We are living in 1979 on the way to 1984

Baiting the Right Green Police Insufferable Twits New Rules 52 Comments

NDP MP Charlie Angus wants to shut down all oil and gas advertising.

In a move that would effectively destroy media like Pipeline Online, EnergyNow.ca, BOE Report, Daily Oil Bulletin and more, Timmins-James Bay NDP MP Charlie Angus on Feb. 6 proposed eliminating all advertising from oil and gas firms. “It is prohibited for a person to promote a fossil fuel, a fossil fuel-related brand element or the production of a fossil fuel except as authorized by the provisions of this Act or of the regulations,” the private members bill, which was just introduced and is not law, says.

Note, this was clearly endorsed by the national party and leader. There’s even a donation collection at the bottom of the press release.

Fines in the million dollar range, jail up to two years. This is what the NDP want of Canada. And I would be going to jail.

To quote Andor, “Fight the Empire!”

52 Replies to “We are living in 1979 on the way to 1984”

    1. My counter offer: a 100% moratorium on ANY government advertisement.

      I can barely watch hockey anymore (crappy game, virtual ads, etc.), but I can sometimes put a game on and listen (again barely – do colour commentators ever shut up now – we already have a play by play dude?).

      But every second ad that isn’t a gambling commercial seems to to either Justin or here in Lockdownistan, Trudeautopia (formerly Ontario) Thug Fraud telling me how great I have it, but I should feel guilty about everything.

  2. Charlie angus is jumping in front of the bus to fill a pothole. He’s one of jag’s pieces of meat for the political grinder.

    May he suffer mightily and moronically.

  3. In a free society, communists like Charlie Angus, and communist parties like the NDP would not be allowed to exist. Having the NDP on a ballot is like putting strychnine in the medicine cabinet.

    Government should exist only to ensure the streets are maintained, and little else. And even that is debatable.

    But anyone seeking to steal the rights and freedoms of others for any purported gain for a collective should be laughed at at best, and beaten/imprisoned if slow to learn.

    1. Needs to be yes, will be, probably not. Our Country has been infected by takers. Those that want everyone else to pay for everything. Problem is there are far to many of these self entitled leftist nutters in Canada. My fear for my kids and grandkids is this is only going to get worse.

      1. This is because he represents a riding that for the most part lives off the government teet.

  6. The gasoline companies would love this law. It’s not like people use gasoline because they saw an ad on TV. The only reason any gas brand advertises is because the others do and they need to make people aware of their brand. It will save them a ton of money.

    1. Um, gas buddy.com?
      Canadian Tire?
      Napa?
      Parts Plus
      Auto Value
      No advertising of O&G products?
      How about share prices?
      Keep going Chuck… at some point you’ll be as popular as:
      Guibeault
      Legault
      Trudeau
      Perogithighs

      1. So Canadian Tire will stop selling gas if they can’t advertise gas? Yes, I suppose they will. I’ll forget to fill up with gas because I didn’t see the Canadian Tire gasoline ad.
        Auto parts companies sell auto parts, not gas, they might sell oil, which people will still buy off them even if they don’t advertise it.

        I didn’t say I supported it. I said it was a dumb pointless exercise, maybe that was lost in translation.

  7. If you follow Charlie’s logic, only state-approved shit could be advertised. And if you follow it further, only state-approved people could speak or be elected.
    I wonder if Charlie knows he’s an authoritarian POS.

  8. I can’t wait for the savage retaliation from CAPP. Man oh man, old Charlie’s gonna be an angusburger when they’re done with him! (eye roll)

  9. Again, Anguished makes claims without providing evidence – political bovine excrement such as “The move comes after documents revealed that Big Oil knew the harm to their products as far back at 1954 but still spent billions of dollars in advertising campaigns to mislead the public and cover up the clear risks posed to public health and the planet.” It is called “assuming facts not in evidence” – a legal smear, a claim made without documentation to substantiate it.

    And yet none of the media challenge the assertion by simply asking “Provide an example of risks with documentation”. Why? Because they are no longer curious, just paid lobbyists.

