#37 Ecologists = terrorists, right?

Sticking with the theme of not funding anyone who might criticize your retrograde policies, let us look at the case of environmental organizations. Not only is there some degree of concern that the anti-terrorist law is so broad as to allow the targeting of any dissent or civil disobedience, there is also the fact that Revenue Canada seems to be auditing those who take positions on issues to determine whether they are straying too far into advocacy to retain their charitable status.

Before we even get to those particular levers, there is the more direct one. Cut the funding. You can't have some tree-hugger telling you that cutting down trees is bad for the trees when the experts around the cabinet table have determined that it is more in the interest of the country to have jobs than to have trees, breathable air or drinkable water, right?

And the best approach to cut someone with a long track record of well-evaluated federal funding? Pronounce some of their activities not fundable and snip away at the funding until the existence of the organization becomes unsustainable. Bonus points if they can't turn to charitable funding because they are “too political”.

That's how to govern with a really brown thumb.

Further reading here. 

The trees, the water
the air we breathe: criticize
and lose your funding