author

Great Reset

Climate expert warns against extreme ‘weather porn’ from alarmists pushing ‘draconian’ policies

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Doug Mainwaring

Bjorn Lomborg, author and president of the Copenhagen Consensus, continues to call attention to the extreme measures being demanded by climate change activists and politicians.

A climate expert has taken aim against what he calls “weather porn” – images and stories meant to convey a false impression that the world is on the brink of cataclysmic climate disaster – in order to force unnecessary policy changes by governments across the globe that will destroy prosperity and kill, not save, human lives.

In a series of recent opinion pieces and social media posts, Bjorn Lomborg, author, president of the Copenhagen Consensus, and a visiting fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, continues to call attention to the extreme measures being demanded by climate change activists and politicians who seek to inflict policies that are far more harmful than helpful.

“Watching the news, you get the sense that climate change is making the planet unlivable. We are bombarded with images of floods, droughts, storms and wildfires,” wrote Lomborg in his recent newsletter. “But this impression is wildly misleading and makes it harder to get climate change policy right. Data show climate-related events like floods, droughts, storms and wildfires aren’t killing more people.”

“Quite the contrary. Over the past decade, climate-related disasters have killed 98% fewer people than a century ago,” said Lomborg. “If we want to achieve fewer disaster deaths, we should promote prosperity, adaptation, and resilience. But when we are inundated with ‘weather porn’ and miss the fact that deaths have dropped precipitously, we end up focusing on the least effective policies first.”

‘Six billion deaths in less than a year’

In an op-ed published by The Wall Street Journal (WSJ), Lomborg described what would happen if climate alarmists were to suddenly get their way:

The world still gets four-fifths of its energy from fossil fuels, because renewable sources rarely provide good alternatives. Half the world’s population entirely depends on food grown with synthetic fertilizer produced almost entirely by natural gas. If we rapidly ceased using fossil fuels, four billion people would suddenly be without food.

Add the billions of people dependent on fossil-fuel heating in the winter, along with our dependence on fossil fuels for steel, cement, plastics and transportation, and it is no wonder that one recent estimate by economist Neil Record showed an abrupt end to fossil fuel use would cause six billion deaths in less than a year.

Global elites have made it clear that they have judged the world to be vastly overpopulated, and have set for themselves a goal of reducing the world’s total population to just 500 million people. An “abrupt end to fossil fuel use” would come very close to achieving their utopian anti-human goal.

“Why is the environmental movement stewarded over by murderous, human-hating wackos who desire to see billions of people die?” asked James Corbett of the Corbett Report last month.

Not mincing words, Corbett continued: “Because the conservation movement (and all of the mainstream environmental organizations that grew out of that movement) was pioneered by murderous, human-hating eugenicists and funded by the eugenicist royals who wanted to keep their beautiful natural vistas clear of the riff-raff scurrying around beneath them.”

“Why do nation after nation appear to be in a race to the bottom, implementing policies that will actively hinder the productivity of their own populations and making it more and more difficult for those on the lowest rung of the economic ladder to eke out a subsistence living on the corporate-governmental fascist plantation that we call the developed world?” wondered Corbett.

‘Follow the science’ obscures truth, allows for the promotion of dangerous policies

Lomborg has said that the constant refrain of “follow the science” allows politicians to “obscure and avoid responsibility for lopsided climate-policy trade-offs.”

“More than one million people die in traffic accidents globally each year. Overnight, governments could solve this entirely man-made problem by reducing speed limits everywhere to 3 miles an hour, but we’d laugh any politician who suggested it out of office,” wrote Lomborg in his WSJ piece.

“It would be absurd to focus solely on lives saved if the cost would be economic and societal destruction,” said the climate expert. “Yet politicians widely employ the same one-sided reasoning in the name of fighting climate change. It’s simply a matter, they say, of ‘following the science.’”

Draconian net-zero climate policies are, according to Lomborg, prohibitively costly.

Recent peer-reviewed climate-economic research shows the total cost “will average $27 trillion each year across the century, reaching $60 trillion a year in 2100.”

“Net zero is more than seven times as costly as the climate problem it tries to address,” yet this is precisely what the Biden administration is hoping to achieve by 2050.

Outgoing U.S. climate chief John Kerry, one of the chief purveyors of “weather porn,” suggested recently that if climate change is not quickly addressed, we face planetary destruction “beyond comprehension.”

UN climate change executive secretary Simon Stiell issued a similarly ominous if not shrill warning on X this week: “We have two years to save the world,” and therefore, “starting now, we need a quantum leap in climate finance [and] Bold new national climate plans by all nations.”

Lomborg fired back on X, dismissing the UN climate honcho’s hyperbolic claims.

“UN employees have been telling the same stale story for more than half a century: Now, that is right now, we have just a few years to save the world.”

“Some of the most popular climate policies will have costs far greater than climate change itself. When politicians try to shut down discussion with claims that they’re ‘following the science,’” concluded  Lomborg in the pages of the WSJ.

“Don’t let them,” he urged.

Continue Reading

Opinion

Fentanyl Fiasco: The Tragic Missteps of BC’s Drug Policy

Published on

From The Opposition News Network

Unmasking the Destructive Cycle of Drug Policy in British Columbia. A Tale of Good Intentions and Dire Consequences

My fellow Canadians, it’s been a challenging time. I had initially planned to bring you the latest spectacle from the House of Commons, featuring Kristian Firth, but fate had other plans. A personal emergency struck closer to home—a fentanyl overdose in the family. This tragic event threw us headlong into the chaotic circus that is the British Columbia health system. Let me be frank: the system is a mockery. The privacy laws that supposedly protect us also shroud our crises in unnecessary mystery. When my uncle was found unconscious and rushed to the ICU, the walls of confidentiality meant we could not even ascertain his condition over the phone. They notify you of the disaster but cloak its nature in secrecy. It’s an absurdity that only adds to the anguish of families grappling with the realities of addiction.

