The Shotgun Blog
« Car-buying thought experiment | Main | Elizabeth May: Psychologist »
Monday, October 22, 2007
On Canada vs. Iran, Louise Arbour sides with...IRAN??!?!!?
Former Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, and current United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Louise Arbour, is disappointed with her home country. From Reuters, October 22, 2007, "Canada's commitment slipping, U.N. rights boss says.":
OTTAWA (Reuters) - Canada's commitment to human rights is slipping and the country must work hard to regain the position it once held as an international honest broker, a top United Nations official said on Monday. U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour, who is Canadian, said she was particularly unhappy that Canada had voted against a nonbinding U.N. declaration of rights for indigenous peoples last month. Her comments were aimed at the Conservative government, which took power in February 2006 and has shown less interest in multilateral diplomacy than its Liberal predecessor. Arbour said Canada had historically been perceived as an unbiased nation whose judgment was widely sought and which did not serve narrow interests. "I am very worried that this very romantic view that we have of ourselves is not being sufficiently nourished and preserved to allow us to continue to occupy a place much larger than the one that our single voice among 192 member states of the United Nations would otherwise allow for," she said. "I hope that we ... will collectively work very hard to reclaim that privileged space," she told an Ottawa conference on human rights.
Oh...THIS Louise Arbour?
Let's see...condemnation of Canada, silence on Iran. This Iran:
Let me spend a few moments highlighting some of the most recent atrocities. In a recent period of less than 30 days, some 31 executions were carried out and 8 women were awaiting execution by stoning. And in Gohardasht prison alone, some 612 individuals were in death row. Now you might think that litany of horrors couldn’t be surpassed but you would be wrong. Iran remains the only country in the world that continues to execute children and International human rights organizations have indicated a short time ago that 71 minors were incarcerated under the sentence of death.
Could this woman sink any lower?
Posted by Neil Flagg on October 22, 2007 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200e54f10b7b28834
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference On Canada vs. Iran, Louise Arbour sides with...IRAN??!?!!?:
Comments
Why doesn't Louise Arbour focus on the human rights tragedy in Iran, Palestine, Syria, China, Burma, Gaza, and other too numerous places to mention, instead of bashing her home country. Perhaps she is simply made up of political trivia.
The lunatics are running the asylum again.
Posted by: Sounder | 2007-10-22 7:33:31 PM
Sounder ~
It doesn't fit the socialist template:
West is bad, all others are good.
Posted by: obc | 2007-10-22 7:38:33 PM
"I am very worried that this very romantic view that we have of ourselves is not being sufficiently nourished and preserved to allow us to continue to occupy a place much larger than the one that our single voice among 192 member states of the United Nations would otherwise allow for,"
Louise take a romantic view of Canadian aboriginals then read this.
http://blackrod.blogspot.com/2007/10/memo-to-grand-chief-12-steps.html
Posted by: John | 2007-10-22 7:46:01 PM
"Louise Arbour, who is Canadian, said she was particularly unhappy that Canada had voted against a nonbinding U.N. declaration of rights for indigenous peoples last month."
This is her concern along with the ass kissing we should be applying to our mortal enemies in Iran and other parts of the globe.
This woman in completely insane. There is not other conclusion to be drawn.
Posted by: John | 2007-10-22 7:48:17 PM
Socialism first - Canada second. Typical dipper philosophy.
Posted by: obc | 2007-10-22 7:50:14 PM
"Arbour said Canada had historically been perceived as an unbiased nation whose judgment was widely sought and which did not serve narrow interests."
And she says this while criticizing the Harper government? Pot. kettle. black.
Sack her.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2007-10-22 7:52:43 PM
"Arbour said Canada had historically been perceived as an unbiased nation whose judgment was widely sought and which did not serve narrow interests."
True today, compared to the headlobbers, hangers & stoners within Iran, Saudi & Co. Is is not 'narrow' of her to to be politically pecking Canada while in her circle of worldly duties and infulence, Rome burns?
