EU criminalizing environmental transgressions

[ewv 0]

EU agrees to outlaw 'green' crimes

EurActiv.com, 22 May 2008 - After eight years of negotiation, the European Parliament has reached an agreement with member states on legislation that will force national governments to apply criminal sanctions to those causing deliberate or negligent damage to the environment.

The agreement will infuriate British Conservatives who have been fighting tooth and nail against what they called an "intrusion" into national criminal law.

But supporters of EU-wide measures, including the European Commission, have argued they are necessary to prevent offenders from taking advantage of the "scattered and disparate criminal law provisions".

To appease opponents, the agreed directive makes clear that criminal sanctions can only be requested in case of "substantial damage", death or serious injury and limited to areas where the EU has competence, leaving national legislation intact in other areas.

According to the agreed text, the list of punishable crimes will include:

* Unlawful discharge or emission of substances into the air, soil or water in a way likely to cause "death or serious injury to any person" or "substantial damage" to the environment;

* the shipment of waste;

* the killing, destruction, possession and trading of specimens of protected fauna or flora species, except when it concerns negligible quantities with little or no impact on the specimen's conservation status;

* any conduct which causes the significant deterioration of habitats within protected sites, and;

* the production, importation, exportation, placing on the market or use of ozone-depleting substances.

Any inciting or aiding and abetting of such conduct will equally be considered a criminal offence...

Parliament's rapporteur on the Environmental Crime proposals Hartmut Nassauer (EPP-ED, DE) welcomed the deal on the legislation. "We are setting a precedent," he said, noting that the vote represented the first time that Parliament has approved a comprehensive piece of legislation implying the use of criminal law. He further advocated the possibility that the use of criminal sanctions could be extended to other fields than protection of environment in the future.

Despite the watering down of its original proposals and the lack of any common minimum penalty levels, the Commission said it believed the agreement would nevertheless constitute "a very important step towards improving the implementation of environmental legislation". "No more safe havens will be possible for those responsible for polluting our environment," said Commission Vice-President Jacques Barrot .

Full article

[Tito 0]

The agreement will infuriate British Conservatives who have been fighting tooth and nail against what they called an "intrusion" into national criminal law.

I am sorry, but that sentence is pure bullsh*t!

British Conservatives have never voted against handing the EU more powers, and have spent the last few years trying to make it obvious that they are the ones that will be harshest against polluters. They even changed their logo to a tree to show they were "green".

They are more environmentalist than our ruling Labour party!

The European Superstate marches forth.

[ewv 0]

The agreement will infuriate British Conservatives who have been fighting tooth and nail against what they called an "intrusion" into national criminal law.

I am sorry, but that sentence is pure bullsh*t!

British Conservatives have never voted against handing the EU more powers, and have spent the last few years trying to make it obvious that they are the ones that will be harshest against polluters. They even changed their logo to a tree to show they were "green".

They are more environmentalist than our ruling Labour party!

The European Superstate marches forth.

Evidently someone with some clout was fighting them because it took them years to get it and they didn't get as much power as they wanted. Who was it? Are there some British conservatives fighting it who you don't hear about often, maybe because they are afraid to speak out publicly against the viros?

[Tito 0]

The agreement will infuriate British Conservatives who have been fighting tooth and nail against what they called an "intrusion" into national criminal law.

I am sorry, but that sentence is pure bullsh*t!

British Conservatives have never voted against handing the EU more powers, and have spent the last few years trying to make it obvious that they are the ones that will be harshest against polluters. They even changed their logo to a tree to show they were "green".

They are more environmentalist than our ruling Labour party!

The European Superstate marches forth.

Evidently someone with some clout was fighting them because it took them years to get it and they didn't get as much power as they wanted. Who was it? Are there some British conservatives fighting it who you don't hear about often, maybe because they are afraid to speak out publicly against the viros?

No, that is not the nature of the European Union. You should read "The Great Deception" by Dr. Richard North.

The EU will constantly "fight" for something, that was the instructions given by architects such as Monnet. To take everything slowly, ask for the moon and get a pebble, one at a time.

[ewv 0]

Evidently someone with some clout was fighting them because it took them years to get it and they didn't get as much power as they wanted. Who was it? Are there some British conservatives fighting it who you don't hear about often, maybe because they are afraid to speak out publicly against the viros?

No, that is not the nature of the European Union. You should read "The Great Deception" by Dr. Richard North.

