The stunt monkeys from Greenpeace showed up in Courtice, Ont., to do what they always do.
After all, the stunt monkeys are nothing if not predictable.
This time, they chained themselves to a table — other times it’s a gate, or a tree, or a piece of equipment — to disrupt public hearings into Ontario Power Generation’s plan to build new reactors at the Darlington Nuclear Station.
Greenpeace pulls these stunts because it has nothing constructive or realistic to offer to solve complex problems like balancing our energy needs with public safety and concern for the environment.
But don’t take our word for it.
Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore abandoned the stunt monkeys years ago in disgust, saying while they started off as sincere environmentalists with a valid cause, they have, over the years, become increasingly “antihuman” in their views.
Moore told a British documentary several years ago that once their sensible views became mainstream, “the only way to remain antiestablishment was to adopt ever more extreme positions.” …
If wind and solar energy were capable — as the stunt monkeys inaccurately claim — of providing reliable, affordable, on-demand, base-load electricity to the Ontario grid, who wouldn’t be in favour of shutting down all nuclear plants tomorrow?
But that’s just not realistic.
And so, we have tough decisions to make in a province where 50 percent of our power comes from nuclear energy, balancing safety with energy and environmental concerns.
The Ottawa Sun (April 1)
Libya a side show next to Syria
As its planes and submarines destroy Moammar Gadhafi’s ability to kill his own people, Britain is naturally preoccupied with Libya. But a much more significant struggle is taking place in Syria, where about 60 anti-government demonstrators have been shot dead over the past 10 days.
Situated between Israel and Iran, Syria is at the core of conflict in the Middle East. By comparison, Libya is a side show.
The unrest understandably worries Western governments. Will President Bashar al-Assad and his fellow Alawites cling grimly to power, possibly seeking to divert attention from domestic affairs by picking a fight with Israel? If they fall, will the Sunni majority take fearful revenge on a Shia sect that has dominated the country for the past 41 years? And what might be the complexion of a Sunni-led administration — moderate and willing to seek peace with Israel, or rejecting its very existence, like Iran? Given such uncertainty, the argument “better the devil you know” appeals.
It is best countered by looking at the record of the Syrian government over the past 10 years. As is the case in most Arab countries, it has failed dismally to create jobs for an overwhelmingly youthful population and has squashed any signs of political dissent. In addition, it has sought to acquire nuclear weapons. Abroad, it has continued to support groups such as Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah, thus remaining on the State Department’s list of regimes that sponsor terrorism. It has undermined the government of Saad Hariri in Lebanon, to the advantage of Hizbollah, and, despite appeals from Wash-ngton, has moved closer to Iran. That is no recipe for stability, either at home or abroad. Uncertainty is worrying. But we know enough about the Assad dynasty not to shed any tears over its demise.
The Telegraph, London (April 2)