Posted by: Sounder | 2007-10-22 8:13:13 PM
Come on, she's an elite Judge! She must be wise and all knowing, right? Who are we mere mortals to question her?
Posted by: Markalta | 2007-10-22 10:12:17 PM
Arbour is a disgrace -- as an individual and as a judge (like most of her bleeding-heart, deranged, criminal-loving colleagues)
Posted by: Werner Patels (THE SPADE) | 2007-10-22 10:35:31 PM
She's of the Left, her actions are predictable. She doesn't speak for Canada and that should be made very clear.
Posted by: LizJ | 2007-10-23 6:44:15 AM
Give her a Peace Prize.
Epsi
Posted by: Epsilon | 2007-10-23 8:18:44 AM
She is the quintessential left winger— ignore real human rights abuses and heap scorn on your own civilization every chance you get. She is an embarrassment to us all.
I think the only reason people like her and Layton keep jabbering about some mythical status we have as a world advisor is that it's always lefties like them that flock to these do-nothing useless bodies like the UN.
Self hatred is the hallmark of the left.
Posted by: Larry | 2007-10-23 8:36:27 AM
Guys, guys, guys.
Give poor Louise a break.
She's just being non-judgemental in promotion of world peace.
As long as we all stop thinking, the world can evolve into a better place.
Let Big Brother take care of us all and do our thinking for us.
After all, Western civilizations based on Judeo-Christian values have shown no better results for their populace than those based on values of an Islamic murderer.
Posted by: set you free | 2007-10-23 8:44:15 AM
People who hold high office in the UN apparatus should be required to renounce their citizenship. It could be restored on application after their term is over.
I'm trying to be fair to Arbour, but if I had my way she'd be stripped of her Canadian citizenship forever, on the grounds of treason and idiocy!
Posted by: Patrick B | 2007-10-23 9:24:35 AM
this is the judge who doesn't even know what the definition of a war crime is; is anyone really surprised at the crap comming out of her trap?
Posted by: x2para | 2007-10-23 9:32:57 AM
Commissar Arbour is the banner carrier for transnational governance in this nation...as far as I'm concerned, this agenda 21 UN douchebag has committed treason with her constant attacks on Canada's sovereignty... selling us out to unaccountable global commissariats or elitist soviet-styled star chamber justice.
Arbour is a living reminder Canada needs some kind of citizen initiated impeachment for politicians and jurists.
Posted by: Bill | 2007-10-23 10:25:52 AM
Oh my poor old Louise is disappointed with her home country. Perhaps it is past time to withdraw all home country support from this moonbat and officially announce to the UN that she does not represent us.
Posted by: Alain | 2007-10-23 11:55:01 AM
Arbour is not a lady--she is a ho-ho-ho!
Of course, the Liberals could never have produced a lady to go on to serve humanity!
Posted by: Lady | 2007-10-23 2:07:02 PM
Lady, nor is Arbour a true feminist, since she supports one of the most repressive regimes when it comes to women.
Posted by: Alain | 2007-10-23 2:42:48 PM
Of course if any of you had your head screwed on right then you'd know that Arbour is absolutely right to criticize us for backing away from our stance as championing human rights at every turn. Wasn't it on this very blog that people were claiming Harper was playing tough with the Chinese to apparently pressure them on human rights?
Bunch of hypocrites...
Posted by: Chris | 2007-10-23 2:44:35 PM
Pretty fuzzy-headed logic there, Chris. Of course everyone here wants Canada to stand up for human rights - but TRUE human rights abuses, like in China/Tibet, Iran, Russia, Syria, etc., which is exactly what the Harper government has done so far.
The whole point is, if Canada is considered a human rights disappointment, then you (Arbour) have degraded the term so badly as to make it meaningless. Fact is, the UN is a protection-racket for human rights abusers, and Arbour is an appeaser and enabler.
Posted by: Neil Flagg | 2007-10-23 2:53:39 PM
"After all, Western civilizations based on Judeo-Christian values have shown no better results for their populace than those based on values of an Islamic murderer."
