Liberal Elite - Will none of you rid of us of this embarrassment to the Country
And no wonder Canadians do not trust him. We can see where he stands - One day it is on this side of the line the next it is the other side of the line. What an FFFn Embarrassment this man is to Canada.
Ezra Levant: Michael Ignatieff, former human rights professor | Full Comment | National Post
I have chosen just a few excerpts from Igg's stand on China
In a 2005 lecture to Amnesty Ireland, Ignatieff made a short list of countries that he called human rights “outliers” and he named just three: Libya, North Korea and China. That’s tantamount to calling China a rogue state
Even after he became an MP in 2006, Ignatieff spoke sternly of China’s lack of basic freedoms, telling the Georgia Strait that, if he could, he would ask the Chinese government, “Do you really want to build your prosperity on slavery?” And as recently as this year he told Calgary students that Canada must speak out against human rights violations, no matter where they happen. “Just because China is big and powerful doesn’t mean that Canada should back down on this issue.”
Disparaging Canada overseas is a sign of weakness. But Ignatieff’s most bizarre comment was much more dangerous: He said China and Canada can “learn from each other in matters of rights, justice, civil service reform and corporate social responsibility.”
Pardon?
Ignatieff heaps false praise on China, saying its newfound prosperity — for at least part of the country — “has been one of the most significant advances in human rights for mankind ever.” A higher standard of living is indeed a good thing. But what does that have to do with human rights like the freedom to criticize the government, or to organize a political rally, or to believe in a religion that doesn’t have the Communist Party’s approval? Is Ignatieff really comparing China’s material wealth — at $10/day, their per capita GDP is still quite modest by international levels — to the freedoms protected in the Magna Carta or the American Revolution or the Enlightenment?
Ignatieff falsely disparaged Canada’s human rights achievements. He falsely lauded China’s human rights achievements. And then he falsely implied a moral equivalence between our two countries — that we are moral equals, and can learn from each other about matters like justice.
Beijing's Canadian apologist
When running for the Liberal leadership in 2006, Mr. Ignatieff accused Prime Minister Stephen Harper of indulging in "megaphone diplomacy" for his harsh, public criticism of the Communist regime's human rights record. Mr. Harper refused to make an official visit to China early in his premiership because China was censoring the Internet, stifling democracy and brutally suppressing its critics.
Mr. Ignatieff told his Chinese hosts that "in October 1966, as a young student, I helped organize a teach-in on China that attracted several thousand people to the University of Toronto to study the unfolding crisis of the Cultural Revolution ... I learned from that experience how difficult it is to understand China from the outside."
Hundreds of thousands of innocent Chinese citizens were murdered or starved to death during the Cultural Revolution, part of a larger pattern of Communist crimes against humanity that caused tens of millions of deaths. We're not sure why denouncing such crimes is especially "difficult."
According to Mr. Ignatieff, the experts at his 1966 event saw the Cultural Revolution -- an event that even many people in mainland China now regard as barbaric -- as "positive ... the needed renewal of a revolution stifled by bureaucracy." While he acknowledged that "violence and chaos" ensued, he assigned no moral weight or culpability to the Maoist perpetrators' actions whatsoever. Instead, he just moved breezily on to other flatteries of China.
Mr. Ignatieff now seems eager to return to his weak-kneed roots and take on the see-no-evil mantle of his Liberal predecessors. This may gain him a few votes, but is a denial of the torture and terror China inflicts on all those it punishes for their thoughts. It is a sad and somewhat pathetic moment for a political leader who once was sold to the Canadian public as an icon of principle, and an expert on human rights.
And no wonder Canadians do not trust him. We can see where he stands - One day it is on this side of the line the next it is the other side of the line. What an FFFn Embarrassment this man is to Canada.
Ezra Levant: Michael Ignatieff, former human rights professor | Full Comment | National Post
I have chosen just a few excerpts from Igg's stand on China
In a 2005 lecture to Amnesty Ireland, Ignatieff made a short list of countries that he called human rights “outliers” and he named just three: Libya, North Korea and China. That’s tantamount to calling China a rogue state
Even after he became an MP in 2006, Ignatieff spoke sternly of China’s lack of basic freedoms, telling the Georgia Strait that, if he could, he would ask the Chinese government, “Do you really want to build your prosperity on slavery?” And as recently as this year he told Calgary students that Canada must speak out against human rights violations, no matter where they happen. “Just because China is big and powerful doesn’t mean that Canada should back down on this issue.”
Disparaging Canada overseas is a sign of weakness. But Ignatieff’s most bizarre comment was much more dangerous: He said China and Canada can “learn from each other in matters of rights, justice, civil service reform and corporate social responsibility.”
Pardon?
Ignatieff heaps false praise on China, saying its newfound prosperity — for at least part of the country — “has been one of the most significant advances in human rights for mankind ever.” A higher standard of living is indeed a good thing. But what does that have to do with human rights like the freedom to criticize the government, or to organize a political rally, or to believe in a religion that doesn’t have the Communist Party’s approval? Is Ignatieff really comparing China’s material wealth — at $10/day, their per capita GDP is still quite modest by international levels — to the freedoms protected in the Magna Carta or the American Revolution or the Enlightenment?
Ignatieff falsely disparaged Canada’s human rights achievements. He falsely lauded China’s human rights achievements. And then he falsely implied a moral equivalence between our two countries — that we are moral equals, and can learn from each other about matters like justice.
Beijing's Canadian apologist
When running for the Liberal leadership in 2006, Mr. Ignatieff accused Prime Minister Stephen Harper of indulging in "megaphone diplomacy" for his harsh, public criticism of the Communist regime's human rights record. Mr. Harper refused to make an official visit to China early in his premiership because China was censoring the Internet, stifling democracy and brutally suppressing its critics.
Mr. Ignatieff told his Chinese hosts that "in October 1966, as a young student, I helped organize a teach-in on China that attracted several thousand people to the University of Toronto to study the unfolding crisis of the Cultural Revolution ... I learned from that experience how difficult it is to understand China from the outside."
Hundreds of thousands of innocent Chinese citizens were murdered or starved to death during the Cultural Revolution, part of a larger pattern of Communist crimes against humanity that caused tens of millions of deaths. We're not sure why denouncing such crimes is especially "difficult."
According to Mr. Ignatieff, the experts at his 1966 event saw the Cultural Revolution -- an event that even many people in mainland China now regard as barbaric -- as "positive ... the needed renewal of a revolution stifled by bureaucracy." While he acknowledged that "violence and chaos" ensued, he assigned no moral weight or culpability to the Maoist perpetrators' actions whatsoever. Instead, he just moved breezily on to other flatteries of China.
Mr. Ignatieff now seems eager to return to his weak-kneed roots and take on the see-no-evil mantle of his Liberal predecessors. This may gain him a few votes, but is a denial of the torture and terror China inflicts on all those it punishes for their thoughts. It is a sad and somewhat pathetic moment for a political leader who once was sold to the Canadian public as an icon of principle, and an expert on human rights.