The EU will constantly "fight" for something, that was the instructions given by architects such as Monnet. To take everything slowly, ask for the moon and get a pebble, one at a time.

If no one opposes them why don't they get the moon right away?

[Tito 0]

Evidently someone with some clout was fighting them because it took them years to get it and they didn't get as much power as they wanted. Who was it? Are there some British conservatives fighting it who you don't hear about often, maybe because they are afraid to speak out publicly against the viros?

No, that is not the nature of the European Union. You should read "The Great Deception" by Dr. Richard North.

The EU will constantly "fight" for something, that was the instructions given by architects such as Monnet. To take everything slowly, ask for the moon and get a pebble, one at a time.

If no one opposes them why don't they get the moon right away?

Nobody opposes them because they don't get the moon right away.

You know that the leader of the Conservative party has banned Eurosceptics from his shadow cabinet right?

[Paul's Here 0]

------------------

and limited to areas where the EU has competence

----------------

I was about to be worried about this, but then this clause made me realize the entire thing is really a joke.

[ewv 0]

Nobody opposes them because they don't get the moon right away.

Then what is the process referred to that took so long to overcome opposition and why didn't they impose more?

You know that the leader of the Conservative party has banned Eurosceptics from his shadow cabinet right?

I don't know anything about that.

[Carlos 0]

No, that is not the nature of the European Union. You should read "The Great Deception" by Dr. Richard North.

The EU will constantly "fight" for something, that was the instructions given by architects such as Monnet. To take everything slowly, ask for the moon and get a pebble, one at a time.

I know very little to nothing on the story of the creation of the EU, so I am interested in what you mean by this. What was so nefarious from the start with the EU?

[Carlos 0]

EU agrees to outlaw 'green' crimes

EurActiv.com, 22 May 2008 - After eight years of negotiation, the European Parliament has reached an agreement with member states on legislation that will force national governments to apply criminal sanctions to those causing deliberate or negligent damage to the environment.

The agreement will infuriate British Conservatives who have been fighting tooth and nail against what they called an "intrusion" into national criminal law.

But supporters of EU-wide measures, including the European Commission, have argued they are necessary to prevent offenders from taking advantage of the "scattered and disparate criminal law provisions".

To appease opponents, the agreed directive makes clear that criminal sanctions can only be requested in case of "substantial damage", death or serious injury and limited to areas where the EU has competence, leaving national legislation intact in other areas.

According to the agreed text, the list of punishable crimes will include:

* Unlawful discharge or emission of substances into the air, soil or water in a way likely to cause "death or serious injury to any person" or "substantial damage" to the environment;

* the shipment of waste;

* the killing, destruction, possession and trading of specimens of protected fauna or flora species, except when it concerns negligible quantities with little or no impact on the specimen's conservation status;

* any conduct which causes the significant deterioration of habitats within protected sites, and;

* the production, importation, exportation, placing on the market or use of ozone-depleting substances.

Any inciting or aiding and abetting of such conduct will equally be considered a criminal offence...

What amazes me is the complete absence of objectivity in any of these listed items. What are the standards for the amount of air pollutant necessary to cause "death or serious injury". What is "conduct" and what is constituted by "significant deterioration of habitats"?

Most of these are issues of science, and I'm sure all these politicians will be "advised" by slimy creatures like Michael Mann to help them make their arbitrary rulings...

This is shocking, I really never thought that Europe would go down this hard and this fast.

[ewv 0]

What amazes me is the complete absence of objectivity in any of these listed items. What are the standards for the amount of air pollutant necessary to cause "death or serious injury". What is "conduct" and what is constituted by "significant deterioration of habitats"?

-- or "aiding and abetting"? So much for freedom of speech.

Most of these are issues of science, and I'm sure all these politicians will be "advised" by slimy creatures like Michael Mann to help them make their arbitrary rulings...

This is shocking, I really never thought that Europe would go down this hard and this fast.

They are not "science" any more -- "science" is now whatever a viro says because he says it.

This kind of arbitrariness in viro law is now commonplace; the step they are taking here is the scope of a sweeping imposition of criminalizing people they go after.

[Stussy88 0]

Can anyone think of any conduct at all that would not potentially be covered by this nonsense

any conduct which causes the significant deterioration of habitats within protected sites

You could say anything at all is doing this, travelling by air, travelling by car, travelling, turning your heating up, eating imported food (don't ask), failing to recycle, you name it!

But don't worry fellow Brits, our jails are full and the south Europeans never enforce any of these laws.

