Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« Are they serious? | Main | Why free trade should be limited to free nations »

Wednesday, January 17, 2007

Playing the Double Standard

Communist China on free speech and cultural diversity in Canada: good for me, but not for thee.

Posted by D.J. McGuire on January 17, 2007 in Canadian Politics, International Affairs | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200d8350df45569e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Playing the Double Standard:

Comments

Yeah. That's almost as bad as Harper's flip-flop on China. From refusing to meet with Beijing in order to not sacrifice human rights for the almighty dollar, to instituting a policy of substantially increasing economic ties with China. And all because Canada's economic leaders are sad that we are losing ground to the US in sopping up the Chinese market.

Isn't this the type of thing you ripped Liberal governments for? How is it different now?

Posted by: bob | 2007-01-17 8:29:23 AM


You've got it wrong bob, Beijing refused to meet with PM Harper because of his human rights stance.

BEIJING — A federal cabinet minister has pushed ahead with a critique of China's human rights record, despite suggestions that Beijing's resentment of such criticism led to a diplomatic snub of Prime Minister Stephen Harper this week.

Gary Lunn, the natural resources minister, said he raised human rights issues with senior Chinese officials when he met them in Beijing this week. He also raised his government's concerns about Huseyin Celil, a Canadian citizen who is being held in a Chinese prison.

China has prevented Canadian diplomats from gaining access to Mr. Celil, who has been jailed in an unknown location on allegations that he is a Muslim terrorist, despite international treaties that require it to give access to diplomats from the home country of any imprisoned foreigner.

"Mr. Harper had planned to raise the Celil case in a meeting with Chinese President Hu Jintao during the APEC summit in Hanoi this week, but China told Canada this week that it has rejected the meeting."
From>
http://www.uofaweb.ualberta.ca/chinainstitute/news.cfm?story=52996

PM Harper is unwavering in his support for increased human rights in China and still maintains the same trade policy with Beijing.

The difference between the CPC and the Liberals is that the Liberals kept mum on the international human rights issues.

Now on the home front the Liberals are real pit bulls on rights and inclusiveness.
Why, take the homosexuals, the Liberals created special rights for them that they never had before out of thin air. Of course when it comes to English speaking whitemen it's still back of the bus under both regimes but PM Harper is doing what he can as a minority government leader by defunding groups like SOW.

Posted by: Speller | 2007-01-17 9:17:19 AM


I think we would get further with China is we negotiate with them through WalMart management. They likely have more sway than Canada.

Posted by: Duke | 2007-01-17 12:11:49 PM


Good one Duke.

Canada really is a pimple on a flea's ass when it comes to international dealings.

Posted by: missing link | 2007-01-17 12:17:50 PM


Duke

Yup, it's refreshing to "reset" ones expectations of Canada. Certainly this is no longer the country that stormed Juno Beach.

Posted by: bcf | 2007-01-17 1:28:40 PM


But hey, at least we're not the US: a harmless enemy and a treacherous friend!

Posted by: bcf | 2007-01-17 1:29:43 PM


I wonder if those, who are requesting the CRTC not to allow these (at least partly) propaganda senders of the Chinese government are the same, who otherwise condemn the CRCT for their occasional censoring.

The CRTC should not ban these senders, nor any others. The CRTC should vanish from the earth, except for the pure administration of wave lengths.

Furthermore, I wonder if the author(s) find the Canadian democracy so fragile, that it needs to be protected against such propaganda (I know lots of probably worse propaganda, which is not filtered).

Some people have very strange imagination about the freedom of expression.

Posted by: Cato | 2007-01-17 1:43:03 PM


"The CRTC should vanish from the earth, except for the pure administration of wave lengths.

Furthermore, I wonder if the author(s) find the Canadian democracy so fragile, that it needs to be protected against such propaganda"
Posted by: Cato | 17-Jan-07 1:43:03 PM

I've got to agree with you about CRTC, Cato.
It's mandate to protect Canadian culture is problematic from the consumer standpoint.

I don't see that it serves to protect democracy though. Could you give an example of how the CRTC does that?

Posted by: Speller | 2007-01-17 3:11:54 PM


DJ, You should also focus on what evil Putin is doing by supporting Iranian and syrian regimes

Posted by: Winston | 2007-01-17 7:47:04 PM


"I don't see that it serves to protect democracy though. Could you give an example of how the CRTC does that?"

No, I could not; I was not implying that. Just the opposite, I don't think Canada's society needs such a "protection". However, there are people, who think that Canadians have to be protected from "inappropriate" information and utterings.

Our "hate speech" law too shows, that our "caretakers" don't think we can cope with inappropriate opinions.

It is not CRCT but CBC, still it is an excellent example for this attitude:

I guess you remember the issue around the hockey commentator, who said something about the Francophone players (whoever, whatever, I don't remember). The point is, that he has been put on a time delay, so that a "supervisor" can cut him off, if he is saying something, which some people may find offensive (in plain-text: he became permanently censored).

Posted by: Cato | 2007-01-17 8:06:27 PM


This place is starting to look like the Maytag repairman's office.

We need more posters ... then, more commenters.
Then, more trolls.

You know ... more fun!

Everytime I comment on one of DJ's posts ... half an hour later I want to comment again.

Pass the sweet and sour will ya?

Posted by: Duke | 2007-01-17 8:50:19 PM


I would no sooner allow a Chi-com Cable channel in this nation than I would Al Jazeera....and I certainly refuse to be preached to by bloody Chi-com tyrants.
It's bad enough we have the CBC preaching happyface global socialism to us on a daily basis without the Chines preachinf "ahppyface communism".

If you have ever listened to the happy-face-joy-luck communism fer liberal white folks sent out from China on their english shortwave propaganda, you don't need to guess what they have planned for a Canadian Cable show..."invest in happy face Chinese communist industrial oligopoly...you no worry about loosie you jobbie...we makee you bigee bucks Canuki boy...we happy-joy-luck people who like you...Oh forget about bad rumors...you like nice girls and pretty music..we here makee you happee?

Posted by: Wlyonmackenzie | 2007-01-18 8:30:47 AM


You've been invited to a party of people you have never met before. You don't know whether they are Liberals, ndp or conservatives. To understand which way they lean, you tell them about this simple test.

You tell them to tell people, that you have been invited to a party, and ask their opinion on whether they would shop organic Walmart?

The ndp would say "no way", no matter what. A group of ndp would say in addition, that they never buy outside their constituency.

The Liberals would say "yes" if no one to the left was looking, and ask whether they could buy shares in Walmart and keep it a secret.

The conservative would say, "do you think organic at Walmart would improve share value?"

You purposely do not declare in advance the position, and simply give the three options.

Try it. No matter what your position, it makes for great conversation, and you can bet by their positions, whether they are card carrying or not, by their canards.

Posted by: Lady | 2007-01-18 12:35:30 PM



The comments to this entry are closed.