Connect with us

Opinion

The dangerous slippery slope of activist-driven climate lawsuits

Published

9 months ago

4 minute read

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Joseph Quesnel 

Canadians should be concerned climate activists are pushing climate change litigation – or climate change tort cases – at the U.S. state and local levels.

We should all be prepared if this bizarre new legal trend introduced by climate change alarmists comes to Canada.

Canadians have noticed most extreme climate change-inspired ideas – like banning natural gas furnaces – originate from liberal parts of the United States and eventually find their way northwards to our provincial legislatures or city halls.

Lawyers – supported by climate change alarmist organizations – are inventing new legal theories to allow state governments to sue energy companies for alleged contributions to global climate change. Lawyers even attempt to link oil companies to specific extreme weather events.

American observers became alarmed when the Hawaii Supreme Court upheld a lower court ruling in that state allowing oil companies to be sued in state courts for their alleged contribution to climate change.  U.S. Legal critics were concerned how this climate change litigation could turn state courts into regulators of global climate change. They argued this was improper given that inter-state and foreign energy policy and commerce is federally regulated.

Canadian judges will have to deal with similar federalism/jurisdictional issues if these nuisance lawsuits come to our courts. Green activists on both sides of the border are determined to handicap the energy sector through the courts and lower levels of government.

Lawyers are basing their legal theories on unjustified certitude regarding climate change.  The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – the most prominent so-called “authority” on climate science – actually presents a nuanced and cautious view of this topic. Politicians and journalists often blame specific weather patterns or events on climate change with little evidence.

Canadian author Joanne Marcotte, in her book Inconvenient Doubts: Climate Change Apocalypse: Really? reminds us that so-called experts miss three key points about IPCC reports: 1) They include varying degrees of confidence and probabilities, rarely mentioned by the media; 2) Some statements refer to specific regions but are often generalized globally; and 3) An extreme weather event becomes a disaster only if a region cannot respond effectively.

Lawyers pushing these anti-oil lawsuits are really saying courts can determine with certitude these oil companies are causing climate change or they can be blamed for specific weather events.

Activists are pushing their anti-energy agenda in the courts because they are losing the war of ideas in democratically elected legislatures. Canadian voters are rejecting these unnecessary and costly green policies because they are being economically crushed by spurious and environmentally pointless carbon taxes that unnecessarily inflate all basics including food and gasoline prices . Activists realize this and want unelected and unaware judges to become arbiters on an incredibly complex and nuanced issue like global climate change.

Drivers should be wary because once courts allow provinces to attack oil companies they may come after them.  Activists know transportation is the second biggest contributor to carbon emissions after the energy sector.

Canadian litigants raised climate change at the Supreme Court of Canada when several provincial premiers challenged the constitutionality of the carbon tax – a clever way to bypass democratic legislatures and impose their anti-energy policies on courts and lower levels of government.

Canadian consumers should be able to choose energy sources best for them.  We should not allow activists to use courts – as they have in the United States – to impoverish everybody through by imposing extreme and unscientific anti-energy climate policies through the backdoor.

Joseph Quesnel is a Senior Research Fellow with the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.

Related Topics:

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

More from this author
Censorship Industrial Complex / 6 hours ago

Welcome to Britain, Where Critical WhatsApp Messages Are a Police Matter

2025 Federal Election / 9 hours ago

Poilievre on 2025 Election Interference – Carney sill hasn’t fired Liberal MP in Chinese election interference scandal

2025 Federal Election / 10 hours ago

2025 Election Interference – CCP Bounty on Conservative Candidate – Carney Says Nothing

Censorship Industrial Complex

Welcome to Britain, Where Critical WhatsApp Messages Are a Police Matter

Published on March 30, 2025

By

logo

By Cam Wakefield

“It was just unfathomable to me that things had escalated to this degree,”

“We’d never used abusive or threatening language, even in private.”

You’d think that in Britain, the worst thing that could happen to you after sending a few critical WhatsApp messages would be a passive-aggressive reply or, at most, a snooty whisper campaign. What you probably wouldn’t expect is to have six police officers show up on your doorstep like they’re hunting down a cartel. But that’s precisely what happened to Maxie Allen and Rosalind Levine — two parents whose great offense was asking some mildly inconvenient questions about how their daughter’s school planned to replace its retiring principal.
This is not an episode of Black Mirror. This is Borehamwood, Hertfordshire, 2025. And the parents in question—Maxie Allen, a Times Radio producer, and Rosalind Levine, 46, a mother of two—had the gall to inquire, via WhatsApp no less, whether Cowley Hill Primary School was being entirely above board in appointing a new principal.
What happened next should make everyone in Britain pause and consider just how overreaching their government has become. Because in the time it takes to send a meme about the school’s bake sale, you too could be staring down the barrel of a “malicious communications” charge.
The trouble started in May, shortly after the school’s principal retired. Instead of the usual round of polite emails, clumsy PowerPoints, and dreary Q&A sessions, there was… silence. Maxie Allen, who had once served as a school governor—so presumably knows his way around a budget meeting—asked the unthinkable: when was the recruitment process going to be opened up?
A fair question, right? Not in Borehamwood, apparently. The school responded not with answers, but with a sort of preemptive nuclear strike.
Jackie Spriggs, the chair of governors, issued a public warning about “inflammatory and defamatory” social media posts and hinted at disciplinary action for those who dared to cause “disharmony.” One imagines this word being uttered in the tone of a Bond villain stroking a white cat.
Parents Allen and Levine were questioned by police over their WhatsApp messages.
For the crime of “casting aspersions,” Allen and Levine were promptly banned from the school premises. That meant no parents’ evening, no Christmas concert, no chance to speak face-to-face about the specific needs of their daughter Sascha, who—just to add to the bleakness of it all—has epilepsy and is registered disabled.
So what do you do when the school shuts its doors in your face? You send emails. Lots of them. You try to get answers. And if that fails, you might—just might—vent a little on WhatsApp.
But apparently, that was enough to earn the label of harassers. Not in the figurative, overly sensitive, “Karen’s upset again” sense. No, this was the actual, legal, possibly-prison kind of harassment.
Then came January 29. Rosalind was at home sorting toys for charity—presumably a heinous act in today’s climate—when she opened the door to what can only be described as a low-budget reboot of Line of Duty. Six officers. Two cars. A van. All to arrest two middle-aged parents whose biggest vice appears to be stubborn curiosity.
“I saw six police officers standing there,” she said. “My first thought was that Sascha was dead.”
Instead, it was the prelude to an 11-hour ordeal in a police cell. Eleven hours. That’s enough time to commit actual crimes, be tried, be sentenced, and still get home in time for MasterChef.
Allen called the experience “dystopian,” and, for once, the word isn’t hyperbole. “It was just unfathomable to me that things had escalated to this degree,” he said. “We’d never used abusive or threatening language, even in private.”
Worse still, they were never even told which communications were being investigated. It’s like being detained by police for “vibes.”
One of the many delightful ironies here is that the school accused them of causing a “nuisance on school property,” despite the fact that neither of them had set foot on said property in six months.
Now, in the school’s defense—such as it is—they claim they went to the police because the sheer volume of correspondence and social media posts had become “upsetting.” Which raises an important question: when did being “upsetting” become a police matter?
What we’re witnessing is not a breakdown in communication, but a full-blown bureaucratic tantrum. Instead of engaging with concerned parents, Cowley Hill’s leadership took the nuclear option: drag them out in cuffs and let the police deal with it.
Hertfordshire Constabulary, apparently mistaking Borehamwood for Basra, decided this was a perfectly normal use of resources. “The number of officers was necessary,” said a spokesman, “to secure electronic devices and care for children at the address.”
Right. Nothing says “childcare” like watching your mom get led away in handcuffs while your toddler hides in the corner, traumatized.
After five weeks—five weeks of real police time, in a country where burglaries are basically a form of inheritance transfer—the whole thing was quietly dropped. Insufficient evidence. No charges. Not even a slap on the wrist.
So here we are. A story about a couple who dared to question how a public school was run, and ended up locked in a cell, banned from the school play, and smeared with criminal accusations for trying to advocate for their disabled child.
This is Britain in 2025. A place where public institutions behave like paranoid cults and the police are deployed like private security firms for anyone with a bruised ego. All while the rest of the population is left wondering how many other WhatsApp groups are one message away from a dawn raid.
Because if this is what happens when you ask a few inconvenient questions, what’s next? Fingerprinting people for liking the wrong Facebook post? Tactical units sent in for sarcastic TripAdvisor reviews?
It’s a warning. Ask the wrong question, speak out of turn, and you too may get a visit from half the local police force.

Reclaim The Net needs your help

Make a one-time donation
Continue Reading

2025 Federal Election

2025 Election Interference – CCP Bounty on Conservative Candidate – Carney Says Nothing

Published on March 30, 2025

By

The Opposition with Dan Knight  Dan Knight

Liberal MP Paul Chiang echoes Beijing’s hit list, suggesting Joe Tay be delivered to Chinese consulate for cash—yet Mark Carney stays silent, proving the Liberal swamp is deeper than ever.

So let’s just recap, because this is almost too surreal to believe.

A sitting Liberal Member of Parliament—Paul Chiang—stood in front of a Chinese-language media outlet in January 2025 and said that if someone were to kidnap Joe Tay, a Conservative candidate and Canadian citizen, and deliver him to the Chinese Consulate in Toronto, they could “claim the one-million-dollar bounty.” That wasn’t some fringe YouTuber or anonymous social media post. That was a sitting MP, elected to represent Markham—Unionville, who also happens to serve as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Diversity and Inclusion.

Let me be crystal clear here: that’s not just inappropriate. That’s not just “deplorable.” That’s language lifted directly from the Chinese Communist Party’s playbook. Joe Tay is on a real bounty list. Not fantasy. Not fiction. A real HK$1 million bounty placed on his head by the Hong Kong police for supporting democracy and speaking out against tyranny.

And what happens when a Canadian MP echoes that threat—on Canadian soil?

 

Nothing.

 

As of right now—this minute—Paul Chiang is still an MP in good standing in with the Liberals. Not suspended. Not removed from caucus. No RCMP probe. No parliamentary discipline. Nothing.

And the Carney campaign? The Liberal Party’s new face? Crickets. Absolute silence. Carbon Tax Carney, Trudeau’s old money-man turned globalist messiah, who’s spent the last month talking about “foreign interference” and demanding Pierre Poilievre get a security clearance? Not a word. Apparently, if a Conservative doesn’t submit to Ottawa’s surveillance state, it’s a national crisis. But if a Liberal MP plays mouthpiece for Beijing and jokes about abducting a political opponent? It’s just… Tuesday.

Imagine for a second that a Conservative MP had said anything remotely close to this—maybe even joked about placing a bounty on a Liberal politician funded by a foreign regime. Every major newsroom in the country would have declared martial law. CBC would be live for 72 hours straight. The RCMP would have launched a task force. But because it’s a Liberal, they issue a press release. A shrug. A “deplorable” comment, followed by a half-hearted apology and—get this—no consequences.

Now, contrast that with how they treated Ruby Dhalla. A former MP who dared to challenge the coronation of Carney. The party booted her from the leadership race, citing “financial irregularities.” That’s rich. They kicked her out—then kept the entrance fee. So her money’s good, just not her name on the ballot.

That’s the Liberal Party of Canada in 2025. A party so thoroughly compromised, so ideologically bankrupt, that they treat foreign bounties on Canadian citizens as a punchline—as long as the target is a Conservative. As long as the regime writing the check has the “right politics.”

And here’s the silver lining—because yes, even in this mess, there is one: we’re lucky this is all happening weeks out from the election. Because now, finally, Canadians get a front-row seat to the Liberal swamp in all its grotesque glory.

Paul Chiang joking about handing over a Canadian citizen to a foreign dictatorship? That’s not some isolated gaffe—it’s the mask slipping. And the silence from Mark “Bank of China” Carney? That’s the sound of a globalist technocrat who’s just as deep in the muck as the rest of them.

This is the Liberals unfiltered. Not the polished press conference CBC version—the real one. The one that looks the other way on foreign interference, cashes the CCP’s checks, and protects their own no matter how depraved the behavior.

So yes, it’s revolting. But it’s also revealing. And thankfully, it’s happening before Canadians head to the polls—because now there’s no excuse, no spin, no pretending. The Liberal Party isn’t just corrupt. It’s compromised. And the country can’t afford another minute of it.

Time to clean house. Time to drain the swamp—Chiang, Carney, and the whole rotten cartel.

Subscribe to The Opposition with Dan Knight .

For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.

Continue Reading

Trending

X