Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Opinion

Climate Murder? Media Picks Up Novel Legal Theory Suggesting Big Oil Is Homicidal

Published

5 minute read

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Nick Pope

 

A new narrative is making its way through major media outlets about major oil corporations: climate change that they purportedly caused is taking lives, and they could be held liable for homicide.

In recent weeks, numerous outlets have run stories or opinion pieces promoting or otherwise examining the novel legal theory, which is the subject of a new paper published by the Harvard Environmental Law Review, according to a Tuesday E&E News report detailing the architects’ efforts to market their idea to prosecutors. The Boston GlobeThe GuardianNewsweekInside Climate News and other outlets have all recently published pieces promoting the idea that leading oil companies could or should be charged with murder for their role in climate change, which the theory’s architects claim has caused thousands of deaths in the U.S.

David Arkush, who runs Public Citizen’s climate program, and Donald Braman, a professor at George Washington University’s law school, articulated the theory in a March paper. Public Citizen is a left-of-center organization founded by failed Green Party presidential candidate Ralph Nader that, among other things, pressures American International Group (AIG) to stop providing insurance coverage for fossil fuel companies, according to its website and Influence Watch.

“Activists and journalists have called executives of major oil companies ‘mass murderers,’ lamenting that ‘millions of human beings will die so that they can have private planes and huge mansions,’ and a growing chorus of communities devastated by [fossil fuel companies’] lethal conduct have begun to demand accountability,” the authors state in their paper. “But as of this writing, no prosecutor in any jurisdiction has charged [fossil fuel companies] with any form of homicide over climate-related deaths. They should.”

The paper also suggests that the American Petroleum Institute (API), a leading trade association for the oil and gas industry, was involved in the industry’s purported attempts to obscure the effects of emissions.

“The record of the past two decades demonstrates that the industry has achieved its goal of providing affordable, reliable American energy to U.S. consumers while substantially reducing emissions and our environmental footprint,” a spokesperson for API told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “Any suggestion to the contrary is false.”

The two authors contend that energy corporations were aware of the warming that emissions from their products and operations would cause for decades, and that those companies decided to mislead the public and obscure what effects those emissions may have. A similar narrative lies at the heart of climate lawsuits that have been filed against energy companies in numerous jurisdictions across the U.S. in recent years.

Arkush wrote a Wednesday piece for Newsweek laying out his theory and referencing these climate lawsuits, opining that the fossil fuel industry’s purported “crimes may be among the, if not the, most consequential in human history.” The Boston Globe ran a similar opinion piece authored by Arkush and another official for Public Citizen on March 17.

The Guardian ran its own piece about the climate homicide theory on March 21, using the headline “Fossil fuel firms could be tried in US for homicide over climate-related deaths, experts say.” Clean Technica, a site that promotes green energy, ran a March 16 piece on the new legal theory with the headline “Climate Criminals — Prosecuting Big Oil For Environmental Crimes.”

Inside Climate News published an April 4 story on the subject, using the headline “Should Big Oil Be Tried for Homicide?” and including excerpts from interviews with the two architects of the climate homicide theory. The pair suggested that the aim is not to punish individuals or seek vengeance, but instead achieve results that would prompt companies to shift their investments away from fossil fuels, according to Inside Climate News’ story.

However, Inside Climate News did quote legal experts who expressed skepticism about the theory’s merits.

“I do not believe that a criminal prosecution on homicide charges against the major oil companies is appropriate or can be sustained,” John Coffee Jr., a professor at Columbia Law School who specializes in corporate law, told the outlet.

Nick Pope is a contributor at The Daily Caller.

Censorship Industrial Complex

Freedom of speech tops list of concerns for Americans

Published on

From The Center Square

By

“Republicans trust Republicans to protect their speech, and Democrats trust Democrats. But the true test of commitment to free speech is whether politicians protect dissenting speech. No matter who’s in charge”

Freedom of speech is a critical issue for most Americans, over crime, immigration, and health care, a new poll says.

Despite bipartisan agreement on its importance, there is disagreement on who will safeguard our First Amendment rights – a question the outcome of the presidential election may soon answer.

A new poll from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, or FIRE, conducted by NORC at the University of Chicago finds a majority of Americans rate free speech as very important to their vote in 2024, second only to inflation.

