And We Climate Skeptics Get Called Evil
From the Gaurdian via Bishop Hill
The Guardian is reporting that UK climate change aid money has been used to fund forced sterilisation programmes in India.
Tens of millions of pounds of UK aid money have been spent on a programme that has forcibly sterilised Indian women and men, the Observer has learned...
Court documents filed in India earlier this month claim that many victims have been left in pain, with little or no aftercare. Across the country, there have been numerous reports of deaths and of pregnant women suffering miscarriages after being selected for sterilisation without being warned that they would lose their unborn babies.
Yet a working paper published by the UK's Department for International Development in 2010 cited the need to fight climate change as one of the key reasons for pressing ahead with such programmes. The document argued that reducing population numbers would cut greenhouse gases, although it warned that there were "complex human rights and ethical issues" involved in forced population control.
Chris:
And yet again Communism kills
April 30, 2012, 11:18 ammarco73:
Barbaric.
April 30, 2012, 12:00 pmI'll believe that the climate is in crisis the moment any of these "climate leaders" parks their private jet and commits seppuku to save Gaia.
John Anderson:
When one is a crusader/jihadist, anything is permissible...
April 30, 2012, 12:09 pmTDK:
I note you spelt Guardian as "Gaurdian". Now in the UK the Guardian is famous for its poor spelling, so much so that it is commonly known (by friend and foe) as "The Grauniad". I therefore wonder if your misspelling is deliberate?
meanwhile the link here gives an good summary of the history of population control theory.
April 30, 2012, 1:43 pmalso http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-population-control-holocaust
Sam L.:
""...it warned that there were “complex human rights and ethical issues” involved in forced population control. Which they planned to, and did, ignore. Because they know so much better than we do what's good for us.
April 30, 2012, 4:33 pmIGotBupkis, Legally Defined Cyberbully in All 57 States:
How the hell was UK "Aid" money used to "force" sterilization?
"If you want our money, we get to cut your tubes" is hardly a case of "force".
Not to suggest this program isn't ludicrous, as pretty much all things Green are, I'm just wondering where the element of "force" is coming in.... (:-S
April 30, 2012, 7:42 pmDon:
The really interesting question: would this work HERE?
My money's on "yes" and right along side that, there's probably also a strong possibility that you'd get at least half of the libs in Congress to not only voting for it, but actively defending the idea because it's "fair" and in defense of women or some other bizarre logic.
April 30, 2012, 9:06 pma_random_guy:
@Don: It might work, if proposed by "we mean well" lefties. A while back, when someone on the right proposed birth control as a condition of welfare, this was shot down as a grotesque violation of rights.
April 30, 2012, 10:34 pmAnonzmous:
Classical liberal = pro-choice for practically all questions for all adults, so long as no one else gets hurt.
Today's liberal = pro-choice for only one very narrow question that can apply to only one segment of the population for only a fraction of their lives.
May 1, 2012, 5:36 amDouglas2:
"I’m just wondering where the element of “force” is coming in"
Because in most cases, the money isn't going to the people being sterilized, it being paid as a bounty to those who "convince" them to be sterilized, with bonuses for meeting certain targets. From the linked article:
"...people have been threatened with losing their ration cards if they do not undergo operations."
"...some are told they are going to health camps for operations that will improve their general wellbeing and only discover the truth after going under the knife."
May 1, 2012, 8:45 amZachriel:
The Guardian is reporting that UK climate change aid money has been used to fund forced sterilisation programmes in India.
According to the article, it was development aid, not climate change aid.
May 2, 2012, 5:51 amDouglas2:
From the article:
"...the UK's Department for International Development in 2010 cited the need to fight climate change as one of the key reasons for pressing ahead with such programmes. The document argued that reducing population numbers would cut greenhouse gases, although it warned that there were "complex human rights and ethical issues" involved in forced population control."
May 2, 2012, 9:11 amTonyG:
Just wondering where the "climate change aid" comes in? I didn't see any such connection in the article.
May 3, 2012, 10:44 am