The Shotgun Blog
« Enough to drive you to drink . . . | Main | A ten year forecast on the Calgary job market »
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Boycotting the Racists
Dysfunctional, corrupt, wasteful, undemocratic --- these are the words which best describe the United Nations.
Yet strangely, Canadians generally hold this institution in high esteem.
That's why it took something akin to courage for the Harper government to boycott the UN's "anti-racism" conference scheduled to take place next year.
Of course, the government is doing the right thing.
As the Canadian Coalition for Democracies put it, "the last UN anti-racism conference held in Durban in 2001 degenerated into a hate-fest of anti-Jewish and anti-Israel vitriol, while the most egregious human rights violators escaped criticism."
Posted by Gerry Nicholls on January 24, 2008 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200e5500659668834
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Boycotting the Racists:
Comments
You're right to point out that many Canadians care quite a bit for the UN. . . or at least their perception of it. Then again, thanks to the opposition parties and others, many Canadians seem to believe that this country is completely neutral and that we've only ever done peacekeeping since the second world war. From Korea to Kuwait to Kosovo to Kandahar, this country has - at its best moments - taken a side. It has tried, at least some of the time, to side with fairness, freedom and democracy. That's why we're part of NATO. That's why our Article 5 commitments are so important. That's why I'm glad to see the government taking this stand.
Posted by: Liam O'Brien | 2008-01-24 4:55:09 PM
Welcome to the Shotgun, Gerry. You should introduce yourself!
Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2008-01-24 4:55:26 PM
Yes it's true many Canadians think Canada's role is peace keeper, however, I have read many posts from Canadian Soldiers on various blogs and comments at CBC and CTV as well, where they told readers they have never been truly peace keepers as Canadians understand, as they have always had to defend themselves instead of standing around waiting to be shot or blown up. Makes sense to me. Canadians may be in for a shock when they learn peacekeeping is as much about staying alive as keeping the so called peace.
A question for the expert politicians is: How can you keep the peace without some semblence of control or peace to begin with? Just askin. I'm not Dion or Layton, so I don't fully understand these things.
As far as the UN and all those member racists are concerned, it's a useless organization also infected with PC and is slowly being Islamicized.
Posted by: Sounder | 2008-01-24 7:03:15 PM
"How can you keep the peace without some semblance of control or peace to begin with?"
I think a better question Canadians need to ask themselves is, "What is a peacekeeper? Who is he and what does he do? And how does he do it?" Most people have a vague, fuzzy idea that it's something noble, and are taught that "good" Canadians ought to feel good about it, but of the details they are ignorant. Nor do they really care to know.
For those people, and there are many, I have news: Our mission in Afghanistan is the DEFINITION of peacekeeping. Your job is to prevent a resurgence of war in the face of those who want war and will keep bringing it to you until you stop them. If that's too rough for you, then you're not a peacekeeper. You're just a spectator with delusions of grandeur.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-01-24 10:15:24 PM
Looks like the UN is a platform for all the bigots and racists of the world to spew their venom.
In this country we have the case against Ezra Levant for exercising what we consider a guaranteed freedom. Only a radical could launch such a complaint and we should not have a forum where zealots can challenge our inalienable rights.
The racists are the very ones who are accusing us of racism. We have opened the gates and it has flooded in.
If ever anything like Sharia is allowed into our laws all bets are off for the future of this country. No Bill of Rights or Charter will save us.
We welcome all comers to share our freedoms and all the great things we have to offer. Over the past two decades some are emboldened to challenge our peace and create the same turmoil they left behind.
Posted by: Liz J | 2008-01-25 6:15:49 AM
"If ever anything like Sharia is allowed into our laws all bets are off for the future of this country." by Liz J
Well here it Comes: "Banks are helping sharia make a back-door entrance"
http: //tinyurl.com/3y29hj
Posted by: Sounder | 2008-01-25 6:59:19 AM
Sorry, link may not work. Try this:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080125.wcomment0125/BNStory/National/home
Posted by: Sounder | 2008-01-25 7:00:53 AM
"If ever anything like Sharia is allowed into our laws all bets are off for the future of this country." by Liz J
Well here it Comes: "Banks are helping sharia make a back-door entrance"
http://tinyurl.com/3y29hj
Posted by: Sounder | 2008-01-25 7:02:26 AM
Thanks Sounder. That's both and eye opener and a heads up! Problem is eyes aren't open and heads are in the sand.
Posted by: Liz J | 2008-01-25 7:39:00 AM
Good gravy, even the Great McGuinty turned down sharia law - and now his people are reviving racial segregation!
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-01-25 8:08:34 AM
Can we get an impeach McGuinty movement going?
Posted by: Liz J | 2008-01-25 9:11:30 AM
Liz J, I guess the FACTS are a bit too much for you. When Zeb referred to "his people" (which is really, really incorrect as well), he meant SOME people in the TORONTO school board. McGuinty has been very, very vocal about being OPPOSED (that means AGAINST) to black-centric schools.
If you want to "impeach", how about a PM who justifies our Canadian soldiers dying for nothing.
You might disagree, but at least do some research, my friend!!
Posted by: Terry T | 2008-01-25 9:52:11 AM
Soory, obc, but I can't make any sense of your incoherent babble.
For the record, I also disagree with these "black-centric" schools. But I think the facts should be as stated. It's like if some "leftoid" said "Harper should be jailed for sending our troops to Afghanistan", I'm sure you'd correct them by reminding everyone that it was the Liberal who initiated the mission.
Not that you're overly concerned about FACTS - reading your posts, one can see that you're all about the RHETORIC, truth be damned.
Posted by: Terry T | 2008-01-25 10:06:38 AM
One huge irony to remember when Israel tries to claim it isn't a racist state, is that the criteria used to decide whether you are a Jew and have "right of return" are the same as those the Nazis used to decide who got the one-way train ticket.
Pretty scary, if you ask me.
Posted by: Terry T | 2008-01-25 10:59:24 AM
Terry, "my friend", Harper didn't send troops to Afghanistan on his own say so, he just did the right thing by getting the support of the House to continue what the Liberals, more specifically Chretien started and Martin endorsed as well.
If you're searching for truth your backing the wrong horse with McGuinty, he's both a proven liar and a hypocrite. Apparently it's OK with Liberals, par for the course.
You say McGuinty said no to Blacks only schools,must have missed it, did not hear it. It would certainly be too soon after his election victory, won on the issue of religious school funding, but it could still happen further into his mandate.
Posted by: Liz J | 2008-01-25 11:15:32 AM
Terry @ 10:59:24 AM~~ Your true colors are showing.
Posted by: Liz J | 2008-01-25 11:22:01 AM
Terry wrote: "If you want to 'impeach', how about a PM who justifies our Canadian soldiers dying for nothing."
The mission in Afghanistan seemed to be popular for as long as the Liberals held power in Ottawa...now that it's Harper's game, it's all on him, is it? Congratulations, Terry, you have all the makings of a career politician.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-01-25 11:28:10 AM
The Liebral/Dipper/Green Party only make Afghanistan an issue to win votes, hopefully to return to power. If they ever returned, they would change very little.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-01-25 1:32:47 PM
Terry
"One huge irony to remember when Israel tries to claim it isn't a racist state, is that the criteria used to decide whether you are a Jew and have "right of return" are the same as those the Nazis used to decide who got the one-way train ticket.
"
One huge irony to remember is when those who condenm racism equate Israel to Nazis. So who is the bigger racist?
Hi Terry!
Pretty scary if you ask me.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-01-25 5:03:05 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.