Humiliation for Canada at United Nations: Blame its Human Rights Record Canada was hu


china
#1
Canada was humiliated at the United Nations earlier this week when it failed to win election to the Security Council. Canada has held a two-year mandate as an elected member of the Council on six occasions since the founding of the United Nations. This is the first time it has failed to win election.

Canada needed 127 votes, but only got 114 on the first ballot and 78 on the second. Canadian diplomats claim they had promises from well more than the number of votes required. But the ballot is secret, and promising to vote for in a United Nations election and actually delivering the vote is a game that Canada has played too.
What happened? Isn’t it obvious? Canada’s foreign policy has taken a dramatic swing to the right since the Harper government took power. Many members of the General Assembly must have thought there was little point electing a country that would be little more than a ventriloquist’s dummy for one of the permanent members of the Council. Canada might belong on the NATO Council, but it hardly deserves a place on the Security Council, where the vast majority of General Assembly members desire that the elected members show courage and independence in the face of the permanent five. And a commitment to multilateralism, which was until recently a hallmark of Canadian foreign policy.
Canada’s human rights record over the past four years is largely to blame. Canada’s performance in the Human Rights Council has been disgraceful, a sea change from the constructive, progressive posture it was known for in the 1980s and 1990s, and the first few years of the last decade. Many were stunned at the first session of the Council, in 2006, when Canada actually voted against the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, one of only two states to do so (Russia was the other). Last year, Canada completely boycotted the Durban Review Conference on racism and xenophobia. Inside the country, we had the sorry spectacle earlier this year of Harper nominees working to destroy the distinguished Canadian organization Rights and Democracy.
Read Ken Roth of Human Rights Watch in the Ottawa Citizen for a good discussion of this. Some government supporters have been blaming Michael Ignatieff, who is leader of the parliamentary opposition, because he suggested Canada didn’t merit a seat on the Council, given its indifference to the United Nations in recent years, but all that Ignatieff did was speak the truth.
 
DurkaDurka
+1
#2
Do you have any opinions of your own, China?
 
Avro
+2 / -1
#3  Top Rated Post
China lecturing Canada on human rights....it is to laugh.
 
china
#4
Do you have any opinions of your own, China?
None whatsoever DurkaDurka .Opinions are very unhealthy ; they change every moment . Personally I prefer facts .
 
Colpy
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by china View Post

Do you have any opinions of your own, China?
None whatsoever DurkaDurka .Opinions are very unhealthy ; they change every moment . Personally I prefer facts .

And the FACT is that China is the fourth worst human rights abuser on Earth.
 
YukonJack
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by Colpy View Post

And the FACT is that China is the fourth worst human rights abuser on Earth.

China, the country and china the forum participant.
 
Cliffy
+2
#7
None the less, points were brought up about Canada's swing to the right and refusal to ratify the indigenous rights proposal, so attacking the messenger looks like compliance by those moves on the part of those who would rather smear the messenger than address the issues. Personally, I think the issue is worthy of discussion. I do not like what Harper is turning our country into. Our international credibility has been tarnished. Time to kick the right wing nut jobs out of Ottawa before our reputation is beyond repair.
 
wulfie68
+2
#8
Well first off, I do question if it is really a humiliation to not gain a seat on another ineffective body off the UN. We saw its impotence in full in the run up to the US invasion of Iraq: France said it would use its veto to oppose any security council resolution that authorized force, even if Iraq refused to comply with the resolutions approved by council (this all leads me to wonder how does a once super power of now nominal status actually deserve a veto on the security council? By virtue of their nuclear arsenal?). The US basically said to hell with the UN, got their allies to play along and did what they wanted. France demonstrated how national interests dictate how the vetoes are used (they were much friendlier with Saddam's regime than the Brits or Americans and had some oil deals in place once the embargoes were lifted) rather than what the council at large felt was best for the region.

Quote: Originally Posted by china View Post

What happened? Isn’t it obvious? Canada’s foreign policy has taken a dramatic swing to the right since the Harper government took power.

Sorry but this is amusing. How is Harper's stance on Israel any different than Chretien's or Martin's? The Conservatives are much more vocal about the Human Rights abuses of the Chinese but how is that really a negative or "right wing"? For that matter what gives the UN the right to pass judgement on whether or not we have right, left or upside down gov't, so long as we maintain ourselves as a peaceful, stable nation?

Quote: Originally Posted by china View Post

Many members of the General Assembly must have thought there was little point electing a country that would be little more than a ventriloquist’s dummy for one of the permanent members of the Council. Canada might belong on the NATO Council, but it hardly deserves a place on the Security Council, where the vast majority of General Assembly members desire that the elected members show courage and independence in the face of the permanent five. And a commitment to multilateralism, which was until recently a hallmark of Canadian foreign policy.

This is also laughable to me. How is Canada any less independent of American foreign policy than we ever were? Because like most of the non-Arab world we conside Hamas a terrorist organization and won't budge until they admit Israel has a right to exist, regardless of whether the Palestinians who elect them realize this or not? Because we still admit the Dalai Lama and let him address our citizenry, even if China finds it "embarrassing" that this "criminal" should enjoy a resepcted status outside their borders? Because we honored our treaty obligations and contributed troops to the NATO mission in Afghanistan? None of this has changed in the past decade and wouldn't if the Liberals were elected. There is no decrease in our commitment to multilateralism but perhaps a lessening of the attitude that we're willing to sell out parts (if not the whole) of our countries interests to appease political movements from other parts of the world for no reason.

