July 30, 2015

UN 'climate change' youth video contest rewards civil disobedience (but not against OPEC)

Rebel Staff
 

The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change: what could be less cool? But they're trying to get young people to care by sponsoring a video contest.

(Never mind that the UN's idea of youth is "18 to 30"...)

The prize is cash and a trip to Paris!

They say they want videos about young people lobbying their own parents to change their evil "un-green" ways, and otherwise spread the UN's "climate change" propaganda.

The UN contest guidelines call for videos that show "you have prevented new fossil fuel infrastructure," for instance.

In other words, the UN is encouraging civil disobedience -- or worse.

Since when does a corrupt, unelected body get off telling citizens to take part in such things?


READ Ezra Levant's bestselling books debunking environmentalist propaganda against the energy industry:

Groundswell: The Case for Fracking
Ethical Oil: The Case for Canada's Oil Sands

JOIN TheRebel.media for more fearless news and commentary you won’t find anywhere else.

Comments
You must be logged in to comment. Click here to log in.
commented 2015-08-01 09:20:41 -0400
You know your wrecks, sir. That’d be near the Gaskin. I’ve actually never seen it – you need a scooter to get to it, and I’m not quite that hard core.
commented 2015-07-31 17:42:00 -0400
Terry said: “Hoping to get out to a couple of wrecks down by Brockville – maybe the Lily and the Gaskin. Drop down if you’re in the neighborhood. Cheers!” Hi Terry. ‘Fraid I’m a little too far away for that, however, thanks for invite. Have a great weekend. Look forward to any interesting stories. Understand there’s a 1920’s pickup truck sitting on the bottom by those wrecks. Would love to bring the old girl back into the light! Looks to be still in pretty good shape. Cheers back at ya!
commented 2015-07-31 11:38:25 -0400
Terry, I thought you weren’t going to be commenting anymore? Decided against that? Good for you, and welcome back.
That being said…