When asked about a host of issues in context with the upcoming election, 1,022 Americans were most concerned with inflation – 68% said increasing costs were “very important,” with 91% calling it at least “somewhat important.”

Free speech followed, with 63% saying it was “very important” and 90% said it was at least “somewhat important.”

“Higher prices might be the top concern for Americans, but a very close second is the increasing cost of speaking your mind,” said FIRE Research Fellow Nathan Honeycutt. “The message is clear: Americans want their free speech rights respected.”

Although at least 90% of both major parties rate it “somewhat important,” 70% of Republicans are more likely to rate it “very important,” as opposed to 60% of Democrats.

The report says Democrats and Republicans both express very low confidence the opposing party will respect their free speech – and Independents don’t trust either party to do so.

It also states that Republicans were more likely to respond that they were somewhat concerned about their ability to speak less freely today than they were four years ago.

“Republicans trust Republicans to protect their speech, and Democrats trust Democrats,” said FIRE’s Chief Research Advisor Sean Stevens. “But the true test of commitment to free speech is whether politicians protect dissenting speech. No matter who’s in charge, FIRE will be there to keep them honest.”

The organization’s Senior Program Officer Marcus Maldonado told The Center Square that it was pleased to partner with the National Constitution Center and First Amendment Watch at NYU to bring the First Amendment Summit back to Philadelphia for the second year in a row.

“Featuring a keynote conversation about global free speech with Jason Rezaian of The Washington Post and panel discussions about free speech online and on campus, the National First Amendment Summit presented the public with a vigorous discussion of the state of free speech in America and around the globe,” he said.

Jonathan Turley, another panelist and author of The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage, said since the beginning of the republic, every generation believes they have some existential threat that allows them to silence their neighbors.

He added that technology and social media have created new free speech challenges, was critical of how Twitter and Facebook have restricted free speech and does not believe in trade-offs made to prevent “disinformation.”

Even though the technology is new, he said, “it takes a lot to get a free people to give up freedom. Since the beginning, fear and anger have caused rage rhetoric, which becomes an excuse for every government to crack down. And the question is whether each generation is willing to give up that part of their freedom.”

Turley asserted that “this is the most dangerous anti-free speech period in our history, because we’ve never seen an alliance with the government, media, academia, and corporations” like this one.”

Continue Reading

International

OP-ED Trudeau’s Dangerous Pandering to Extremists Has Turned Canada Into a Safe Haven for Hate and Terror

Published on

The Opposition with Dan Knight

 If these weren’t Khalistani activists but a group of white nationalists descending on a mosque or synagogue, Trudeau would be sprinting to the nearest camera to condemn it. Hate crimes would be filed faster than you could say “virtue signal.”

This past weekend in Brampton, Ontario, we saw a truly disturbing and shameful scene unfold. Khalistani extremists—yes, extremists—stormed a Hindu temple and reportedly assaulted its worshippers. For Hindus in Canada, who had come to this country seeking safety and freedom, this attack was a horrifying reminder that their places of worship, their cultural sanctuaries, are no longer safe. Such an assault on religious freedom should be universally condemned. Yet, the Canadian political establishment, led by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and supported by NDP leader Jagmeet Singh, has done almost nothing but offer empty words and platitudes. It is increasingly clear that these incidents are not isolated—rather, they are a symptom of Trudeau’s reckless pandering to extremist factions within Canada’s diaspora communities.

As journalist Rupa Subramanya pointed out in her recent tweet, scenes like this should not be happening in a supposedly free and developed country like Canada. They’re scenes reminiscent of conflicts and vendettas one might see in parts of South Asia, not on the peaceful streets of Brampton. But thanks to Trudeau’s irresponsible courting of Khalistani separatist votes, this violence has been given fertile ground to grow right here in Canada.

Khalistani supporters argue they have a grievance with the Indian government. For years, they claim, India has targeted their community, cracking down on separatist leaders and activists with alleged ties to Khalistan here on Canadian soil. In the high-profile case of Hardeep Singh Nijjar, a prominent Khalistani figure in Surrey, the Trudeau government alleged that India was involved in his assassination. The RCMP, on Thanksgiving no less, all but confirmed that they believe Indian operatives were conducting activities on Canadian soil to target specific individuals. That’s a serious allegation—and it’s no surprise that it’s fueling the anger in certain parts of the Sikh community. I don’t dispute that these people have grievances, but grievances don’t justify terrorizing worshippers at a temple. There’s a clear line that’s been crossed.

