Moratorium on Canadian Human Rights criticisms?

[Machjo]

Seeing that Canada's human rights record isn't perfect, should we not be holding our tongues about criticizing other countries' human rights records until we clean up our own back yard?

I realize that many countries have a much worse record than Canada. My problem though is that many Canadians seem to excuse Canadian violations of human rights on the grounds that as long as we're not the worst offender, we're OK. I would like to think Canada could aim higher than that, that we will still not ignore our human rights record even in the face of worse violators abroad.

Among the areas Canada needs to work on that I can see are the following:

1. Respect for treaties entered into in good faith.
2. Replacing the Bill of Rights 1689 with a new Bill that protects the monarch's freedom of religion without religious penalty, even if it means having to break with the British monarchy.
3. Rewriting or removing those aspects of the British North America Act that discriminate in favour of certain religious groups with regards to education.
4. Rewrite or remove those aspects of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Official Languages Act that discriminate in favour of French and English Canadians to the detriment of Canada's First Nations.


Until these and other issues are dealt with, is not not a little hypocritical of Canada to be criticizing other nations' human rights record? And how is to excuse our violations on the grounds that other nations
violations are even worse any better than the petty thief who tries to excuse himself on the grounds that the murderer is worse than he is?

Any thoughts on this? Does Canada's focus on other nations' human rights records not distract from improving the human rights situation in our own country?

 

[TenPenny]

I don't see anything wrong with making constructive criticism of others, as long as you accept that others will do the same to you. If the requirement for commentary was perfection, nobody would ever be permitted to say anything.

We can all see what others can do to improve, we don't always see the same in ourselves. Doesn't mean we have to do what others suggest, just that we should at least listen and think about it.

 

[DaSleeper]

Why is it that to some people "introspection" is only valid if one follows their guidelines??

 

[Colpy]

Yeah....I see your point, and I agree to this extent........Canada should shut up about Human Rights in other countries unless those nations have a record that is worse than our own.

In other words, the USA should be only criticised lightly, in a friendly, brotherly way...

Israel should be subject to moderate criticism........once again with the realization that they are our friends and allies.

But the lion's share of outrage should be reserved for our enemies.....who happen to be the worst offenders on the face of the earth......China, Burma, Iran, the Sudan............

Funny that.....the least offensive on Human Rights tend to be our friends.....while the worst offenders tend to be our enemies...

Do you think, perchance, we are the GOOD guys?????

Oh the Shock of it all!!!

 

[Dexter Sinister]

I dunno if anyone can really claim to be the GOOD guys these days, but at least we can legitimately claim to be BETTER guys in most respects.

 

[TenPenny]

But the lion's share of outrage should be reserved for our enemies.....who happen to be the worst offenders on the face of the earth......China, Burma, Iran, the Sudan............

Our enemies? We don't necessarily agree with them, but you're saying China is our enemy?

 

[Machjo]

Yeah....I see your point, and I agree to this extent........Canada should shut up about Human Rights in other countries unless those nations have a record that is worse than our own.

In other words, the USA should be only criticised lightly, in a friendly, brotherly way...

Israel should be subject to moderate criticism........once again with the realization that they are our friends and allies.

But the lion's share of outrage should be reserved for our enemies.....who happen to be the worst offenders on the face of the earth......China, Burma, Iran, the Sudan............

Funny that.....the least offensive on Human Rights tend to be our friends.....while the worst offenders tend to be our enemies...

Do you think, perchance, we are the GOOD guys?????

Oh the Shock of it all!!!

First off, I don't really think of it in terms of good guys and bad guys (I admit that it seems to be a foreign concept to me seeing that I just don't get rallied up about it like some people). I think of it more in terms of good acts and bad acts. From that mindset, I'd actually applaud Adolf Hitler's concern for health, maintaining full employment in Germany, and expressing concern for Germany's youth. Sure I might question the reason for the concern, and criticize the atrocities he'd committed otherwise, but that does not detract in any way from his good qualities. Inversely, I am critical of Canada's human right violations even though they pale in comparison to Nazi Germany's. For instance, Canada was just plain wrong with regards to the Japanese-Canadian internment camps. Had I lived in that time, though I may very well have supported war against Nazi Germany, I'd likely have been more critical of my own country's human rights violations, not because they were worse than Germany's (since they weren't), but because as a Canadian, as responsible as I am for justice worldwide, I'm especially responsible for justice at home.