Please Set-You-Free,
Would you please remind us why your parents dicided to move to Canada and not elsewhere...?
Thank you.
Posted by: Marc | 2007-10-23 2:54:16 PM
Is Arbour out of her tree?
Who is she to judge?
Of coors, she should be aware that the non-binding UN declarations are a waste of time and money.
Canada should simply abstain every time, except for supporting our allies.
Iran, of coors, has been waging a war against the Baluchs to take their land away so should keep their cake holes shut on the issue.
(did you know there aren't any homosexuals in Iran?)
>"Could this woman sink any lower?"
Posted by Neil Flagg
Not likely, you see Neil, wood floats as long as it's not petrified.
Posted by: Speller | 2007-10-23 3:07:00 PM
Look who is among the members of the UN Human Rights Commission:
China
Congo
Cuba
Ecuador
Egypt
Mauritania (slavery extant today!)
Nigeria
Russian Federation
Saudi Arabia
Sudan
Ukraine
Zimbabwe
All abusers of human rights!
Posted by: obc | 2007-10-23 3:40:08 PM
Not to worry, obc.
This is just being even handed, you know, like hiring Muslims to handle baggage at airports or work at the Ministry of Immigration.
If you give people positions of trust then eventually they show your trust to be worthwhile./neo-commie
Posted by: Speller | 2007-10-23 3:50:24 PM
Hey guys:
Ran into an interesting cross-reference on LGF the other day about NDP president Anne McGrath, who appeared as a panelist on the Duffy show today.
Here's her Wikipedia biography.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_McGrath
Posted by: set you free | 2007-10-23 5:25:44 PM
obc,
There's a lot missing...
Posted by: Marc | 2007-10-23 5:28:55 PM
Cool reference, set.
So Anne McGrath is a card carrying fellow traveller of International Communism.
A Neo-commie indeedie.
Posted by: Speller | 2007-10-23 5:32:26 PM
Speller:
The best predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour.
I listened closely to what she was saying on the Duffy panel and yep, she's a commie all right.
Posted by: set you free | 2007-10-23 6:02:52 PM
Chris~
Neil Flagg couldn't have said it better.
what exactly does human rights mean to you? be honest. do you understand the term? your moral equivalence betrays an ideal not fully thought out.
i wonder, how do you define YOUR "human rights"?
do you think you have the "right" to:
-dictate to a private owner of a restaraunt, smoking policy?
-demand a private owner of a print shop print your material, against his convictions or, even, whim?
-coerce a bed and breakfast owner, through the State, to supply his service to you, against his wishes?
-bring someone up on charges for printing an unpopular post on a blog?
these examples, and many more, have occured in Canada.
these are some of the "rights" people like Arbour are fond of emphasizing in Canada, cheapening human rights in the process. Chris, every spoiled brat "right" given, cuts into someone else's liberty, making of no effect, the concept of human rights.
my liberty (property rights, free speech) is more important than your "rights". our liberty ensures any legitimate right.
Posted by: shel | 2007-10-23 6:52:02 PM
NCRI or MEK is listed as a foreign terrorist organization by the Canadian and American governments as well as EU and UN. Not a good source to refer to.
Posted by: winston | 2007-10-23 9:47:50 PM
NCRI or MEK is listed as a foreign terrorist organization by the Canadian and American governments as well as EU and UN. Not a good source to refer to.
Posted by: winston | 2007-10-23 9:48:26 PM
Human Rights means all Humans... not just those in foreign countries. The way we have chosen to ignore and allow our indigenous population to wallow in poverty is a matter of human rights... on par with any in the world. The fact that this government refused to sign the declaration that Canada spearheaded was a slap in the face...
Arbour is simply pointing out that Canada has been a leader, and by no following through.. has given up that role of leadership.
Posted by: Chris Alemany | 2007-10-24 1:22:07 PM
If Native leaders would share the wealth that Canada has alloted to the natives themselves, there would be no native poverty.
They are no different than Mugabe who is a billionaire at the expense of his people.