Now, if this group wants to take a stand, they have every right to do so. Take your protest to the Indian consulate, gather on the steps of Vancouver’s art gallery, or march through the streets of Ottawa. That’s freedom of speech, and I’d defend their right to do it. But targeting a Hindu temple? That’s a desecration of a sacred space. What happened in Brampton wasn’t just a protest; it was an act of intimidation, even terror. And if we’re going to call a spade a spade, let’s use Canada’s own hate speech laws, which are weaponized regularly to police “wrongthink” in other cases. When violence and harassment are unleashed at a place of worship, it becomes a tool of terror—plain and simple. Even though I’m a staunch defender of free speech, we live under Canada’s hate speech regime, and it’s high time we see it applied evenly.

Here’s the kicker: if these weren’t Khalistani activists but a group of white nationalists descending on a mosque or synagogue, Trudeau would be sprinting to the nearest camera to condemn it. Hate crimes would be filed faster than you could say “virtue signal.” But in this case, we see silence and selective outrage from Canada’s so-called “defenders of diversity.” Why? Because Trudeau and Singh know they need the support of certain diasporas to maintain their coalition. They’re so tangled up in their own identity-politics web that they’ve rendered themselves incapable of taking a stand on principle.

The roots of this problem are Trudeau’s obsession with identity politics and his willingness to appease extremist voices within diaspora communities in exchange for votes. He’s aligned himself with Jagmeet Singh, whose support base includes those who sympathize with the Khalistani movement, and who has a long record of soft-pedaling the issue of Khalistani violence. For years, Trudeau and Singh have played a dangerous game, tacitly encouraging these factions to push the boundaries of what’s acceptable. Now, that same extremism has spilled into the open, right here in Canada.

Click to link to the National Post

In a National Post Article dated Nov 3 2024, Former Canadian cabinet minister Ujjal Dosanjh, a Sikh himself and a Canadian patriot who’s stood up to the radical fringes of his own community, is now sounding the alarm louder than ever about Justin Trudeau’s reckless pandering to Sikh extremism. Dosanjh is no fringe figure—he’s a former Liberal premier and a lifelong advocate for Canadian unity, even at great personal risk. He knows firsthand the damage that unchecked extremism can do to communities and to national stability. And now he’s pointing the finger directly at Trudeau.

According to Dosanjh, Trudeau’s obsession with catering to every vocal faction, no matter how extreme, has opened the floodgates for Khalistani separatists to operate openly within Canada. The same radicals who were emboldened by Canada’s political elites to support separatism are now terrorizing Hindu Canadians in their places of worship. For Dosanjh, the warning signs have been flashing red since the 1985 Air India bombing, which took the lives of 329 innocent people. But Trudeau, blinded by the need to appease every identity group, has allowed history to repeat itself.

Dosanjh argues that this “diversity at all costs” approach has led to the rise of an insidious form of intimidation that’s left peaceful Sikh Canadians too afraid to speak out against Khalistani extremism. Trudeau’s selective approach to multiculturalism—where every faction is catered to except the mainstream—has backfired spectacularly, leaving Canada vulnerable to the loudest, most radical voices. Most Sikhs in Canada don’t support the Khalistan movement, but Trudeau’s inaction has allowed this tiny, vocal minority to dominate the conversation and overshadow those who simply want to live in peace.

And Trudeau’s handling of the Hardeep Singh Nijjar affair? Dosanjh couldn’t be clearer: Trudeau’s approach was reckless and self-serving. Rather than addressing India’s concerns quietly, behind closed doors, Trudeau chose to escalate the issue on the global stage, causing a diplomatic disaster with one of Canada’s most important allies. In doing so, he’s not only jeopardized Canada-India relations but has risked the security of Canada’s Hindu, Sikh, and Indian diaspora communities. Why? Because Trudeau wanted to look “strong” to his own politically convenient voter base, using Canada’s House of Commons as his stage to grandstand.

