CAT | politics
7
Civil unrest has a role in stopping climate change, says Gore | Environment | guardian.co.uk
0 Comments | Posted by Jerrick in For Blue Skies, politics
![]()
Al Gore. Photograph: Amanda Marsalis
Al Gore has sought to inject fresh momentum into the Copenhagen build-up, saying he is certain Barack Obama will attend and predicting a rise in civil disobedience against fossil-fuel polluters unless drastic action is taken over global warming.
Amid increasing incidents of climate protesters disrupting the operations of fossil-fuel industries and airports in Britain and elsewhere, Gore suggests the scale of the emergency means non-violent lawbreaking is justified. “Civil disobedience has an honourable history, and when the urgency and moral clarity cross a certain threshold, then I think that civil disobedience is quite understandable, and it has a role to play,” he says. “And I expect that it will increase, no question about it.”
In his only UK newspaper interview to mark the publication of his new book, entitled Our Choice, Gore says it is crucial for Obama to attend Copenhagen in person, adding: “I feel certain that he will.”
He remains optimistic, he insists, that the US Senate will pass a climate change bill before Copenhagen – a move widely seen as vital for persuading the world, especially developing countries, that the US is serious about reducing emissions.
But Gore was speaking before reports this week that Harry Reid, the Senate Democratic leader, would back Republican demands for a full cost analysis of any such legislation – a process that could take five weeks, postponing debate until after the Copenhagen summit.
On Thursday the UK climate change secretary, Ed Miliband, acknowledged that hopes were fading that Copenhagen would result in a full treaty.
Nevertheless, there are “surprises … in store” on a potential Senate bill, Gore says, citing confidential conversations between Democrats and Republicans in which he has been involved. This week Democrats made small but significant progress when they pushed the bill through a vital committee stage despite a Republican boycott.
Wonders what will happen if and when it happens in Singapore. Brutal clampdowns and Tian-an-Men-esque scenes? Or some gentle tolerance. Hmm. I feel quite sad to wonder nevertheless, I mean after all is said, you need to get permission for everything. Freedom or lack thereof. Or is it the illusion of freedom… or the illusion of something better.
Posted via web from jerricklim’s posterous
30
Quickie: I’m gonna maybe(?) voting in my first election
0 Comments | Posted by Jerrick in Law, Me, Random, Singapore, Thoughts., UK, politics
Just received my Poll Card today (29th April) and realised that as a Commonwealth Citizen I can vote in UK elections. Did some research and I will exercise my right to vote in the upcoming election on June 4th. This is so cool because it’ll be my first ever election. It’ll be during exam time but I know I will take the time to do it. When you’re suddenly enfranchised, you feel the odd urge to exercise said franchisement.
After my comment previously on Twitter: here. People mentioned that if I was to vote in the election, I may get my name permanently stricken off the electoral register in Singapore. With some cursory exploration online on the Statutes Database, I happened upon the Parliamentary Elections Act, in particular this section,
Disqualification of electors
6. —(1) No person shall be entitled to have his name entered or retained in any register of electors if he —
- (a) has done any of the following:
- (i) acquired or applied to acquire by registration, naturalisation or other voluntary and formal act (other than marriage) the citizenship of any country outside Singapore;
- (ii) voluntarily claimed and exercised any rights (other than any rights in connection with the use of a passport) available to him under the law of any country outside Singapore being rights accorded exclusively to the citizens or nationals of that country;
- (iii) taken any oath or made any declaration or acknowledgment of allegiance, obedience or adherence to any foreign power or state; or
- (iv) applied to the authorities of a place outside Singapore for the issue or renewal of a passport or used a passport issued by such authorities as a travel document;
The particular bit that pertains to me is of course Sub-sub section (ii). Does this qualify though? Particularly because these elections and ALL british elections are open to ALL members of the Commonwealth. Are there any Singaporean constitutional lawyers out there who can help me out?



