1. If we are an “anti-immigrant group trying to cloak ourselves in environmentalism”, is not the Green Party a human rights party trying to cloak itself in environmentalism?
2. If we are “a political movement pretending to be an objective scientific one,” cannot the same be said of the Green Party?
3. What “qualifications” , other than 20/20 vision does Tim Murray need, or any man need, to see the truth? To access information, to sift through data and weigh conflicting studies one against another, all composed by credentialed experts? Judgment is as important as knowledge. Judging a man by his credentials is akin to judging a man by his skin colour, or class background. And yet, that is what most do.
4. “Biodiversity is a lobby group, not a science group.” So? What’s your point? Neither is the Green Party. It’s not a science group. It is a science fiction group. It believes you can add 330,000 consumers or 1% of the country’s current population every year as immigrants, not counting visa entrants, and Canadians coming through the maternity wards WITHOUT them having a profoundly negative environmental impact. It also believes that we can meet Kyoto targets with this kind of growth. Amazing. Call Gene Roddenberry, or, call a medium to call Gene Roddenberry. And that renewable technologies will supply more than 20% of our energy needs. And that wildlife sanctuaries, and green belts will stand up to the kind of population growth we have been hammered with. Yes indeed, to push out this kind of science fiction, the Green Party is indeed, a lobby group, NOT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY. And judging by the election results, most Canadians don’t.
PS And for the record, Erich, I am not only not the brother of Dan Murray, I have never even met the man. I have spoken to him many times, and submitted material to him. We are not, by the way, in any sense, “anti-immigrant”, any more than the restaurant owner who closes the door on the line-up of people waiting to get into his filled-to-capacity restaurant is “anti-customer”. We are anti-immigration.Or more precisely, pro very limited immigration. And very much pro-international obligations. But here is an important difference. Internationalism does not equal globalism.