And here’s the kicker. Dosanjh draws a stark comparison with the U.S., which recently dealt with a similar incident—an alleged plot against a Sikh separatist in American territory—through quiet diplomacy, respecting its allies without letting domestic politics interfere. Trudeau, on the other hand, saw an opportunity for grandstanding. Why? Because he knows identity politics is his only real play, and he’s willing to sacrifice both Canada’s unity and its global standing to keep his coalition intact.

Dosanjh doesn’t mince words: he sees Trudeau’s vision of Canada—a “post-national state” with no shared culture or common values—as an existential threat to the country’s future. Canada, Dosanjh argues, is not just a collection of identities; it’s a nation built on shared values, lawfulness, and mutual respect. But Trudeau, consumed by his obsession with catering to radical identity groups, is tearing the fabric of that unity apart. Instead of fostering a cohesive nation, Trudeau has allowed Canada to become a fragmented society, a breeding ground for extremism, and a place where national pride is quietly pushed aside for the benefit of loud, divisive voices.

So let’s stop pretending this is a question of free speech. What happened in Brampton was not about peaceful protest or political dissent; it was an act of hate and terrorism, plain and simple. Canada’s laws are clear, and so are the RCMP’s powers to act. Hate speech in Canada is legally defined as public incitement of hatred against any identifiable group—be it race, religion, or ethnicity—that can stir others to violence. What happened at the temple in Brampton goes beyond protest; it was targeted intimidation aimed at a religious community, nothing less than an assault on our nation’s values of tolerance and respect.

As for terrorism, Canada’s Criminal Code lays it out in black and white: any act that is politically or ideologically motivated and aimed at intimidating a public or religious group fits the bill. That’s exactly what these Khalistani extremists achieved by invading a temple, turning a space of worship into a site of fear. So let’s use the words Canada’s laws were built to define. This isn’t just disturbing the peace; it’s hate-fueled terror.

Here’s the blunt reality: the RCMP has the tools to stop this, to prosecute this violence, and to send a message that Canada will not stand by while extremists terrorize communities. And let’s not forget another essential tool—deportation. For any foreign nationals caught inciting or committing acts of violence, deportation is not only a right but a responsibility of any government worth its salt. Canada doesn’t need to tolerate foreign extremists on our soil; if they’ve come here to sow division, they need to be booted out and sent back. And if these radicals hold Canadian citizenship? Then we have prison cells ready for them. It doesn’t matter if they’re white, black, have blue hair, or green skin. If you break the law, if you cross that line from protest to violence, you belong behind bars, not on our streets.

Yet here we are with Trudeau at the helm, watching him bend over backward to avoid calling this violence out for what it is. He’s the same leader who preaches tolerance yet seems oddly selective about who deserves protection. If these were white nationalists outside a mosque or synagogue, Trudeau would be grandstanding in front of the nearest camera, denouncing it as terrorism—and he’d be right. So why the silence now? Is it because he’s too entangled in diaspora politics, relying on certain vote banks to keep his coalition intact? Or is it because he’s lost his nerve, fearful of offending the so-called “cultural sensitivities” of groups who’ve crossed the line?

The hypocrisy is staggering. Trudeau’s Canada is becoming a place where foreign grievances dictate the public peace and where divisive ideologies are allowed to take root. Pierre Poilievre and the Conservatives have a monumental task ahead. Trudeau’s game plan appears to be to break the system so badly that he can later point fingers and accuse the Conservatives of heartlessness when they try to fix it. But this is not heartlessness—it’s sanity. It’s common sense. It’s what any reasonable country would do to protect its people.

So let’s be absolutely clear: Canada is not short on people wanting to enter this country, to work hard, to respect its laws, and to build a future here. We don’t need to accommodate extremists or radicals. The way forward is simple: apply the laws we already have. Enforce our hate crime and anti-terrorism laws equally and unapologetically. If Trudeau won’t do it, then Canadians need a leader who will.

Canada needs to stand firm, prioritize its own values, and protect its citizens—not bow to the pressures of radicals who see our openness as weakness. If we want Canada to remain a place of peace, tolerance, and respect, we must enforce our laws without exception.

Subscribe to The Opposition with Dan Knight .

For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.

Continue Reading

Trending

X