[Tito 0]

Nobody opposes them because they don't get the moon right away.

Then what is the process referred to that took so long to overcome opposition and why didn't they impose more?

You know that the leader of the Conservative party has banned Eurosceptics from his shadow cabinet right?

I don't know anything about that.

There isn't one! It generally works like this

1. EU says it will do 'x'

2. Idiots writing in British tabloids get wound up for all the wrong reasons.

3. Public are miffed.

4. Our government says it has negotiated and the EU will now do 'y'. Which is actually just some of 'x', but there we go.

5. Tabloids are delighted. The public love the government for defending the British interest - everyone is happy.

6. EU says it wants to do 'x'

Rinse and repeat.

This has been done over and over and over again, it the the process that has got the EU every power it has. Sorry - I mean competences.

I know very little to nothing on the story of the creation of the EU, so I am interested in what you mean by this. What was so nefarious from the start with the EU?

You should read some of the founding architects words. Such as Arthur Salter's "United States of Europe" and Monnet's plans.

Mr. Hilton (or perhaps Monnet, it is disputed who wrote this) even said

"Europe's nations should be guided towards a super state without their people understanding what is happening. This can be accomplished by successive steps each disguised as having an economic purpose, but which will eventually and irreversibly lead to federation."

[Carlos 0]

"Europe's nations should be guided towards a super state without their people understanding what is happening. This can be accomplished by successive steps each disguised as having an economic purpose, but which will eventually and irreversibly lead to federation."

Whoah, that is chilling...

[ewv 0]

Can anyone think of any conduct at all that would not potentially be covered by this nonsense

any conduct which causes the significant deterioration of habitats within protected sites

You could say anything at all is doing this, travelling by air, travelling by car, travelling, turning your heating up, eating imported food (don't ask), failing to recycle, you name it!

But don't worry fellow Brits, our jails are full and the south Europeans never enforce any of these laws.

They don't intend to put everyone in jail. It's a means of control over anyone they choose to go after. Innocent people cannot be controlled, so they make everyone guilty of something.

[ewv 0]

Nobody opposes them because they don't get the moon right away.

Then what is the process referred to that took so long to overcome opposition and why didn't they impose more?... There isn't one! It generally works like this

1. EU says it will do 'x'

2. Idiots writing in British tabloids get wound up for all the wrong reasons.

3. Public are miffed.

4. Our government says it has negotiated and the EU will now do 'y'. Which is actually just some of 'x', but there we go.

5. Tabloids are delighted. The public love the government for defending the British interest - everyone is happy.

6. EU says it wants to do 'x'

Rinse and repeat.

This has been done over and over and over again, it the the process that has got the EU every power it has. Sorry - I mean competences.

That is a common psychological process in politics that we see all the time, with the viros for example. They go after something (like someone else's private property), then if the victims find out and object, they "negotiate" and "compromise" by not taking as much as they initially demanded. "Compromise" to them always means taking what they can get and coming back for the rest later. People are morally intimidated into going along with each step in this progression, always in the name of "compromise" and on the premise that the viros have some kind of moral superiority in their "ideals". But the viros pull it off because, after softening up the general public, they have the raw power to impose it -- the power of the legislature, or some agency with bureaucratic power -- even when the victims, always a minority, balk.

In the case of criminalizing the political crime of opposition to viroism, who was balking that anyone was listening to -- if not the "British conservatives" mentioned in the article -- so that the EU had to go through the "compromise" charade?

[Tito 0]

Nobody opposes them because they don't get the moon right away.

Then what is the process referred to that took so long to overcome opposition and why didn't they impose more?... There isn't one! It generally works like this

1. EU says it will do 'x'

2. Idiots writing in British tabloids get wound up for all the wrong reasons.

3. Public are miffed.

4. Our government says it has negotiated and the EU will now do 'y'. Which is actually just some of 'x', but there we go.

5. Tabloids are delighted. The public love the government for defending the British interest - everyone is happy.

6. EU says it wants to do 'x'

Rinse and repeat.

This has been done over and over and over again, it the the process that has got the EU every power it has. Sorry - I mean competences.

That is a common psychological process in politics that we see all the time, with the viros for example. They go after something (like someone else's private property), then if the victims find out and object, they "negotiate" and "compromise" by not taking as much as they initially demanded. "Compromise" to them always means taking what they can get and coming back for the rest later. People are morally intimidated into going along with each step in this progression, always in the name of "compromise" and on the premise that the viros have some kind of moral superiority in their "ideals". But the viros pull it off because, after softening up the general public, they have the raw power to impose it -- the power of the legislature, or some agency with bureaucratic power -- even when the victims, always a minority, balk.