  10. He just wants to ban oil and gas producers advertising but not the companies that use the downstream products like Ontario’s auto makers, Quebec’s petrochemical industry, and, oh yeah, solar panels and wind towers that require petroleum products.

    Section 8 (a)&(b) are the most egregious to me:

    8 It is prohibited for a person to promote a fossil fuel or the production of a fossil fuel

    (a) in a manner that states or suggests that the fossil fuel, its production or its emissions are less harmful than other fossil fuels, their production or their emissions;

    (b) in a manner that states or suggests that a fossil fuel or the practices of a producer or of the fossil fuel industry would lead to positive outcomes in relation to the environment, the health of Canadians, reconciliation with Indigenous peoples or the Canadian or global economy

    For example that would criminalize :

    -promotion of partnerships with indigenous groups that would provide jobs and economic growth to the bands involved in the partnership.

    -data explaining that natural gas has half the CO2 emissions of coal.

    – any factual information that exporting LNG to a foreign country that uses coal would reduce CO2 emissions.

    – factual information about how much oil and gas production contributes to the Canadian economy.

    There’s no way this legislation is constitutional.

    1. LC

      “..There’s no way this legislation is constitutional..”
      True, but has that stopped the Fascists running this country..??

      Mandates were Not constitutional either…but “they” went ahead anyway.
      Emerg Act was Not Constitutional either – but “they” went ahead anyway.
      Shtting down Air Travel for 8M Cdns wasnt Constitutional either…..ad NAUSEA…

      This Govt could give a rats (_i_) about constitutionality. They are FASCISTs bordering on the edges of full fledged NAZZIISM.

    2. All good points.

      The problem is that our constitution had the veneer of virtue with a trap (Clause 1B) which made all of the virtue false. “Reasonable limits” are always defined by the people in power. The Liberals/NDP want to outlaw, in the unreasonable search for Utopia, that any use of CO2 is unreasonable and harms the planet (a theory as yet, unproven). And by altering the meaning of “reasonable”, they win because they have the judiciary largely in their back pockets. Either rights are absolute OR they are arbitrary and subject to change. By not enshrining rights as absolute, like speech, or freedom of assembly, they can be redefined in the interest of reasonable limits by whomever makes the laws and that is not you or I.

      1. Steakman and Codex:

        Yes, Canada’s constitution is a worthless piece of paper that doesn’t actually protect any human or civil rights. But this blatant censorship is way over the top, even for Canada, because it would criminalize factual information. Then again, Canada is now just a really cold banana republic.

        I wonder would happen if, instead of petroleum producers, the provincial premiers of Alberta and Saskatchewan promoted the benefits of petroleum that the NDP wants criminalize? Would the federal government fine Alberta’s Premier Smith for using factual information that explains the economic, environmental and reconciliation benefits of oil and gas production and projects?

  11. I stopped reading when I saw Charlie Anus was involved.
    Also anyone who refers to petroleum as a “fossil fuel” forfeits any credibility with respect to the topic.

  12. Perhaps Charlie also wants to ban car ads because cars kill people, or maybe those sports gaming ads because, you know, gambling is bad. How about ads for fast foods, another killer.

  13. The NDP are the closest thing we have to the National Socialists in Canada (with the LPC close seconds). The only major difference is that instead of abolishing the unions, they are run by the unions including CUPE whose leaders cheer on the Hamas Holocaust Jihadis. They are now mostly supported by the virally growing public sector unions given that private sector unions tend to consistently destroy their members jobs over the long term. Despite their poverty pimping origins and so-called concern for the “working class”, their political alignment with “green” policies has made them even more, the unidentified enemies of people who can least afford the economic vandalism offered. They are a fascist/socialist party of public sector and union fat-cats and strategically voting Greens.