In general, I tend to be more critical of my friends than of strangers, precisely because they are friends and I'd like to see them improve. And in fact, I tend to be even more critical of myself, which might explain my vegetarianism, cycling, buying more cotton-made clothing whenever possible, recycling, etc. while still acknowledging that I fall short on all of these fronts at least on occasion. Essentially, the closer to home it is, the more critical I am of it. So coming from a person of my mindset, the more critical I am of you, the more it shows my love for you as opposed to the stranger I pay less attention too. Looking at it that way, my criticism is a blessing.

I dunno if anyone can really claim to be the GOOD guys these days, but at least we can legitimately claim to be BETTER guys in most respects.

Sure. But again, does being better excuse us from our faults?

Our enemies? We don't necessarily agree with them, but you're saying China is our enemy?

That's another good point. I have plenty of Chinese friends, and they love China. They might not agree with their government, yet many also feel that it's an internal matter and that we don't know the situation in their country as much as they do. Some also comment on our lack of perfection too.

 

[Retired_Can_Soldier]

CDN BEAR I am so sorry my ancestors conquered your ancestors.

Wait a minute.. My people are Irish, we didn't conquer anybody, so piss off.

 

[Machjo]

CDN BEAR I am so sorry my ancestors conquered your ancestors.

Wait a minute.. My people are Irish, we didn't conquer anybody, so piss off.

CDN Bear isn't even in this thread.

That said, I think it's a universal principle that a citizen of any given country makes up part of that country; and that if country A and country B sign a treaty in good faith, that they will both honour that treaty. If you are a member of country A or B, regardless of whether you're born there or immigrated, by implication you also accept whatever treaty your country has signed on to, or bow out of the treaty hading over whatever was gained from the treaty.

Seems like a fair universal principle to me, unless I missed something?>

 

[Retired_Can_Soldier]

CDN Bear isn't even in this thread.

That said, I think it's a universal principle that a citizen of any given country makes up part of that country; and that if country A and country B sign a treaty in good faith, that they will both honour that treaty. If you are a member of country A or B, regardless of whether you're born there or immigrated, by implication you also accept whatever treaty your country has signed on to, or bow out of the treaty hading over whatever was gained from the treaty.

Seems like a fair universal principle to me, unless I missed something?>

I think we should move at full speed to straighten out treaties and land claims with Aboriginal Canadians.

I, however do not think we should wallow in self deprecation and turn a blind eye to Countries who murder and torture their citizens, just because we could do with some self improvement. That's what they would like sure and some are happy to give it to them, but not I. .

The jab at Bear was an inside joke that he will get if he happens to saunter into this thread.

 

[Machjo]

And Colpie, I just realized something else in your response. It seems to follow the same dismissive pattern I was criticizing in the OP. If our leaders truly cared about justice, then why does our friendly, brother criticism have no results? What is the spirit that causes them to ignore basic precepts of justice?

Just to take one example, the government of Ontario has openly defended the injustice of the separate school system on the grounds that it is required by the British North America Act. While such an argument is a legitimate one in that the Ontario government is not above the constitution, it still does not excuse the provincial government from not even trying to bring the issue forward to revise the constitution. In other words, we hide behind the constitution as a pretext to uphold injustice. Ironic really seeing that the constitution is supposed to uphold justice.

So, are we saying that the majority of Canadians does not believe in justice and would rather defend their privileges as they are inscribed in law? If that's the case, then we have to question our moral compass. On the surface, we are not nearly as bad as Iran or North Korea. Yet, we then turn around and not just ignore the injustices of our laws, but even stand up to defend them as the Ontario government has done. At that stage, it can no longer be blamed on ignorance, but on willful defense and support of injustice on the pretext of upholding the constitution or the law without even trying to change it. How convenient. At that stage, such willful upholding of legalized injustice, even if only as a political maneuver to win votes, suggests that injustice is in fact a majority-vote winner. What does that say about who we are as a country?

Again, it comes across as if we excuse our defense and support for such injustices on the grounds that we are not as bad. If that's the case, then can we truly consider the majority of Canadians to be friends? If so, then certainly we want to improve our friends, do we not? And if that's the case, then we really ought to get on their backs about this if we truly love our country, no?

I think we should move at full speed to straighten out treaties and land claims with Aboriginal Canadians.

I, however do not think we should wallow in self deprecation and turn a blind eye to Countries who murder and torture their citizens, just because we could do with some self improvement. That's what they would like sure and some are happy to give it to them, but not I. .

The jab at Bear was an inside joke that he will get if he happens to saunter into this thread.

Fair enough about the inside joke with CDN Bear.

