Diane Francis Advocates China's Coercive One-Child Policy For the Whole World

The Financial Post today has an article that is so far out that it is almost a parody. Andrea Mrozek thinks it is a spoof because she says, from what she knows of Diane Francis, "she's not an idiot." Me, I'm sticking with the "she's an idiot" theory, although it would be a relief if Andrea turned out to be right.

Here is what Francis has to say:

"The "inconvenient truth" overhanging the UN's Copenhagen conference is not that the climate is warming or cooling, but that humans are overpopulating the world.

A planetary law, such as China's one-child policy, is the only way to reverse the disastrous global birthrate currently, which is one million births every four days.

The world's other species, vegetation, resources, oceans, arable land, water supplies and atmosphere are being destroyed and pushed out of existence as a result of humanity's soaring reproduction rate.

Ironically, China, despite its dirty coal plants, is the world's leader in terms of fashioning policy to combat environmental degradation, thanks to its one-child-only edict.

The intelligence [sic] behind this is the following:

-If only one child per female was born as of now, the world's population would drop from its current 6.5 billion to 5.5 billion by 2050, according to a study done for scientific academy Vienna Institute of Demography.

-By 2075, there would be 3.43 billion humans on the planet. This would have immediate positive effects on the world's forests, other species, the oceans, atmospheric quality and living standards."

Read it all here.

So it is OK in today's Canada for a journalist writing in a mainstream paper to advocate forced abortion, forced sterilization and government imposed eugenics on the population. And this is in the name of saving the planet from global warming. The only question is "Who will save us from our 'saviors'?"

And some commentators on this blog wonder why people disbelieve in global warming? Maybe they do for the same reason they reject Hitler's views in Mein Kampf! Maybe because they think totalitarianism is evil. Maybe because they just want to have somebody working when they are retired so that they actually get the pension they are depending on. Maybe the idea of widespread economic global disaster is not on their list of "Favorite Things." Maybe they are just hard to get along with, stupid, Fundamentalists. Or maybe they have not taken leave of their senses as the author of this article apparently has done.

I'll tell you one thing. If I had something like AGW to sell to the public, I sure wouldn't hire Diane Francis to be my marketing consultant. "Save the vegetation; murder a baby human!" What an idiot.

Further:
J. Wesley Smith is all over this story:

"Can you believe it? China–an unmitigated tyranny–has become, among the hysterics like the NYT’s Thomas Friedman and this writer, the country with policies worth emulating! Not one word decrying the terrible human rights violations of imposed abortion, female infanticide, and China’s explicitly eugenics policies.

And yet, we are told the global warming agenda is so progressive, so humane. Anyone who doesn’t see the potential that global warming could become the pretext for destroying human freedom and imposing death culture policies just isn’t paying attention.

Update: Somebody is clearly pushing this meme, because promoting radical population control is also in today’s Telegraph, absent extolling China."