This morning, one of the charged protesters was on TV moaning about illegitimate leaders trampling human rights and creating a police state. Give me a break. At least most of these leaders had the benefit of being chosen by their people to speak for them; the radical protesters decided to take away the rights of legitimate protesters entirely on their own initiative.

By rioting and looting – and making what happened at the G-20 all about THEIR issues – they closed down discussion on the things that bothered everyone else … including me.

Like many people, I have severe misgivings about the additional powers that governments gave police to arbitrarily arrest and detain people and to curtail the right of people to gather and protest.

I don’t believe that governments should be able to curtail rights without some official consensus from the people, at the very least a vote of support by Parliament or legislatures. This isn’t criticism of the police – they were just doing what they were ordered to do – it was a political failing.

As Canadians, either we have rights or we don’t. Either we are protected from arbitrary detention or we aren’t. If our rights can be suspended by governments… at will… behind closed doors, then they aren’t rights. They are only favours granted to us by politicians until they decide to take them away.

So the rights of Canadians were trampled twice, once by our governments and then by the hooligan protesters. As a result, we have never had a real discussion about our rights and judging by the circus surrounding the courthouse in Toronto today we probably never will.

The story showed up in a lot of places, but the original source seems to have been the National Post, which went over the top in its criticism of him.

Take a look at “By any means necessary”, by Terry O’Neill in last Thursday’s Post.

Or this follow-up story “Jail politicians who ignore climate science: Suzuki”, by Craig Offman published the same day.

But then during the Super Bowl it all started looking a bit too real.

You may have seen the Audi Ad “The Green Police”, which imagined a world where people are arrested for even the smallest environmental infracation.

Satirical? Of course. But clearly, there were a few people, like David Suzuki, who might have seen it and thought, “if only”.

_________________________________________________________________

This is extremely important to me. The open war between Environmentalists and Climate Change Skeptics is growing in intensity.

On one side you have the skeptics, who are underhandedly killing the reputations of the IPCC and the climate science community.

On the other side, you have frustrated environmental activists growing more militant and sometimes… violent.

I know, I grew up in Dawson Creek, BC, where someone (we’re still not 100% sure) spent the last year trying to blow up gas pipelines to make that point. My family is still there. It was serious… potentially deadly, and it was scary.

Do we need to take action on climate change? Yes. But not that way.

Please, no green police. And no more green vigilantes.

I AM a bit surprised at the people who are coming forward to spin the media that it’s not a big deal.  These are the same people that screamed for years about more democracy and more accountability.  Can you picture any of them saying any of these things if a Liberal government were doing them to save their skins? (Apparently, accountability is only to keep other political ideologies under control).  But whatever.

These moves have been valuable for a Cabinet and government who don’t control the political agenda, have gotten into a little bit of trouble, and want to avoid damage.  It’s nothing nefarious, it’s really all about surviving to fight another day in a minority Parliament. I get that.

But Parliamentary Democracy is all about precedent. How useful will these new powers be to a government (maybe a Liberal government) that has a majority, and wants to govern without the nuisance of Parliamentary accountability?

Apart from a few weeks to present a budget, approve spending, and maybe pass a bill or two, they could do the rest through regulations and order-in-council.

If you were a majority Prime Minister, how great would that be?

All the power and no accountability.

I wonder what the opposition spinners would have to say about that? Probably not the same lines we are hearing today.

Anyway, a good indication of how underwhelming this accomplishment is the fact that Canada… Fossil of the Decade Canada… called it a major accomplishment based in reality.

Or as Jim Prentice aptly said, “we acieved all of our bargaining goals.”

Imagine. We must be the only country in the world that can honestly say that.

Once again, I am astounded by how well the PM handled this situation. He played those world leaders like Stephan Dion. (Who I am sure is running out the door to buy a new dog to name Copenhagen).

Good job sir.

If you let your own caucus run roughshod over you, how can you expect to govern the country?

That’s the way it was under John Turner, and it didn’t end well for him. Unless the OLO can smack a little discipline into its own caucus… history WILL repeat itself.

TerraChoice’s list is comprehensive and provides a good framework for companies. They are:

1. The Sin of the Hidden Trade-Off, or emphasizing one ‘green’ attribute when there are other, more serious, concerns about your product.

