Cowardly Jenny Jones does not care for debate about the origins and philosophy and MO of her political tendency.
Greens don't do debate. There is no culture of debate in environmentalism. It expects only obedience.
Bizarre Jennie Jones doesn't mind her coreligionists depriving you of your freedom of movement, and the means by which millions make a living, but she is bothered by robust, free, open, democratic debate.
In the green view, debate is 'abuse' and having a different opinion is 'lies'.
Greens are people who didn't hear the word 'no' until it was far, far, far too late for them to understand what it means.
It is a developmental disorder.
I am serious.
Leaving aside the democratic problems of the HoL, she is not equipped to be in a position of responsibility.
She has no answer to challenges to her position. She doesn't think it needs to be debated. She doesn't think there can be a valid criticism of her ideas.
Jones thinks that blocking traffic is a 'democratic right to protest'.
The right to protest may well include routes that require closure to traffic in order to accommodate a march.
But it doesn't include blocking traffic as "protest".
The right to travel is democracy, too.
Simply not equipped for debate...
The fact and the problem for Jenny Jones and XR is that *vastly* more people want to use the roads than adhere to their extreme ideology.
If anyone disagrees, or dares to point out the fact, Jones' only answer is to screech "BIGOT!" at them.
For example, this is her answer to the point that blocking the roads obstructs access to one of London's most important hospitals.
It doesn't matter what the protesters let through, it's the traffic jam that obstructs.
Jones believes it is her 'democratic right' to kill people.
XR and the Green Party have made their case. Nobody in the country has not heard it. But after hearing it, very few people are moved by it sufficiently to vote for her party or to abandon the things that are necessary for their day-to-day lives.
Let's have a vote on it.
Greens are manifestly insane, unhinged, not capable of reason.
1. The Quadrature Foundation, which gave a £4 million donation to the Labour Party, and from where the government's new Climate Envoy, Rachel Kyte emerged.
2. The European Climate Foundation, which turns dark money from green billionaires into grants for climate campaigning organisations, including XR. It does not declare who its grantors or grantees are, but is largely controlled by hedge fund billionaire Christopher Hohn.
Quadrature Climate Foundation's (QCF) grants to pro-Net Zero lobbying organisations VASTLY exceeds even Quadrature's alleged holdings in companies that have hydrocarbon energy interests.
It would make no sense whatsoever to fund climate lobbying organisations with more than a $billlion, as QCF has, for the sake of an alleged interest in hydrocarbon companies worth $170 million.
The question you should be asking is about the $billion of pro-Net Zero lobbying and its influence over UK energy policy.
There is a lot more to say on QCF's grantees, including how they create conspiracy theories about the funding of lobbying organisations and donations to political parties.
Here is one example showing how fake philanthropic foundations like Quadrature spend VAST amounts of money on pro-Net Zero lobbying, and how there is ZERO evidence of the contrary -- fossil fuel interests funding anti Net Zero lobbying.
In fact, QCF grantees, InfluenceMap were so bereft of evidence linking fossil fuel interests to anti-climate lobbying that they had to count PRO climate lobbying as ANTI climate lobbying.
"Possible" needed the money because they destroyed their own image when they were called 10:10, and their adverts depicting the executions of children and other climate apostates led to their backers pulling out.
But they were outsourced PR for govt. Always were.
In this video of Cameron and Huhne declaring the greenest government ever, you can see a wonk (who I believe may be a PR for a major wind company) carrying the 10:10 logo, for some bizarre reason.
Preparation for this has been going on for quite some time. By eliding fundamentally distinct categories and even opposing arguments, the disinfo lobby has created the notion of online harms, and thereby the basis for policing political commentary.
Dale Vince claims that "environmental protesting is an act of conscience". But he does not believe in freedom of conscience. He argues that "climate denial should become a criminal offence".
Vince is also trying to use his £millions in libel action against his critics -- Richard Tice, Sean Bailey, and Paul Staines -- who reproduced his moral relativism about "terrorism" in his own words, and to force the Internet blocking of web sites.
He compares the average tariffs for various criminal offenses. But he does not compare the harms caused by those offences, either in economic terms, or deeper emotional and actual injuries caused to people by attempts to immobilise the road network. Those criminal actions were in very substantial part enabled by Vince himself, who admits that he gave the perpetrators "more than £340,000" to enable the expression of their "act of conscience". Who is to say that they are not motivated by money? On whose behalf, and in whose interests did they act? In many parts of the world, Vince would have been in the dock with the protesters for his part in their joint enterprise.
Nobody is against expressions of conscience. But JSO manifestly intended to cause far more chaos than they in fact achieved.
Disrupting the transport network to the extent that Hallam and his co-defendants intended is not the expression of "conscience". They intended to cause material harm to millions of people. They got off lightly.
They claim that they want to help save the lives of millions or even billions of people. But if you point out that JSO's actions, and the policies they demand -- and will continue to demand until they get their way, unless they are stopped -- are more harmful than climate change and its effects, then, Vince argues, you should face prison. And he uses his fortune to lobby for those policies, to fund those violent activists and their legal expenses, to prevent justice and to prevent transparent, democratic and scientific debate.
JSO do not have a rational view of the world. Their claims are not even mainstream "consensus" science. They are radical outliers, further from the consensus even than "deniers". That is why they, and their bleak ideology must be confronted.