From JoNova

By Jo Nova

The Blob makes another move to expand their empire

A group of unelected officials in something called the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR) has decided that humans have the “right” to a stable climate and thus, you have the right to pay for it.  The court that nobody has heard of says “states have legal obligations to protect people alive today and future generations from the impacts of climate breakdown.”

This includes the obligation to cut emissions, and to guard against the threat of climate disinformation. (Yes, they know they are lying.)

Personally I’d prefer to have the right to free speech, real science, and laws written in simple English:

Countries must protect human right to a stable climate, court rules

Isabella Kaminski, The Guardian

There is a human right to a stable climate and states have a duty to protect it, a top court has ruled.

“Top court”, my foot.

Like pagan sorcery, the government is expected to stop storms, floods and droughts. Even though this is an impossible fantasy the mere attempt at managing the illusion of it will employ tens of thousands of lawyers, accountants, technicians, diplomats and representatives who will all get travel allowance and hardship funding for flights to Tahiti. And that’s the whole point isn’t it?  

Announcing the publication of a crucial advisory opinion on climate change on Thursday, Nancy Hernández López, president of the inter-American court of human rights (IACHR), said climate change carries “extraordinary risks” that are felt particularly keenly by people who are already vulnerable.

This is a form of meta-lawfare — to get around the problem of a “science debate” they can’t win, some random court makes a ruling that simply assumes that governments can control the weather, and that speaking against it is going to harm “the vulnerable” (which really means it will hurt lifelong career grifters.) This toothless unaccountable court is a legal theatre that generates headlines, pressure, and ammunition for lawyers in more important courts to try to glue this kind of parasite into proper court rulings. They will cite this absurd legalese fantasy to baffle anyone who gets in their way, and to wind up teenage girls and journalists in The Guardian:

In the strongly worded and wide-ranging 300-page document setting out its perspective on the climate emergency and human rights, the court says states have legal obligations to protect people alive today and future generations from the impacts of climate breakdown. That includes taking “urgent and effective” actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions based on the best available science, to adapt, to cooperate internationally, and to guard against the threat of climate disinformation.

The IACHR’s founding purpose is to interpret and apply the American convention on human rights, a treaty ratified by members of the Organization of American States (OAS). But its newly published opinion takes into account a broad range of national, regional and international laws and principles. And it affirms that the findings not just apply only to signatories of the convention but to all 35 members of the OAS, which includes the US and Canada.

So who funds these unaccountable Judges?

This human rights court is a part of the Organization of American States or OAS — it’s a kind of American continent mini-UN. There are 35 states signed up to it, whatever that means, but traditionally the US pays 60% of the regular funds (stop me if you’ve heard this before). Lately, other extra funding is volunteered from a Who’s Who of Globalist Blob entities like the UN, EU, World Bank and George Soros’s Open Society. Every part of the Blob loves every other part…

Presumably Donald Trump is busy with other things, but he has called for a review of the $60 odd million in funding the US government sends towards this rusted on Blobocracy which was created in 1948. This is $60 million in “free” fundraising money for the One World Government Blob. Let’s just say “No”.

If the climate really faces a crisis, more than anything else, we have the right to real science with real debate; not petty namecalling like “climate denier”, or censorious laws about “climate disinformation”.

Citizens have a right to be protected from The Blob.

Image by Michael Seibt from Pixabay