This tripe about "wanting representatives independent of the big five" is crap. All the nations of the UN vote for the people who they think best protect their own national interests and the big picture be damned. Thats why the UN. including the security council has become a bad joke.

Quote: Originally Posted by china View Post

Canada’s human rights record over the past four years is largely to blame. Canada’s performance in the Human Rights Council has been disgraceful, a sea change from the constructive, progressive posture it was known for in the 1980s and 1990s, and the first few years of the last decade. Many were stunned at the first session of the Council, in 2006, when Canada actually voted against the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, one of only two states to do so (Russia was the other). Last year, Canada completely boycotted the Durban Review Conference on racism and xenophobia.

The irony of this statement coming from a staunch defender of one of the most repressive regimes on the planet is incredible. China-poster, you posted another thread an article talking about how the Chinese have the right to determine what goes on inside their own borders: how is Canada refusing to support the UN's Declaration of Rights of Indigenous Peoples any different? This is an issue between the aboriginal people and the rest of the country (via the government). The situations for different tribes/bands/nations(use the word you prefer) are all different so why would we want to bind ourselves to a template that doesn't fit the aims of the Canadian people? As for the Durban Review Conference, it certainly lived up to its billing as a demonstration of xenophobia, racism and anti-semitism, something for which Canadians should be thankful to our gov't for not participating in.

Quote: Originally Posted by Cliffy View Post

None the less, points were brought up about Canada's swing to the right and refusal to ratify the indigenous rights proposal, so attacking the messenger looks like compliance by those moves on the part of those who would rather smear the messenger than address the issues. Personally, I think the issue is worthy of discussion. I do not like what Harper is turning our country into. Our international credibility has been tarnished. Time to kick the right wing nut jobs out of Ottawa before our reputation is beyond repair.

Another amusing post by a person who thinks our steady slide from the center to the left over the past several decades was a good thing and that correcting back to the center "tarnishes our credibility". Again the thought about what does our political orientation (and whatever small shifts it may have made) have to do with the UN comes to the fore... but I am curious: how far left do you want to see us go Cliffy? Do you want us all calling each other comrade and turning in those we don't like to the secret police for not fully supporting the Poletarian Paradise of the People? I love how anyone who isn't a die-hard leftist is a "rightwing nutjob". Congratulations Cliffy: it is people like you, with your attempts to marginalize any and everyone who doesn't agree with you, that is killing debate and compromise in this country.
 
damngrumpy
#9
First off every country in the world has some form of human rights issues that
is a given. The difference is, in Canada and a host of democratic nations we
have the courts to rectify the injustice and point out to government that the law
takes the lead. If it is against someones rights there is a way to deal with it,
and though at time inefficient, the law is struck down if found to be against the
charter etc.
In China, the Middle East, Sudan and a host of others it is handled differently,
mostly from the barrel of a gun so there is no appeal process. Here some the
abuse is discussed, in the above mentioned countries human rights abuses
are normal everyday occurrences. When human rights abuses occur in these
countries its never mentioned in the press, and when there is no democracy
the alternative is tyranny.
No one can make China and its other abusers appear normal on the world stage.
As Churchill once lamented, democracy is a terrible system, until you compare
it to the alternative.
The difference is here you get your day in court and you have the right to appeal
and to disagree with the government. In China you get to work as a slave labourer
if you are lucky, otherwise you are shot and the family is billed for the bullet.
Ask yourself which system would you rather live under?
 
The Old Medic
+1
#10
Canada has been cited by the United Nations, repeatedly, for Human Rights offenses. This has occurred under both Liberal and Conservative governments. Most of those citations have involved Canada's horrible treatment of their Native and mixed blood people, or its treatment of women.

I would suggest that anyone that questions this do some research on the subject.
 
MapleDog
+2
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by The Old Medic View Post

Canada has been cited by the United Nations, repeatedly, for Human Rights offenses. This has occurred under both Liberal and Conservative governments. Most of those citations have involved Canada's horrible treatment of their Native and mixed blood people, or its treatment of women.

I would suggest that anyone that questions this do some research on the subject.

That story is kind of old,does Canada continue to mistreat/abuse the natives? i do not know,it reminds me the Oka crisis of 1990,when the whole sh** started over the expansion of a freaking golf course,which made it an international story,then we recieved the visit of south africa celebrity Desmond Tutu,who went way up north,and without knowing a freaking thing,said Canada was commiting genocide against the natives,like we needed the uninformed opinion of a dumb prick,who jumped on the "blame canada train".

I hate these outsiders who think they can take a verbal sh*t on Canada.


PS before you say i'm a racist,let me inform you that i have natives blood in my veins.
 
B00Mer
#12
necro post from 2010 wow
 
MapleDog
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by B00Mer View Post

necro post from 2010 wow

Blame TOM

I have a good reason to reply,i was not on CC in 2010
 

Similar Threads

6
Canada + United Nations = What?
by Johnnny | Dec 31st, 2009
47
A Victory for Human Rights in Canada
by SirJosephPorter | Mar 5th, 2009
2
United Nations Human Rights COuncil
by Jersay | May 12th, 2006
4
Canada Elected to Human Rights Council
by FiveParadox | May 10th, 2006
54