I happen to believe based on common sense and facts that we should withdraw from the UN. It has indeed become a shadow of it’s former self and no longer upholds the principles in which it was founded for. Their mandate has gone from keeping the peace and keeping potential wars from breaking out, to setting policy for other countries. The UN, is basically trying to telling western countries to conform with the corrupt dictator policies that have infected the UN. I’ll return to this thread later to check for any rebuttals or agreements.
commented 2015-07-31 08:34:25 -0400
Token: I don’t know about being a “fan” of the UN, but everything being relative,in this context, I suppose I am; which is to say, I don’t see the UN as a malevolent international conspiracy bent on the destruction of All We Hold Sacred. My personal experience of the UN has been limited; apart from carrying a UNICEF box on Hallowe’en for years (remember those?), I worked in the early nineties with UNHCR folks in Central America on settlement issues to do with indigenous communities of refugees forced out of Guatemala and Nicaragua. I found the folks I worked with to be a lot like agency folks anywhere, whether Red Cross or CIDA – mostly committed, hardworking, frustrated by their own bureaucracy, running the full gamut from great folks to jerks, just like everywhere.
I do not agree that this contest is encouraging kids to “blow up some pipeline, kill people”, or “telling Canadian citizens to commit property crimes”. The phrase used is “You have prevented new fossil fuel infrastructure”. Yes, like Ezra, you can fantasize that as a call to criminal action. You could also fantasize that the earlier criterion, “You convinced your school, employer or local/national government to take climate action”, means that kids are being urged to take the principal and school board chair hostage at gunpoint and threaten them with execution until they pass a motion to take climate change action. Except that’s NOT what they’re calling for. And I really do think you know that perfectly well.
“Where’s the webpage in Arabic, urging citizens of those countries to perform acts of civil disobedience and even vandalism against “fossil fuel infrastructure”?”
I don’t have arabic fonts on my computer, so I can’t honestly say. I would guess, however, that, this appears to be co-sponsored by an English language broadcaster, and specifies that all submissions must be produced or captioned in English, so I guess it’s a recognition that English is the de facto lingua franca of international media and business.
commented 2015-07-30 22:30:35 -0400
I actually don’t have much of a problem with the policy of the UN coaching people this way, as a concept. Our government does it and so does every other government, in subtle ways. Urging people to lobby their government, pretty much everyone with any kind of an agenda does that. The UN shouldn’t, of course, it’s not their business what member states do in that regard, IMHO. But does it have the right to? Maybe. Up to the point they tell people to stop infrastructure. That’s just criminal. A guy could blow up some pipeline, killing people and surely costing a bunch of money to fix, and as long as he’s filming part of it he can say he’s doing it for the United Nations! That, plain and simple, is the United Nations telling Canadian citizens to commit, at least, property crimes. And that condemns the whole shit pile, as far as I’m concerned. It doesn’t matter much how unthreatening the finished product was, the point is it could have been disastrous. It legitimizes the whole eco-terrorism concept, and eco-terrorists are just as evil as jihadi terrorists, and just as dangerous. I don’t see that as any different than if the UN held a contest for muslims; film yourself blowing up a mall and win a trip to Paris! That turns them from annoying tree-huggers to ideological violent pricks. I say throw the bums out!
Also, Terry, you’re apparently the only fan of the UN whose bothering to make an effort here, but there’s that one aspect of this story you just haven’t addressed yet. Where’s the webpage in Arabic, urging citizens of those countries to perform acts of civil disobedience and even vandalism against “fossil fuel infrastructure”? Lotta that in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, etc. No calls for action there, though. I thought the UN was an international body, not just one focused on North American concerns. Could you maybe hazard a guess why the UN only wants us on this side of the ocean working against fossil fuel infrastructure? Don’t good little soldiers in Yemen get a chance to go to Paris? Kinda sounds discriminatory to me. So, any ideas?
commented 2015-07-30 21:10:32 -0400
Peter Toth FIRSTLY THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE.
Next Peter while serving with the U.N. what were your engagement orders and tell us how many rounds you had in your gun. What region were you assigned to. A friend of mind serving in the Canadian Army deploy in the middle east told me he had only 5 round of 50 cal for the machine gun mounted on the carrier was that the same for you?
commented 2015-07-30 20:11:32 -0400
Rick: well, you shouldn’t take the UN’s attack as an assault on Canada. The invitation, after all, was issued to the planet (which of course the evil forces behind the UN are conspiring to dominate). As for the elimination of weekends under socialism – hell, after we enslave the bourgeoisie (is that how you spell it? I’ll have to get it right before the revolution), it’s just gonna me one long weekend for me and my fellow bolshevik, gay, environmentalist, feminist and Aboriginal co-conspirators.
Hoping to get out to a couple of wrecks down by Brockville – maybe the Lily and the Gaskin. Drop down if you’re in the neighborhood. Cheers!
commented 2015-07-30 19:54:23 -0400
“I don’t view this as an attempt to subvert Canadian policy;” I think we can agree to disagree. It is definitely an attempt to influence a sovereign nation. Like that ridiculous ‘Food Inspector" that broadcasted Canada’s so called “food policies?” It is yet another attack by leftists to control what they feel they are entitled to. Have a great long weekend Terry. Enjoy the company of family and friends. In a full Socialist implementation, that will be a thing of the past. You will be expected to be obedient to the state, whatever they may demand. One needs look no futher than the vaunted Peoples Republic of China, Nazi Germany, or the Soviet Union to understand this. But that’s alright. Lefties do not recognize anything, even history, to support their wrongful interpretation of events! Cheers!
commented 2015-07-30 19:49:26 -0400
“Let’s not bother trying again.”

Holy moly buddy, look in the mirror first.
commented 2015-07-30 19:48:16 -0400
Yes, I understand that you are saying that I am implying something and then requiring you to prove my implication. Terry, I fully understand and it was an inappropriate statement because my request you prove what I ask was completely in line with our discussion.

“It’s ANY question that embodies an assumption or suggestion NOT shared by the person to who the question is directed, but to which the interrogator demands a response. "

Please don’t lecture me. There is no assumption here. Do I really need to go back over the progression of the debate we were having to prove to you that I was not making an assumption and expecting you top prove that assumption?
commented 2015-07-30 19:39:35 -0400
I’m not sure you understand what I mean by a “have you stopped beating your wife” question.
It’s ANY question that embodies an assumption or suggestion NOT shared by the person to who the question is directed, but to which the interrogator demands a response.
You demanded that I produce a quote that proves that “the UN is allowed to interfere in our Nation’s sociopolitical development.” I made no such assertion, and I disagree. with considerable amusement, with that characterization of the UN’s action or intent in this case.
I think you’re right. Your fuse is a bit short for conversation. Let’s not bother trying again.
commented 2015-07-30 19:27:02 -0400
And here I thought Terry was going to be mature for once and carry on an actual debate.