2. The Sin of No Proof making environmental assertions without evidence or third-party certification.

3. The Sin of Vagueness making a marketing claim so non-specific that it is meaningless
specifics, like saying something is ‘all natural’, when it includes things that, while natural, are also dangerous. “All natural” isn’t necessarily ‘green’.”

4. The (new) Sin of Worshiping False Labels if a company creates its own official-looking labels designed to make their product look like it has been endorsed for greenness, when it has not.

5. The Sin of Irrelevance making an environmental claim that never applied to your product in the first place, for example saying your product is ‘CFC-free’, when CFCs are already illegal.

6. The Sin of Lesser of Two Evils making an environmental claim about a product that is itself essentially bad for the environment.

7. The Sin of Fibbing knowingly making false environmental claims.

McDonald’s “Eighth Sin” is “greenmuting“, basically a chilling effect that many companies now feel regarding making legitimate ‘green claims’ for their products. Essentially, they do things but don’t talk about them because they don’t want to draw fire from environmental activist organizations.

Companies like McDonald’s or Wal-Mart (which are not clients of ours) are very progressive environmentally, but you never really hear about it. There are two problems with that, those companies get unfairly characterized by their customers as being part of the problem, rather than agents of change. And more importantly, given their influence as leaders within their categories, we all lose out on the green leadership they could show that would encourage their competitors to do more.

I’ve reproduced the McDonald’s blog posting by Bob Langert, McDonald’s Vice President of Corporate Social Responsibility in Chigago, give it a read:
__________________________________________________

The Eighth Sin of Greenwashing

I can’t argue against the Seven Sins of Greenwashing that were so well articulated by Terra Choice.

Making misleading, false or unsubstantiated claims is not only wrong, but has created the additional unintended consequence of creating “greenmuting.”

Greenmuting happens when companies don’t talk about all the things they are doing because of the general apprehension of being accused of greenwashing.

I was part of a peer-to-peer environmental sustainability meeting with other companies this past week. We heard an excellent panel of experts discuss issues related to green marketing guidelines. As I listened, I began to realize even more why there isn’t enough green communication. When there are so many pitfalls, why would one take the risk?

We heard the plight of companies that make notebook computers, disposable dinnerware, plastic bags, televisions – and even pet food- that were forced to change or eliminate some of their green marketing claims.

I don’t want to make judgments on these companies, but these few examples are not representative of a much larger group of companies that are engaged in advancing better environmental practices within their businesses and providing better ecological choices for consumers. In fact, I would bet that the vast, vast majority of what is being done is NOT being marketed nor communicated.

What a shame. That’s why the seven sins add up to the greatest sin of all: Less consumer communication; less consumer engagement; and less consumer activation on environmental purchasing behavior.

What’s the solution? We still need the greenwashing watchdogs for sure, but we need to create an atmosphere that encourages green marketing and communication, done the right way. Without increased green marketing, green will not enter the mainstream.

Bob Langert, Vice President of Corporate Social Responsibility, McDonald’s

_________________________________

FH has been looking at how Environmental activist organizations attack (and sometimes work with) companies, we’ll be posting some more interesting information on this soon.

I first noticed it with Jim Munson when he joined Chretien. No doubt that the PM’s overall communications improved, but whenever Munson himself tried to spin the government’s lines it sounded flat and unbelievable, like he didn’t always believe it himself.

[I was going to move next to Senator Duffy, but I think he's lost touch with reality in a different and more bewildering way than the others, so moving along... ].

I noticed that again this morning on The Current, when Pamela Walin was turning the government line on detainee torture in Afghan prisons. It was more or less the same material that we’ve been hearing from government Ministers… no proof… I don’t know what Colvin’s agenda is… put it in context, this is Afghanistan, not Canada… you know.

I don’t really think that any Canadian should be charged with war crimes in connection with Afghanistan in any event, everyone is doing their best. And while I don’t believe the government’s spin, when it’s delivered by the Defence Minister or a top General, there’s a certain logic that comes across that makes you think.

When Senator Walin delivered the same lines, that wasn’t there. In principal she SHOULD have been able to spin them better, she’d been to Afghanistan with the Manley committee, she has a journalists ability to cut to the key facts, and she’s respected and believable. But she wasn’t convincing, she sounded like she was delivering lines from a spin sheet, and I came away from the interview believing that she didn’t believe in what she was saying.