Posted by: obc | 2007-10-24 1:27:42 PM
Alain,
True feminist, schememinist!
The woman is a twit!
And it looks to me as though she has lice as well, by the way she positions her hands in her hair--correct me if I am wrong--it is simply unbecoming.
We have this stupid organization that permits those who are loathsome violators of human rights--who treat women as chattel, arguing their right to beat women, murder girls, and kill boys and girls, for thing that even adults should not be put to death for--and we have Arbour who, as shallow as she has proven herself to be--is emmersed into pretending that just because that organization exists, that she can pretend that none of that which occurs, really exists, as if it is a court of law, and all people who are there, are innocent until proven huilty.
Imagine--if you will-Adolf Hitler sitting there amongst them. I sure she would be dazzled by his nice shiny buttons, well polished boots, well ironed uniform, clean shaven appearance, and slicked back hair--and all the glitzy propaganda.
And she ignores the hours and hours of work that Canadians have gone to--to getting to where we are in the treaty process. Aboriginal peoples want to be one in our country and retain their culture--this is very very clear. Aboriginal people want to move on! They have said they want healing! And by creating a declaration that perpetuates separation--they will never ever have that. So, it behooves us to make sure that our nation creates a situation where all people are treated the same way and have equal opportunities to exercise goodness--regardless of the colour fo their skin. And she is mad at us all for wishing that we could simply all move on--make the healing happen!
meanwhile, she has the audacity to sit their idely with those scumbags--and work her hair--and complain about us.
Well, I have a suggestion.
Perhaps she could renounce her Canadian citizenship, and go marry some scumbag Mullah in Iran--and get shut up in a room in someone's harem--if she thinks that is such a good idea--while we are going another way--ensuring that Aboriginal peoples are not treated forever as wards of the state; that they have control over their self-determination. Anything less than that is totally unbecoming our good land.
Posted by: Lady | 2007-10-24 1:49:52 PM
>"The woman is a twit!
And it looks to me as though she has lice as well, by the way she positions her hands in her hair--correct me if I am wrong--it is simply unbecoming."
-Lady
The term is nitwit. Nits being the eggs of lice.
The 'hands in her hair' thing may be obsessive compulsive behaviour and a sign of a psychological pathology or mental instability.
Posted by: Speller | 2007-10-24 2:01:15 PM
My grandfather said that if a person has nice to say about someone, that they should say nothing at all. Kept him out of trouble all his life. I digress from his high standards--then again the subject truly deserves to be slammed down good and hard.
She's a REAL numpty! The real McNitwit! The totally exhaustive Chamberland--made in Canada--an embarassment of total proportions. And with the voice she has, there really is no good place for her, because if she stays out there in the International forum, she will continue to plague us and behave badly--yet if she comes home, she will do it all the same here.
She is behind the times and portraying to the world her lack of understanding of the circumstances in today's world. Someone ought to tell her--the times they have changed--and she appears to have sided with the unfree-worl against her very own people.
I bet Ahmadinejad is so very pleased that he does not have to do any work to make Canada look bad--that Arbour does all the dirty-work for him--while she works with him and his mad mullahs--to make them look good--while they fry free thinkers and kill their youth!
Posted by: Lady | 2007-10-24 2:14:01 PM
"My grandfather said that if a person has nice to say about someone, that they should say nothing at all."
Actually this ought to have read:
"My grandfather said that if a person has NOTHING nice to say about someone, that they should say nothing at all.
Posted by: Lady | 2007-10-24 2:14:57 PM
>""My grandfather said that if a person has NOTHING nice to say about someone, that they should say nothing at all."
Posted by: Lady | 24-Oct-07 2:14:57 PM
My Dad always used to say that too.
He was wrong.
It's better to tell the truth than to leave it unsaid.
The unscrupulous work their will when the truth about them is silent.
Posted by: Speller | 2007-10-24 2:26:47 PM
xzcfsadfweqrweqrwqerwqer
Posted by: runescape gold | 2008-04-07 1:49:47 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.