In the case of criminalizing the political crime of opposition to viroism, who was balking that anyone was listening to -- if not the "British conservatives" mentioned in the article -- so that the EU had to go through the "compromise" charade?

The Conservatives have pledged for more environmental restrictions and keep egging on the EU to impose environmental sanctions.

Who indeed? The biggest party that can be considered Eurosceptic in any way whatsoever are UKIP. They are only about 16,000 strong and have never got a single MP elected. They are never in the press, the vast majority of people have never heard of them.

There is no organised opposition. The only opposition is the "eurosceptic" tabloids - who don't print a single story about the EU taking over the entire UK energy policy this year, but witter for weeks about a sticker they are putting on our passports and the outlawing of curved bananas!

Euroscepticism is dead. It was the only vehicle for capitalism here, but now it is a dead duck. Eurosceptic parties are falling further and further down the polls and ballots as the EU gets more and more powerful.

[Stussy88 0]

Can anyone think of any conduct at all that would not potentially be covered by this nonsense

any conduct which causes the significant deterioration of habitats within protected sites

You could say anything at all is doing this, travelling by air, travelling by car, travelling, turning your heating up, eating imported food (don't ask), failing to recycle, you name it!

But don't worry fellow Brits, our jails are full and the south Europeans never enforce any of these laws.

They don't intend to put everyone in jail. It's a means of control over anyone they choose to go after. Innocent people cannot be controlled, so they make everyone guilty of something.

Well said indeed. In fact it's even worse, there are currently seven government TV ads running that I can think of immediately (Stasi anyone) telling me to:

~ pay my annual car tax or they will crush it

~ stop eating so much salt

~ quit drinking so much (and no politician sees any irony in this)

~ pay my annual TV tax because TV couldn't otherwise exist

~ quit driving so fast because of all the children I'm killing

~ recycle stuff that is not in short supply in uncosted recycling facilities and

~ vague green alarmism saying I needed to think of my CO2 footprint

in a few months they will be joined by the annual pseudo-threat to file my taxes

[ewv 0]

In the case of criminalizing the political crime of opposition to viroism, who was balking that anyone was listening to -- if not the "British conservatives" mentioned in the article -- so that the EU had to go through the "compromise" charade?

The Conservatives have pledged for more environmental restrictions and keep egging on the EU to impose environmental sanctions.

Who indeed? The biggest party that can be considered Eurosceptic in any way whatsoever are UKIP. They are only about 16,000 strong and have never got a single MP elected. They are never in the press, the vast majority of people have never heard of them.

There is no organised opposition. The only opposition is the "eurosceptic" tabloids - who don't print a single story about the EU taking over the entire UK energy policy this year, but witter for weeks about a sticker they are putting on our passports and the outlawing of curved bananas!

Euroscepticism is dead. It was the only vehicle for capitalism here, but now it is a dead duck. Eurosceptic parties are falling further and further down the polls and ballots as the EU gets more and more powerful.

But that doesn't answer the question. Who stopped the EU from going as far as the viros wanted to and delayed what they were doing?

[Tito 0]

In the case of criminalizing the political crime of opposition to viroism, who was balking that anyone was listening to -- if not the "British conservatives" mentioned in the article -- so that the EU had to go through the "compromise" charade?

The Conservatives have pledged for more environmental restrictions and keep egging on the EU to impose environmental sanctions.

Who indeed? The biggest party that can be considered Eurosceptic in any way whatsoever are UKIP. They are only about 16,000 strong and have never got a single MP elected. They are never in the press, the vast majority of people have never heard of them.

There is no organised opposition. The only opposition is the "eurosceptic" tabloids - who don't print a single story about the EU taking over the entire UK energy policy this year, but witter for weeks about a sticker they are putting on our passports and the outlawing of curved bananas!

Euroscepticism is dead. It was the only vehicle for capitalism here, but now it is a dead duck. Eurosceptic parties are falling further and further down the polls and ballots as the EU gets more and more powerful.

But that doesn't answer the question. Who stopped the EU from going as far as the viros wanted to and delayed what they were doing?

You are watching the EU's eery dance. A complete soap-opera to be played out in the newspapers. "Opposition" is, sadly, a pure construct of the incumbents.