I can’t see how anyone who listened to that interview this morning would have changed their minds. The government would have been better off not using her.

The whole interview will be available here later today so you can judge for yourself.

The next day, various current and forumer government officials including Peter McKay, Rick Hillier and others denied knowing anything and disputed the truth of the reports.

‘Cover up’, the Liberals said. ‘Conspiracy’, said the NDP. ‘Shocking and shameful’, said the Bloc. ‘Only butt-covering’, they all agreed.

OK, maybe, but what do you expect?

Setting aside the major human rights questions around enabling torture (which I don’t want to trivialize).

It is a fact that complicity, awareness, etc. of the torture of people who have been detained and are supposed to be under the protection of a foreign government is a WAR CRIME, punishable by the International War Crimes Tribunal.

This is the same tribunal that seizes foreign government leaders and imprisons them in the Hague. The same tribunal that Canada recognizes, but the United States does not, because they are afraid that their own government officials might be arrested and charged if they travel to Europe.

Richard Colvin probably had a lot of reasons for going public with his claims, but one of them was surely to protect HIMSELF from possible charges.

Even if they did know – and having been in government I think it IS possible they never saw anything – General Hillier and Minister MacKay can’t say that they did or they would be admitting guilt. And who wants to go through that kind of experience.

Should the problem be fixed? Should we be embarrased? Would it be better if it had never happened?

Yes. Yes. YES!

But let’s not pretend it was a grand conspiracy or a malicious cover-up by a ‘bad government’. It’s typical human butt-covering at all levels.

And I suspect that it would be hard to find anyone… even in the NDP… who would have been prepared to expose themselves if they were in the same position.

Today I’m (mostly) cured. No, it’s not because anyone in Parliament has lit a fire. Today President Obama seems all too human, fallible and ordinary. He’s settling into a typical political mold, plodding, pragmatic and afraid to spend his at one time massive political capital.

I was hoping he would be a game changer, but he’s ordinary.

To be sure he’s not George Bush (and won the Peace Prize for it) and he speaks well, but he’s not FDR, JFK or even Lyndon Johnson.

He talks about a great society, but has pulled his punches on delivering health care reform, changing U.S. foreign policy, and even economic reform.

I hope he turns things around. But I don’t go to sleep at night wishing he lived in Canada anymore.

Every government has Ministers you’ve never heard of, and for some MPs joining the Cabinet is the fastest ticket to public obscurity. But this government has taken the concept of low profile to new heights. For every John Baird, Jim Flaherty and… I can’t think of anybody else… there are many other Ministers you’ve never heard of.

Consider the following “Minister Whos”:

- The Hon. Gail Shea, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans
- The Hon. Denis Lebelle, Minister of State for Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec
- The Hon. Rob Merrifield, who has less than no profile as Minister of State (Transport)
- The Hon. Keith Ashfield, Minister of State for ACOA

Then there are the “Minister Wheres”, who USED to have profile, but who we never hear about anymore, like:

- Chuck Strahl, a great MP who has disappeared at Indian Affairs and Northern Development
- The formerly feisty Gordon O’Connor, Minster of State and Government Whip
- The once ubiquitous Quebec political minister, Josée Verner, Intergovernmental Affairs, Privy Council and La Francophonie, who I haven’t seen or heard from in months
- Bev Oda, Minister of International Cooperation (I actually thought she was dropped from the Cabinet but the Interweb says differently)

Finally, there are a few people who a few months ago would have been in the Who list, but through forces beyond their control have come to public attention and not for good reasons. These are the “Minister Whys”:

- Top of that list is Natural Resources Minister Lisa Raitt, who probably wishes she still was obscure. And who also plucked one of her colleagues from obscurity, the formerly low-profile…
- Health Minister Leona Aglukkaq, who has been unable to ride such high profile files as H1N1, the isotopes crisis and more

- And finally, and sadly, Dianne Ablonczy, a spectacular talent who was smacked into obscurity for doing her job too, I don’t know, honestly. I put her on the WHY list, not because she has no talent, but because I don’t know why she put up with it!

It’s often been said that the Prime Minister is the only Minister that counts in this government. Sounds about right to me.

Soon, I’ll take a look at the lesser talents in the Opposition… an embarrassment of riches if there ever was one, with emphasis on ‘embarrassment’.