And I certainly do agree with you that we ought to settle all of our agreements and rewrite our constitution and laws to remove such injustices pronto. Once that's done, then our criticism of other countries will be much more influential. After all, even in China I'd come across people bringing up Aboriginal treaties and our separate school system. To the best of my knowledge, this is not taught, at least not in great depth, in the Chinese education system, so I would guess that those Chinese who are familiar with it may have learnt it from TV, books, internet or who knows where else. But at the end of the day, if our criticism of China for example is simply thrown back at us with legitimate criticisms of their own, then our criticisms come across as hypocritical. Looking at it that way, if we truly cared about the people of Iran, China, North Korea, etc. we'd do all in our power to remove such legitimate criticisms on their part so that they could not simply turn our criticisms back on us. Another way to look at it would be that ironing out our own human rights record could serve as a valuable diplomatic, political, and military strategy in terms of gaining support, international respect, and hearts and minds campaigns on the ground.

Now it truly would be a shame if the sole motive for improving our human rights record was not our quest for justice but rather geopolitical strategy. But if the only way to raise our standard is to appeal to this lowest common denominator, then I guess we'll have to satisfy ourselves with that, that we must improve our human rights record so as to increase our influence abroad, a cheap a motive as it is.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Sure. But again, does being better excuse us from our faults?

Of course not. I dunno why you'd even have to ask that.

 

[taxslave]

Mahjo: You are missing the most important part. MONEY. Business concerns override all else in North America. That is why we let China make all our trinkets even though they have a deplorable human rights record.

 

[Machjo]

Mahjo: You are missing the most important part. MONEY. Business concerns override all else in North America. That is why we let China make all our trinkets even though they have a deplorable human rights record.

That applies to our own constitution too, does it not?

After all, imagine if in Ontario all religious communities had an equal right to a religious education. Suddenly, depending on how far those rights went, either Catholics would have to pay for their own private Catholic schooling, or have to pay higher taxes along with everyone else to support public Jewish, Muslim, and other religious schools. So I guess the popular support for discrimination in the constitution comes down to money too then? And seeing that land and resources relate to money, I can certainly see the temptation to be less than honourable in our treaties too.

And I can go on, but I can see that we seem to agree that it all comes down to money.

Of course not. I dunno why you'd even have to ask that.

Well, the Ontario government sure excuses it in its discriminatory school system. So clearly it's not so obvious to some in our government. For crying out loud, our country is run by the rule of a discriminatory constitution and no one says anything about it, so clearly the question has to be asked by us 'cause the government isn't asking.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Well, the Ontario government sure excuses it in its discriminatory school system.

Well, maybe so, I don't know enough about what the Ontario government's up to in that context to have a legitimate opinion, it's not a burning issue in Saskatchewan where I live, but your original question was about a matter of principle and I answered it correctly. All this means is that the Ontario government is (possibly) wrong about something. And you can't expect me to believe that surprises anybody.

 

[Machjo]

Well, actually, on constitutional grounds, the Ontario government is right. The problem is that morally it ought not to be right. In other words, there's a disconnect between the constitution and ethics.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

I presume from the context that this has something to do with taxpayer support of public and separate (i.e Catholic) school systems while denying taxpayer support to schools for other religious minorities. I agree that's a constitutional anomaly, which exists for historical reasons that I think are no longer relevant. Public and separate school systems exist in Saskatchewan too, which seems to me a waste of manpower and resources, there should be one secular system that promotes no particular religious agenda, but it's not an issue here. Other religious minorities are so tiny the question really hasn't arisen in any significant way. There are, for instance, only a few hundred Jewish families in Regina (where I live) active in the synagogue, and that just isn't enough taxpayers to sustain a separate full time school for the children of Jews, and they know it. The local mosque is a few blocks from where I live, and looking at the volume of traffic there and the size of the building, it's clear that there are even fewer Muslims. Those religious minorities do their religious instruction out of school. I think the Catholics should too.

 

[gerryh]

Those religious minorities do their religious instruction out of school. I think the Catholics should too.

There's a surprise. An atheist pushing his atheist views and agenda.

 

[gopher]

''should we not be holding our tongues about criticizing other countries' human rights records until we clean up our own back yard?''

I don't know enough about the subject so I won't comment directly but will ask this: did Canada do like the USA in supporting fascists with wicked human rights abuses records such as General Rios-Montt, Suharto, Saddam, Mobutu? Has Canada supported the tyrants in Myanmar or Islam Karim in Uzbek who is said to be the world's worst tyrant?

If the Canadian government has supported these murderers then, like Washington, DC it should keep its mouth shut about human rights abuses and stop trying to gain political headway from the subject.

 

[lone wolf]

There's a surprise. An atheist pushing his atheist views and agenda.

Yeah... How religious, eh?