My mistake. I won’t make that mistake again.

Let me know when you grow up, Terry.
commented 2015-07-30 19:22:39 -0400
Terry said, “and like Peter, I suggest you watch last year’s winners to see just how ridiculous Ezra’s characterization of this contest is.”

You have missed my point entirely!

The videos are irrelevant!

The principle is that the UN is interfering in out nation, regardless of how innocent the videos look and quite probably are.
commented 2015-07-30 19:19:55 -0400
" don’t do “have you stopped beating your wife” questions"

You equate my question about you supplying the article on where the UN being authorized to interfere with our society by means of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change to “have you stopped beating your wife”?

That is an entirely inappropriate statement to what was up until now a civil discussion. If your purpose was cease this conversation because you cannot answer my question, then you have succeeded. I carried on an entirely logical debate with you. I guess you are simply not up to a debate as you claim.

Terry, for all your blubber and bluster about having civil debates here, you certainly have broken that.
commented 2015-07-30 19:09:54 -0400
Rick: I don’t do profanity, unlike Vlad, Liza, and a few others. As for your preamble: as I’ve said several times to Peter, I don’t view this as an attempt to subvert Canadian policy; and like Peter, I suggest you watch last year’s winners to see just how ridiculous Ezra’s characterization of this contest is.
commented 2015-07-30 19:06:36 -0400
Peter: yes, I have. I don’t do “have you stopped beating your wife” questions, and you aren’t interested in screening the actual videos.
commented 2015-07-30 18:24:31 -0400
Terry, have you abandoned our discussion?

I am still waiting for the quote from the UN Framework of Climate Change from you that specifies the UN is allowed to interfere in our Nation’s sociopolitical development.

Are you planning on providing this quote?
commented 2015-07-30 18:07:50 -0400
One thing is for sure, you won’t see the eco terrorist outfits that are for hire operating in OPEC countries. The eco terrorist outfits for hire are funded by OPEC countries through big foundations that hide who their donors are for special projects like attacking the north American oil and gas industry. A lot of the money that funds these eco terrorist groups comes through a big foundation in Europe, with funnels money to foundations in the US who then funnel to the eco terrorists like Green Fleece and the Sierra Club. The UN, a cesspool of socialist corrupt is in it to get massive carbon taxes placed on industrialized nations which would then be transferred to the UN, where they would take a big cut for themselves and transfer the rest to third world backwater failures around the world. Which would decimate our economies and create millions of poor people.
commented 2015-07-30 17:09:10 -0400
Terry Rudden said: “Sorry, Rick, that was rude and dismissive of me.” Apology accepted. I am encouraged you did not resort to profanity like another “not to be named poster” to this site. The comment was made to get your attention which clearly it did. However, less clear is whether you actually read or considered the preamble prior?
commented 2015-07-30 16:50:53 -0400
My previous comment on this thread had a typo and an inadvertent omission; it should have read: Answer: the MSM in Canada, which doles out cultural Marxist pablum to the people on a daily basis and which almost never informs us in areas of our own interests.

And I’ll add this: The forces that are misinforming Canadians on climate change (there has been no global warming since 1997, no matter what the MSM are telling you) and which are actively sabotaging Canada’s fossil fuel sector, are engaged wittingly or unwittingly, in a war against Canada and Canadians, because our entire economic future and future standard of living depends on developing that sector and distributing fossil fuel energy both within Canada, coast to coast to coast, and exporting it to other countries. See what happens to our standard of living and our health care system if we don’t win this war, i.e. win the battle to inform Canadians of the truth about the AGW con and also the battle to develop and distribute Canada’s fossil fuels, both within Canada and abroad. We will have a steadily declining standard of living and a third world health care system. That’s why it is crucial that we win this war, and supporting THEREBEL.MEDIA will help to accomplish that. So I encourage everyone reading this to support THEREBEL.MEDIA financially in order to help win this war for Canada.
commented 2015-07-30 16:39:09 -0400
Kenneth said, "This isn’t just about the UN pushing the AGW con for its own sake. It’s about certain competing oil-producing nations using the UN to engage in a campaign of internal sabotage of Canada’s economy, especially its fossil fuel energy sector. "

Yes, I was actually going to go that direction after Terry and I discussed the original topic.