    1. “consistently destroy their members jobs over the long term.”

      nooooo kidding. big strike St catharines ON 80s (was, ahem, WAS a big auto sector town) some plant ‘EATON AUTOMOTIVE’ whatever protracted strike. company warned the demands were seriously closing in on profitability, union honchos cried ‘bluff’ membershit swallowed it voted against company LAST (they were warned!!) offer,
      factory closed.

  14. Socialism killed 100 million in the list 100 years, even after its promoters knew about the harm that it did. Maybe we need to consider banning socialism and socialist parties. Make it a crime to promote them.

    2. 100%. Exactly what I came to post but knew odds were good that someone would have posted the same idea.

      I’m all for free speech, but given the very real and historically proven danger of communism and socialism I’m ok with imprisonment for any of its advocates. It’s clearly hate speech that leads to violence and death. Every time.

  15. LC, wondering if it is completely unobservable and unenforceable?

    It’s absurd on the surface and at every layer of it’s contempt for science.

    The dippers are more desperate than turds skidmarks.

    1. It’s an absurd private members bill. It shows how the NDP have completely abandoned blue collar workers in the oil and gas industry, working class families who need affordable energy and a strong economy that helps pay for expensive social programs, and indigenous communities who want the economic benefits of partnerships with oil and gas companies.

  16. Looks like Charlie Angus is trying to play hardball. Isn’t his Riding in Northern Ontario? I bet his Riding’s lifestyle would change significantly if petroleum pruducts wouldn’t be all that available anymore. The constituents in his Riding would probably have a change in attitude for sure.

  19. Can you imagine the prison conversations, “So what are you in for? Oh I verbally supported the oil industry”. That man is just another example of how hard core the NDP have become.

    1. Rose, do you remember the “Waffle Manifesto” back in days when David Lewis was calling for nationalizing all the Banks. They may have had a few moderate appearing leaders but they have always been “hard core”.

  20. ““Every year, 34,000 people die prematurely in Canada from fossil fuel pollution, and yet the Big Oil lobby continues to pump enormous sums in to advertising campaigns to falsely claim the benefits of allowing even more burning of fossil fuels.””

    up to 24,000 people in canada die as a result of preventable medical errors, which doesn’t include the ~13,000 people who died with medical assistance in 2022. Should we ban the medical industry?

    How many people have died as a result of Canadian Government actions, should we ban their advertising?

    Since politicians often engage in harmful activities against the people, resulting in deaths, should politicians be banned from speaking? Take for example the 8431 estimated deaths last year because the government wants to do “harm reduction” of allowing addicts to kill themselves with ODs.

    Since the government of Canada has engaged in “genocide” should we not ban the government of Canada from advertising, since the obvious “genocide” has killed a lot more people that fossil fuels ever did.

  21. “Every year, 34,000 people die prematurely in Canada from fossil fuel pollution”.

    This is the same misinformation that was used to shut down the coal industry. Every year all these people were dying from coal even the though the coal fired generating stations were nowhere near populated centers. So they shut them down. Did less people die? No. More people die in Canada every year – mainly because of demographics.

    If you had looked into the death estimate for coal, you would find it’s all based on nonsensical models that cannot be verified. Because no doctor writes “died from coal” on your death certificate.

  22. CAPE claims Pathways’s net-zero ads were misleading because the consortium has not fully accounted for how it would achieve net-zero emissions.

    “This is false. Oil can never be net-zero because 80 per cent of the life cycle emissions are released when oil is burned,” said Leah Temper, CAPE’s director of health and economic policy.
    ———–
    The above is probably true (comes from a CBC article on Angus). Why doesn’t Charlie Angus ask his constituents to stop using fossil fuels? Timmins is the truck capital of Ontario. And I hear it’s pretty cold in the winter. Why are they still using natural gas to heat their homes? Show us how it’s done Charlie.

  23. Evil Devils do evil things.. If only our opposition didn’t exist, nobody would be around to point out our failures.. That’s what they call, winning..

  24. Charlie Angus is an old-time NDP blowhard who’s too f*cking dumb to come up with this on his own. He’s being primed by someone, probably the globalist clowns who want to reduce us to serfdom.

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation