Hampstead City Council Ready to Be Mayor William Steinberg's Bitch

His promise to learn French... a promise not kept

Year's ago William Steinberg knocked on my door seeking my vote in the upcoming mayoral race in the town of Hampstead.
He had a minder trailing along with him (someone I like and respect, so I won't mention her name) to help intercept any uncomfortable questions and conversations and to answer any questions that might arise in French since he could not understand a word.

I asked him if it was true that he couldn't speak French to which his lovely minder jumped in to explain that because of a childhood hearing infirmity, Steinberg could never learn French. She assured me that now that he had secured a cochlear implant he would undertake to learn the language of Molliere should he be elected.

How on Earth could somebody in this day and age present himself as a potential mayoral candidate in Quebec without speaking French?

Outrageous....
I was actually stunned that he had the chutzpah to run.

Not being a shy fellow I told him in no uncertain terms that he was unfit to serve and that his infirmity disqualified him from consideration.
While his minder played the infirmity card once again I told her that I could not vote for somebody who could not read or write because of dyslexia and I sure as Hell couldn't vote for someone who could not speak French.

You can imagine that the two of them looked at me as some kind of racist or insensitive lout as they shuffled off my porch rather sheepishly.

Through sheer effort and overwhelming resources, William Steinberg won the mayoralty, turning a sleepy part-time job into a full-time obsession for someone with too much free time and boatloads of money.

Now I'm not late to this debate, back in 2009 I wrote a piece on the mayor which pretty much summarized what I'm repeating here.

"Although Mr. Steinberg is somewhat deaf, he speaks English just fine. The truth is that he has lived a sheltered life of privilege and has never bothered to learn French, simply because he never needed to. Mr Steinberg has invoked the 'infirmity' excuse as successfully as a university co-ed, claiming 'womens' problems' in order to get out of a big test."   Read: Hampstead's Unilingual Mayor 

Hampstead infamous for large homes and English-only STOP signs

For those who never heard of Hampstead, it is a tiny, yet extremely wealthy sleepy suburb enclaved tightly between Cote Saint-Luc and Montreal's Snowdon district. The town which is less than two square kilometers is home to zero  businesses or stores and it's 7,000 residents live in about 2,500 expensive homes ranging from a million dollars in value up to five million and more, with municipal taxes ranging from over $10,000 to $50,000 and more per home.

The city may have the highest density of Jewish residents of any town in Canada and boy, they are rich.
Lise Ravary proclaimed in the Gazette a few days ago that up to 20% of the residents are Francophones, but this just isn't true. While the city's Jewish residents who come from Morocco may speak French, their kids go to private Jewish schools that are English. The lingua franca of the city is 100% English and the French signs and notices are merely formalities forced upon the city by Bill 101.

Hampstead is, of course, the least diverse city or town on the island of Montreal.
The 275 Filipino and Black residents who reside there represent 'the help' and of Canada' native population, there are of course zero residents.
As of late, there is an interesting Asian influx, where a significant percentage of resales are going to wealthy mainland Chinese families seeking a safe haven for their money. Nobody seems particularly perturbed, they are good neighbours with many using their million dollar homes for summer vacation only.

At any rate, if Mayor Steinberg committed a fault in his injudicious pronouncement about 'ethnic cleansing' it is that it has brought unwanted attention to our sleepy little hideaway, which for the longest time slid under the raider of those Quebec nationalists protesting White/English/Jewish privilege.

Make no mistake about Hampstead, the city is the most federalist town in Quebec, with the number of citizens voting for YES in the referendum restricted to as many as you can count on your fingers.

When it comes to provincial voting take a look at the choice this Hampstead neighbourhood made in the last election.

Yup, 95.6% of those Hampstead voters chose the Liberal party, a percentage that would make Joseph Stalin or Kim Jung Un jealous.

It isn't surprising that the mayor has remained steadfast in refusing to apologize for his remarks, he has the benefit of being unable to understand the most vocal of his critics, not speaking French that is.
For him, the protests are of no consequence having the proverbial  hard head of privilege while living in his ivory tower,

If Hamspteaders reject the mayor next election it won't be for his remarks about ethnic cleansing, it will be because of the unwanted publicity that he brought down on a town that just wants to fly under the radar.

And so the good mayor in a pique of resistance has called a special meeting of Hampstead city council for Monday where he will seek support for his mayoralty.

No, he won't ask for a resolution backing his use of the term 'ethnic cleansing," he is not that dumb.

What he will do is cleverly ask council for some resolution opposing Bill 21 and armed with a positive result he will brandish it as a vote of confidence.
The question now is whether the council members will fall for his ploy and give him what he seeks, a false vote of confidence.

It would take guts to defy the mayor, he is all-powerful in the town and refusing to take part in the farcical vote would register their individual disapproval and represent an official falling out with the mayor.

Will council members do the right thing or will they go along with the mayor's charade?
I'm not sure, but the fact that the mayor is proceeding with the gambit indicates to me that he's confident that Hampstead city council is his to control, like a pimp reigning supreme over his bitches.

Secular law will Violate Quebec's Own Charter of Rights & Freedoms

A lot has been said about the new secular bill proposed by the CAQ and backed by the vast majority of francophones in the province.
Premier Legault admitted that the bill would violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and so to pre-empt any legal challenge, he promised to invoke the infamous 'notwithstanding clause,' which is in effect an escape clause allowing provinces to invoke legislation that contravenes certain charter dispositions for a period of five years.

"There is a clause that allows us to protect collective rights, to derogate from the Charter of Rights and Freedoms of individuals. It has been done dozens of times before by several premiers, including Robert Bourassa. When we talk about protecting values, protecting our language, protecting what is different in Quebec, we must be ready to use it, "Premier Legault said in an impromptu press conference..." -Premier Legault

Section 33.

(1) Parliament or the legislature of a province may expressly declare in an Act of Parliament or of the legislature, as the case may be, that the Act or a provision thereof shall operate notwithstanding a provision included in section 2 or sections 7 to 15.

Now the Premier and almost all francophone commentators have been quick to support and defend the use of the notwithstanding clause as a legitimate tool, even while reminding everyone that Quebec never signed on to the Charter, which was in their opinion rammed down its throat unfairly by the majority in the ROC.
In effect, they argue that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is illegitimate as far as Quebec is concerned, yet invoking its escape clause is legitimate.

But lost in the discussion is the fact that the province has its own Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms that the proposed law would also violate, something that absolutely nobody in political circles or the media is wont to point out.

If your reaction is "Whaaaa????" you are not alone. 

It is understandable that politicians are disinclined to discuss a potential violation of the tenants of the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms because it is purely a creation of the Quebec government, brought to force by the National Assembly in 1975 under Premier Robert Bourassa.

....."the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms stands at the pinnacle of Quebec's legal system. Only the Constitution of Canada, including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, enjoys priority over the Quebec charter." - Wikipedia

Enforceability

An illicit violation of the charter, whether by a private party or by the provincial Crown, may give rise to a cease-and-desist order and to compensation for damages. Punitive damages may be awarded in case of an intentional and unlawful violation.

But alas, like the Canadian Charter, the Quebec charter has it's own escape clause found in
Article 52.

52. No provision of any Act, even subsequent to the Charter, may derogate from sections 1 to 38, except so far as provided by those sections, unless such Act expressly states that it applies despite the Charter.

All the Quebec government has to do is to include a passage in any bill expressly excluding its disposition from the provisions of the Quebec charter, something it has done over thirty times since the Charter's inception.

Some of those derogations have been mostly uncontroversial, like excluding lawyers from small claims court or providing closed-door legal proceedings surrounding cases involving children or families or forcing doctors to break confidentiality to identify patients who clearly should not be driving.

But the majority of cases involve language and identity, where the invocation of the derogation is necessary because the restrictions placed on individuals rights are clearly a violation of both the Canadian and Quebec charters.
Today we in Quebec live under eleven different laws that have benefitted from the notwithstanding elements of the Canadian and/or Quebec charters.

In relation to Bill 21, the proposed secular law, when the Premier invokes the spectre of invoking the notwithstanding clause in regards to the Canadian Charter, he stands on firm ground with his constituency, the majority of francophones and especially the media who loathe the Canadian Charter which they never approved.
But the Premier's dishonesty abounds when he fails to make reference to Quebec's Charter of Rights as if it did not exist. The Premier, nor his party, nor the media ever, ever mention the fact that the new law will require the invocation of the notwithstanding element of the Quebec charter to be attached to the law.

What is the takeaway from all this?
Premier Legault, his party and the media are being grossly dishonest in omitting mention of the QUEBEC CHARTER OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS of which Bill-22 will contravene.

The Quebec government will have to use notwithstanding elements to bypass both the Canadian AND the Quebec Charters, but only dare mention publicly the Canadian Charter.

A sin of omission.

Now one of the things that bothers me about the law and the discussion surrounding it is, WHY?
Why is somebody wearing a tiny kippah or a fashionable headscarf (not a full face veil) so dangerous?
I haven't heard a cogent or reasonable argument that didn't descend into racism.
At any rate, I found this pearl amongst the many comments in favour of the ban in the Journal de Montreal which more or less sums up the idiocy surrounding the law.

"I'm afraid that a veiled teacher is trying to influence my son with her religious beliefs. The CAQ removes her veil and presto.... I have nothing to fear.

I am a Muslim and I am afraid that the judge who wears a kippah is not neutral in his judgment. Take off the kippah and I'm now sure of his neutrality.

I don't trust a policeman wearing a turban. Get rid of the turban and presto... my confidence is restored.

Are we really that stupid?"

Quebec Gleefully Launches War on Religion

The Quebec CAQ government bill to repress religious symbols worn by public officials in positions of power and the tabling of a bill placing restrictions on such religious garb and symbols was presented in Quebec's National Assembly to the wild applause of the majority of the the French media and the general public who relish the idea of dumping on minorities.

I am reminded of René Levesque who when presented Bill 101 by Camille Laurin noted privately that he was saddened by the effect of the bill on personal freedom of choice, even as he accepted its greater necessity.

Not so today with the restrictions placed on minorities over religious garb, as the general atmosphere in the French community can be best described as outright giddiness, where serving up a bitter pill to minorities is seen as a just reward for those who dare pollute Quebec's anti-religious foundation.

Say what you will, the effort is wildly popular in Quebec, where the majority of citizens view religious orthodoxy (especially in the Muslim community) as anti-democratic, misogynistic and one which promotes values inconsistent with the accepted norm in Quebec.

The French press is replete with scathing opinions directed towards Quebec anglos and English Canada for daring to object to these restrictions, reminding us that Quebec is its own nation and one which marches to a different tune.
The idea that Canada considers Quebec a racist society is particularly galling to Quebec media types who rail against those opinions, though try as I might, I haven't seen any editorial articles in the Canadian press expressing those opinions.

But Canadian politicians were quick to object with Justin Trudeau telling reporters that;

"It is unthinkable to me that in a free society we would legitimise discrimination against citizens based on their religion," Trudeau told reporters in Halifax on Thursday.

This had little effect on Quebecers whose minds are made up on the subject, and Trudeau's missive has the effect of driving voters towards the Bloc Quebecois, something that Andrew Scheer is thrilled over.

While saying that he disagreed with the bill, Scheer offered this lukewarm and low-keyed response.

 “The Quebec government has made a choice and now it is up to the elected members in Quebec to determine the fate of the bill,” he said.

Quebec politicians and their minions in the press have been front and center telling all who will listen that the bill is not anti-religion and certainly not anti-Muslim and that Quebec is an open and welcoming society. 

In this respect, they are preaching to the choir, (excuse the religious reference) because the reality is different and every now and then the truth spills out.

“Quebec's minister for the status of women drew condemnation from opposition politicians earlier this year after she said the hijab (a headscarf worn by many Muslim women who feel it is part of their religion) is a symbol of female oppression.”

In 2015 a Quebec judge contended that a defendant who was wearing a hijab was violating a Quebec law stipulating people must be “suitably dressed” in the courtroom.

“Decorum is important. Hats and sunglasses, for example, are not allowed. And I don’t see why scarves on the head would be either,” Marengo said at the time. “I will therefore not hear you if you are wearing a scarf on your head, just as I would not allow a person to appear before me wearing a hat or sunglasses on his or her head, or any other garment not suitable for a court proceeding.”
The judge’s comments triggered numerous complaints to the judicial council, which decided 28 of them were founded. It formed a committee to investigate Marengo’s conduct in June 2016.
Marengo asked Quebec Superior Court to force the judicial council to end its investigation and lost in February 2017.
In February 2018, the Court of Appeal also found against her, ruling that “the continuation of the inquiry by the committee, while a delicate exercise in the circumstances, is the only possible avenue for an enlightened justice.”
In October, the Court of Appeal ruled in a separate case that obliging El-Alloul to remove her Muslim head scarf was a violation of her fundamental rights.”

Recently, an elected council women in  Montreal Lyne Shand had these choice words over Muslims.;
“In a Facebook post, which has since been taken down, she complains that the ophthalmologist assigned to her case was a veiled woman;

“Had it not been an emergency, I would have refused to be treated by her,” the post reads in French. “I’m raging because it’s really the Islamization of our country. We have to accept everything: their reasonable accommodation, removing our crucifix (and I’m not a believer), etc., etc.”....
...“I’m not racist, I’m just a realist,” the comment continued.
“Have you noticed how each time you see a veiled woman, she’s pushing a carriage with a baby?”

Now the law doesn't even cover doctors or nurses, but the above is an example of what is to come. As I predicted in a previous post, the effect of the law will spill over into general attacks on any Muslims wearing a headscarf in public.

It will not be pretty.

As for the mean-spirited nature of the debate, a poll that shows that a majority of Quebecers object to a grandfather clause that would allow those already employed in the public service to continue wearing their headscarf.

And so a public service employee with perhaps ten years on the job as a clerk at the license bureau would have to choose to remove her headscarf or be fired over it.

That is what Quebecers want.

When the law is enacted we can expect the bloodlust to continue with new demands on restrictions sure to be made.

Right now the law doesn't apply to kindergartens, daycares and teachers. We can expect demands to be made in that regard.

Religious schools have long been the bane of secularists who object to students being subjected to the teachings of the Bible or Koran. They will be the next target.

The CAQ government cleverly kept its ace in the hole and surprised everybody with the proposal to remove the Crucifix in the National Assembly, something they promised never to do, thus preempting charges of double-standards.

But it opens the door to attacks on all societal religious symbols and the question is fair to ask.

Is banning Christmas next?

Of course, the argument will be made (correctly) that the Christmas holiday is part of Quebec's patrimony and has been celebrated since the birth of the nation.

But I would remind those who argue such, that Jews have been wearing kippot in public for over 250 years in Quebec and if that is not a patrimonal aquired right, I don't know what is.

Trudeau's Has A Way Out of Scandal. Will He Be Brave Enough To Go There?

Let me preface this piece by reiterating that I'm no fan of Justin Trudeau and in fact loathe him, not for his policies as much as for his naked false piousness and pied-piper con game predicated on gullible Canadians.

That being said I cannot but stand back in utter disbelief at the unravelling of his Prime-ministership over such an innocuous and minor political issue as the SNC-Lavalin affair. It is perhaps fitting that Trudeau is not going down over a minor political issue, but rather because of his refusal once again to tell the truth,

I am thinking of the analogy of a loving mother who confronts her daughter over some crayon graffiti scrawled on the dining room wall and where the daughter steadfastly refuses to take ownership.
The issue escalates, leading to punishment and loss of privileges and a lot of bad blood. Still, the daughter persists in her lie because she got away with it in the past.
The mother tells her friend that she just wants her daughter to admit her responsibility so that things can return to normal.
But there's no question that her daughter's error has impacted her mother's love.

Whenever Trudeau is asked a particularly difficult question in Parliament, his go-to, rope-a-dope defence is to ignore the question and mouth banal an irrelevant answers, knowing full well that nobody is going to hold him accountable as he runs the clock out.

Here is an example of the Prime-ministers avoidance tactic, masterful performance of shuck and jive that few other politicians dare employ.

Ha! Ha!
You gotta love it.  What a great bullshitter.

Unfortunately for Trudeau, his time-tested tactic of avoidance hasn't worked this time and much like the daughter who claims she didn't mark up the wall, this time nobody's buying it and the repercussions for Trudeau and the Liberals are devastating.

That's right, gentle readers had Trudeau not lied and faced the music, admitting his mistake, his followers would have forgiven him and already moved on.

But Trudeau can still turn things around, but it means doing a 180-degree turn and admitting that he did indeed cross the line and did indeed put pressure on Jody Wilson Raybould to reverse her decision.

This short statement can read as follows;

" I want to tell Canadians that in sober reflection I have come to the conclusion that my actions and those of my close political operatives in regard to the SNC-Lavalin affair did in fact cross an ethical line and did indeed amount to  an extraordinary exertion of pressure on Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould to reverse a decision she had made, something that I should never have done. Although my motives were based on saving the jobs of thousands of Canadians I now realize that the ends did not justify the means.
In light of the above , I do believe that the issue of whether the public has faith in this government to carry out the political agenda that it voted for almost four years ago needs to be tested.I therefore have asked the governor-general for the dissoulution of the house in anticipation of a general election which will settle the issue.
While I apologize for a mistake made in good faith, I believe that this government can and should been given another mandate to continue to implement policies that Canadians support, including equality and inclusion, climate responsibility and wealth building with income equality.
I hope that in the coming election campaign, the debate over issues that affect us all will be examined in a fair and open debate, where Canadians can decide who best should be trusted with the future of Canada ."

Like the loving mother who is dying for her daughter to admit guilt so that she can forgive and forget, I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that a contrite and meaningful admission and apology is all the Liberal supporters are waiting for.

I'm also confident (much as I regret it) that given the above circumstance, Trudeau and the Liberals would be re-elected once again.

What say you?

Why you Shouldn't Care About 'Climate Change'

I enjoy watching JEOPARDY each weeknight not only to be entertained by the quiz show that tests the general knowledge of some very smart contestants but also to be reminded about how dumb experts can really be.

No doubt the contestants have a great well of knowledge, quick recall and good reflexes under pressure, but they also generally (certainly not all) suffer from a distinct lack of understanding of game theory and basic applied mathematics.

While extremely smart and capable, they are mostly stupid when it comes to betting strategically.
Many games have been lost by contestants making the wrong bet at the wrong time, something that is painfully obvious to those who watch who aren't as smart but who understand betting and strategy.

Every player who participates in the World Series of Poker has a better understanding of how betting strategies affect outcomes, compared to 75% of Jeopardy players..
My wife who admittedly doesn't answer as many questions correctly has a background in book-keeping  and an uncanny ability to analyze and point out how stupidly contestants bet, with simple and devastating logic and deconstruction that is unassailable.

All to say that though experts and scientists may have an overwhelming handle on the subject that they have devoted their life to, it doesn't mean they can extrapolate their expertise into realms or fields that they have no special expertise in.
Like Jeopardy contestants, they can be brilliant, yet painfully stupid as well.
As they say ...Experts built the Titanic.

The same climate experts who cannot predict whether our Sunday picnic will be rain-free are telling us with absolute certainty that the world is on the eve of climate destruction.
Of course, the apologists will lecture us not to confuse weather with climate whenever we are hit with a particularly harsh winter (like this year,) but when a particularly hot or dry spell occurs, scream to high Heaven that it is because of climate change.
They have the distinct aura of doomsday predictors whom have plagued the Earth since the rise of mankind.
I'm reminded of those cult leaders who predict the end of the world on a certain date, only to see that date come and go. You'd think followers would leave in droves but the leader just picks a new distant date and count on the gullibility of adherents who remain faithful.
As for the media, it is complicit in fostering panic with predictions of doomsday climate scenarios, frightening us because it sells newspapers or keeps eyes on the news channel. Most reporters and pundits are lazy and stupid and editors are loathe to present arguments against the conventional wisdom.
This past summer Montreal was hit with a heat wave which of course triggered panicked reports in the media of increased of deaths caused by climate change.

“Quebec health authorities say that up to 70 deaths have been linked to the recent heat wave that gripped the province for nearly a week.” screamed the headlines

Dozens of similar stories appeared across the media, but months later when the data was analyzed by Santé Quebec, the number of reported deaths during the heat wave period was the same as the year before.
Did that make headline news?

“The study — published in the British journal The Lancet — analyzed data on more than 74 million deaths in 13 countries between 1985 and 2012. Of those, 5.4 million deaths were related to cold, while 311,000 were related to heat.”

In other words, cold climate kills twenty times more people than hot climate.
How come the media never runs stories about deaths caused by extreme cold?

Let us examine some issues;

THE SCIENTIFIC TRACK RECORD:

Scientists and global warmers celebrities like Al Gore have been predicting all sorts of disasters since the 1990s. According to Gore, we'd all be under water by now and the world would be on the brink of disaster.
The Northwest passage was to be clear of ice and the shorelines of coastal areas like Florida flooding.

The famous 'Hockey Stick graph is an illustration of dumbing down the science in order to elicit a sympathetic public response.

“Climate scientist Stephen Schneider......let some unusual truth slip when he told Discover magazine in 1989, “To capture the public imagination, we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have. Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective and being honest.”

And so the great "Hockey Stick" graph (it resembles the shape of a hockey stick) of 2001 which was presented so that even idiots could see the bad situation that the Earth was in.

“The hockey stick graph is widely regarded as controversial, if not plain wrong. “The hockey stick, the poster-child of the global warming community, turns out to be an artifact of poor mathematics,” physicist Richard Muller wrote in Technology Review in 2004. Others have described it as rubbish or even as a downright fraud.”

So much for the past.
What is galling is that these same debunked scientists and promoters have never apologized for frightening us for nothing. They continue today to brush off past false predictions with new predictions.

This AP story was written by PETER JAMES SPIELMANN June 29, 1989

UNITED NATIONS (AP) _ A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.

Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of ″eco- refugees,′ ′ threatening political chaos, said Noel Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program, or UNEP.
He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human control.

Ha! ha!

Has Mr. Brown apologized for his alarmism?

Nope... He soldiers on in the climate world of misinformation.

In 2003, three years after his predictions of climate doom were debunked, he was awarded an Honorary doctorate from Pace university.  Hooray!!

Let me present a simple scenario to you climate-change fanatics.
You have a stockbroker who tells you that he has a stock that is set to triple in price because he has inside information.
You're excited and you throw a huge chunk of your savings into the stock.
Instead of tripling, the stock tanks and you lose most of the invested money.
Your broker never apologizes for his gaffe and instead phones you a few months later to tell you that he has another stock that will quadruple in price.
You're a sucker, so you give him a second chance and invest more, but the stock, like the first, tanks anyways.
Are you furious when he phones you a year later to announce a new sure-fire stock? (Assuming you haven't fired him yet)
If you are a climate fanatic you probably give him yet another chance because you are a sucker, the same one that PT Barnum told us is born every day.
That is why Al Gore still has a fan base.
Every ten years we are told we have only ten years to react to global warming, yet ten years have come and gone three or four times during the debate and we haven't seen the predicted collapse.
Ho-hum...

Pseudo-Scientists like Bill Nye are so dumb that his predictions can only be accepted by the most naive and stupid.
He has told an interviewer that as the world heats up food production in North America will shift north to Canada, a place according to him that doesn't have the infrastructure or technology to handle the load.
His ignorance of capitalism (and Canada) is appalling. Canada already produces and exports agricultural and meat products. Ramping up production is what capitalists love to do. Telling us that Canada can't do so is based on ignorant conjecture.

The same goes for scientists that produce maps showing the coastline of Florida disappearing under several feet of seawater created by melting ice caps.
Do you actually think that building a four, five or ten feet sand berm is beyond the capability of our society? Will we actually let our coastlines sink into the ocean when a relatively cheap sea wall can take care of the problem with relatively little expense versus climate remediation?

Ever since I can remember, scientists have told us that the population explosion will destroy Earth, because the planet cannot possibly support so many new people.
That prediction itself was false as modern technology in agriculture has done very well in meeting the needs of hungry new mouths. But there's no doubt that an increasing population does put a strain on the environment and reducing population is perhaps the greatest remedial action we can take vis a vis the environment.
Of course, nobody would dare demand families reduce the number of babies they produce, as China did with its one-baby policy.

But lo and behold the world's population is set to peak soon and then to dramatically decline.
Already in the western developed world, the birth rate has declined to the point that population levels cannot be maintained naturally. We see this in Canada as in the rest of 'richer' countries where immigrants are needed to shore up the population.
In Europe and North America we haven't seen the decline in population because we import people from the third world, but in Japan, a country that is loathe to import non-natives, the reality of population decline is already a fact, with population declining steadily over the last seven years.
As the under-developed world modernizes, so too will population levels fall in these countries as women no longer desire to pump out babies as their primary function.
China gave up its one-baby policy in 2016 because of a falling population and despite allowing families to have more children, the population is dropping precipitously.
This trend (and I'm loathe to make predictions) seems ready to sweep the undeveloped world as women become empowered and see motherhood has a part of their lives, but not the only thing in their lives..
Of course, it is a trend 'experts' could not have foreseen, a so-called 'black-swan event,' but the effect on the environment will be staggering.

Climate doomsayers cannot or will not consider the effect because it is beyond their scope. The coming population collapse is perhaps the 'deus ex machina ' of the climate debate, precluding the need for remedial action.

As for the dire predictions of catastrophe with increased temperature, the predictions are figments of imagination.  Nobody really knows.
If some areas of the world become uninhabitable because of heat, other areas in Russia and Canada will become more inhabitable.

All that being said, if man-made global warming is real, and it's going to affect our lives, don't worry about it because there's nothing to be done.

Good intentions aside, mankind hasn't been able to end war and it won't be able to reduce our impact on climate. Period

Are we really going to reduce our standard of living by the required effort?
Will you get rid of your car.
Will you sell your big homes and move to a tiny apartment?
Will you become a vegetarian?
Will air travel cease?
Will your backyard BBQ be banned?
Will you tolerate $10-litre gas prices?
Will you willingly pay three times as much to heat your home with green energy?
Will commuting to work by any means be banned from the suburbs with people forced to live near their jobs?

What happens when your job is cut because of its impact on climate?
We have witnessed the collapse of the oil industry in Alberta, causing a catastrophic loss of over 100,000 jobs. What would happen if that trend was felt across the country as jobs are shed because of climate considerations?
While we accept the job losses in Alberta, will we accept the loss of a million jobs in Quebec and Ontario?
We are all heroes when it is someone else who is suffering or paying the bill. Not so much when it is us

Those of you who say you are willing to sacrifice for generations to come are liars.
In Canada, our federal government is borrowing and spending tens of billions of dollars a year to make our present lifestyle more agreeable.
This money will have to be repaid by future generations.
Where is your outrage over this theft of wealth from our children?
We say we care about the future, but we don't give a hoot, not when it will seriously cost us in the present.

I don't care about climate change because everything about it is a con.

To those of you committed to climate-change hysteria, take the first step by massively reducing your carbon footprint. Then tell us how we should do the same.

• Become a vegetarian
• Get rid of your house and move to a small apartment.
• Get rid of your car.
• Move closer to work
• Consume less manufactured goods.
• Give up air travel.
• Stop accepting government benefits that are paid for by future generations.

Otherwise ....shut up.

I've written this blog piece not to convince the climate change committed. It is as likely to succeed in that regard as trying to convince a religious zealot that God doesn't exist.

Instead, I've written this for those of you who haven't quite bought into the climate-change hype and to help reinforce your critical thinking in making your mind up.