That is a good point, Kenneth.
commented 2015-07-30 16:36:30 -0400
Terry, I do not at this time have the time to watch the videos.

But your statement, " the framework explicitly acknowledges and affirms the sovereignty of all signatory nations.", simply proves my point. If the UN acknowledges the sovereignty of our nation, why are the interfering in our nation’s development by encouraging our your to produce videos about climate change? That is a clear violation of our sovereignty.

But to bring this back to the original topic. Can you not see the difference in the UN interfering and theRebel.Media encouraging it’s citizens to become active in one cause or another? What the UN is doing is a violation of our sovereignty while theRebel.Media’s activism is a Canadian citizens’ right and responsibility.

I am still waiting for the quote from the UN Framework of Climate Change from you that specifies the UN is allowd to interfere in our Nation’s sociopolitical development. Are you planning on providing this quote?
commented 2015-07-30 16:21:35 -0400
In fact, Peter, the framework explicitly acknowledges and affirms the sovereignty of all signatory nations.
Did you watch the videos? Do you want the link?
commented 2015-07-30 16:19:39 -0400
This isn’t just about the UN pushing the AGW con for its own sake. It’s about certain competing oil-producing nations using the UN to engage in a campaign of internal sabotage of Canada’s economy, especially its fossil fuel energy sector. Now who would have a motive to do that, and who does it benefit when Canada is unable to get its oil to world markets or even to other locations within Canada, say for example Ontario, Quebec and the Maritime provinces, which currently get their oil from other nations that produce oil, many of which ship it to Canada and other countries by tanker? You know, the nations that want to continue selling oil to Canada instead of Canada producing and selling oil within its own borders and beyond? And who is dumber and more naive than a Canadian who gets suckered into believing the AGW con and then actively helps these other oil-producing nations to sabotage Canada’s production and distribution of this product that they are making billions of dollars selling to Canadians? Why doesn’t the truth of this ever occur to these people? Answer: the MSM in Canada, which does out cultural Marxist pablum to the people and almost never informs us in areas of our own interests.
commented 2015-07-30 16:15:49 -0400
Terry, yes, I am aware that Canada is a signatory the the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, but that does not address the issue of whether they are allowed to interfere in our nation’s development. The signature does not give the UN the open mandate to interfere, it states the Canada will uphold the conditions of the agreement.

Now to be fair, I have not read the framework to which you refer, however, I doubt there is a cause in there that states the UN is allowed to interfere in the signatory nations.

Back to the original statement I made, “The principle is that the UN is encouraging the youth of our nation to produce a video which pushes their agenda on climate change when in fact it truly is none of their business to do so.”

Can you prove that this framework you have mentioned allows the UN to interfere?

Please quote the article(s) pertaining to this mandate to which Canada is a signatory.
commented 2015-07-30 16:11:08 -0400
Canada and all democratic nations need to get out of the Islamic muslim’s sharia supporting UN. What does the UN stand for now, underhanded nincompoops or numskulls?
commented 2015-07-30 16:10:57 -0400
Sorry, Rick, that was rude and dismissive of me. Let me be clearer. I’m not interested in discussions that wander into “You must be a COMMIE!” country, any more than discussions that start with “So you must LOVE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATIONS” (see Toth, below). Dialogue requires that both parties try in good faith to understand and respond to what the other party really said. Jimmy likes sparring; me, not so much. I’ll stick to the real discussions, thanks.
commented 2015-07-30 16:03:56 -0400
Peter, Canada is a signatory to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, and we are committed to undertaking measures to limiting our generation of greenhouse gasses, to emission controls, and to the other principles of the Convention.
Seriously, watch the winning videos. If you see anything even remotely threatening in there, let me know.
commented 2015-07-30 15:54:29 -0400
“Anything to advance the march towards communism eh? "
LOL. Sorry, Rick, I’m not doing stupid anymore.
commented 2015-07-30 15:52:04 -0400
Terry, Climate Change (a.k.a Global Warming) was not part of the U.N. founding mandates.
Article 1 of the U.N.
http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter1.shtml

And yes, I am aware that our own government and prime minister have agreed on the need for emissions control?

It what way does this agreement specify the U.N.s’ interference in the sociopolitical development of our nation by encouraging videos to be produced by the youth of our nation?

Does the PMs’ agreement on the need for restricting emissions give the U.N. an open mandate?