Now, let’s address the elephant in the room: our approach to drug addiction. The authorities label it a disease, yet paradoxically offer the afflicted the choice between seeking help and remaining in their dire state. This half-hearted stance on drug addiction only perpetuates a cycle of relapse and despair. As we speak, thousands tumble through the revolving doors of our medical facilities—5,975 apparent opioid toxicity deaths this year alone, an 8% increase from 2022. Daily, we see 22 deaths and 17 hospitalizations, and yet our response remains as ineffective as ever. This issue transcends our national borders. The U.S. has openly criticized China for its role in the opioid crisis, accusing it of flooding North America with fentanyl—a drug so potent, it’s decimating communities at an unprecedented rate. Just last year, over 70,000 Americans succumbed to fentanyl overdoses. And what’s more damning? Reports from U.S. congressional committees suggest that the Chinese government might be subsidizing firms that traffic these lethal substances. Lets be clear this is a state-sponsored assault on our populace.

In response to this crisis BC NDP policymakers have championed the notion of “safe supply” programs. These initiatives distribute free hydromorphone, a potent opioid akin to heroin, with the intention of steering users away from the perils of contaminated street drugs. At first glance, this approach might seem logical, even humane. However, the grim realities paint a far different picture, one where good intentions pave the road to societal decay. Addiction specialists are sounding the alarm, and the news isn’t good. While hydromorphone is potent, it lacks the intensity to satisfy fentanyl users, leading to an unintended consequence: diversion. Users, unappeased by the drug’s effects, are selling their “safe” supply on the black market. This results in a glut of hydromorphone flooding the streets, crashing its price by up to 95% in certain areas. This collapse in street value might seem like a win for economic textbooks, but in the harsh world of drug abuse, it’s a catalyst for disaster. Cheap, readily available opioids are finding their way into the hands of an ever-younger audience, ensnaring teenagers in the grips of addiction. Far from reducing harm, these programs are inadvertently setting the stage for a new wave of drug dependency among our most vulnerable.

Programs designed to save lives are instead spinning a web of addiction that ensnares not just existing drug users but also initiates unsuspecting adolescents into a life of dependency. What’s needed isn’t more drugs, even under the guise of medical oversight, but a robust support system that addresses the root causes of addiction yet, the stark reality on the streets tells a story of systemic failure. Let’s dissect the current approach to handling addiction, a condition deeply intertwined with our societal, legal, and health systems.

Take a typical scenario—an individual battling the throes of addiction. Many of them find themselves ensnared by the law, often for crimes like theft, driven by the desperate need to sustain their habit. Yes, many addicts find themselves behind bars, where, paradoxically, they claim to clean up. Jail, devoid of freedom, ironically becomes a place of forced sobriety.

Now, consider the next step in this cycle: release. Upon their release, these individuals, now momentarily clean, are promised treatment—real help, real change. Yet, here’s the catch: this promised help is dangled like a carrot on a stick, often 30 or more days away. What happens in those 30 days? Left to their own devices, many relapse, falling back into old patterns before they ever step foot in a treatment facility.

This brings us to a critical question: why release an individual who has begun to detox in a controlled environment, only to thrust them back into the very conditions that fueled their addiction? Why not maintain custody until a treatment spot opens up? From a fiscal perspective, this dance of incarceration, release, and delayed treatment is an exercise in futility, burning through public funds without solving the core issue. Moreover, from a standpoint of basic human decency and dignity, this system is profoundly flawed. We play roulette with lives on the line, hoping against odds for a favorable outcome when we already hold a losing hand. This isn’t just ineffective; it’s cruel.

Final Thoughts

As we close the curtain on this discussion, let’s not mince words. The BC system’s approach to drug addiction treatment isn’t just flawed; it’s a catastrophic failure masquerading as mercy. Opposition leader Pierre Poilievre has hit the nail squarely on the head in his piece for the National Post. He articulates a vision where compassion and practicality intersect, not through the failed policies of perpetual maintenance, but through genuine, recovery-oriented solutions. His stance is clear: treat addiction as the profound health crisis it is, not as a criminal issue to be swept under the rug of incarceration.

Contrast this with the so-called ‘safe supply’ madness—a Band-Aid solution to a hemorrhaging societal wound. In the dystopian theatre of the Downtown Eastside, where welfare checks and drug dens operate with the efficiency of a grotesque assembly line, what we see is not healthcare, but a deathcare system. It’s a cycle of despair that offers a needle in one hand and a shot of naloxone in the other as a safety net. This isn’t treatment; it’s a perverse form of life support that keeps the heart beating but lets the soul wither.

Come next election in BC, if any provincial party is prepared to advocate for a true treatment-first approach, to shift from enabling addiction to empowering recovery, they will have my—and should have your—unwavering support. We must champion platforms that prioritize recovery, that respect human dignity, and that restore hope to the heartbroken streets of our communities.

The NDP BC government’s current model perpetuates death and decay under the guise of progressive policy. It’s a cruel joke on the citizens who need help the most. We can no longer afford to stand idly by as lives are lost to a system that confuses sustaining addiction with saving lives. Let’s rally for change, for recovery, for a future where Canadians struggling with addiction are given a real shot at redemption. This isn’t just a political imperative—it’s a moral one. The time for half-measures is over. The time for real action is now.

Become a supporter of The Opposition with Dan Knight .

For the full experience, click here to upgrade your subscription.

Continue Reading

Trending

X