Canada on Wrong Side of Global Issues?

[earth_as_one]

...China murdered at least 50 million, and perhaps as many as 70 million of her own people, and over 1 million Tibetans.....

When did these events happen and specifically, which one of China's current leaders is responsible? Please provide links.

If you are referencing events from the 1950's, then your point makes about as much sense as holding Harper responsible for canceling the Avro Arrow project.

Currently China's main problems are the cultural assimilation of Tibetans and Uighurs, a seriously flawed criminal justice system and an autocratic government. IMO, China has serious human rights problems, but they have no recent record of committing war crimes or crimes against humanity. I would agree that Canada should take China's current problems into account when establishing trade relations, but I disagree with basing current relationships with China on events which happened 40-60 years ago that did not involve any of China's current leadership.

Its a fact that Canada does business with countries which practice ethnic cleansing, abduct people for torture and murder, counterfeits Canadian passports... and so on. I disagree with this policy. Unlike Israel, China has never issued forged Canadian passports to assassins, endangering Canadian tourists. China has not killed any Canadian soldiers or bombed any Canadian families recently unlike Israel. Yet Israel gets Canada's unshakable support while China gets a lecture on human rights???? Canada should be diplomatically consistent.

 

[TenPenny]

Margaret Atwood is a novelist. As such, her views on politics and world affairs are equally valid as Don Cherry's.

 

[taxslave]

So? It was strong environmental regulations that changed that, and it appears we need them now again. But you say we should forget that. If people like you had been listened to in the 70's and 80's the Great Lakes would be far worse.


That is ignorance in the extreme.



I don't need very much life experience to know that if your ends justifying the means nonsense is followed, that things become far worse. You're not exactly a prime example for life experience meaning less ignorance.



My brother lives in Germany. My boss is from Germany. Germany is driving the growth in the 16 nation Euro area.

They are doing fine:
Google - public data

Not according to the people we regularly converse with there. But it may also depend on just where in Germany they are, much as it does in Canada.

 

[Goober]

When did these events happen and specifically, which one of China's current leaders is responsible? Please provide links.

If you are referencing events from the 1950's, then your point makes about as much sense as holding Harper responsible for canceling the Avro Arrow project.

Currently China's main problems are the cultural assimilation of Tibetans and Uighurs, a seriously flawed criminal justice system and an autocratic government. IMO, China has serious human rights problems, but they have no recent record of committing war crimes or crimes against humanity. I would agree that Canada should take China's current problems into account when establishing trade relations, but I disagree with basing current relationships with China on events which happened 40-60 years ago that did not involve any of China's current leadership.

Its a fact that Canada does business with countries which practice ethnic cleansing, abduct people for torture and murder, counterfeits Canadian passports... and so on. I disagree with this policy. Unlike Israel, China has never issued forged Canadian passports to assassins, endangering Canadian tourists. China has not killed any Canadian soldiers or bombed any Canadian families recently unlike Israel. Yet Israel gets Canada's unshakable support while China gets a lecture on human rights???? Canada should be diplomatically consistent.

Google it - Then pick the reputable sources - "It's just that easy" - Shell Busey

 

[Tonington]

Margaret Atwood is a novelist. As such, her views on politics and world affairs are equally valid as Don Cherry's.

One could make the case-without much effort- that if Canada were on the "right" side of global issues, we wouldn't have lost the seat Harper coveted at the Security Council. She only got the audience that she did because she's famous, but that doesn't mean she's wrong. Of course it doesn't make her right either, but there's quite a bit of fodder out there to build that case.

 

[TenPenny]

She only got the audience that she did because she's famous, but that doesn't mean she's wrong. .

I certainly didn't say she was wrong. I said that her view was as valid as Don Cherry's; as far as I'm concerned, any entertainer is entitled to their view, they're all equally valid, and every bit as valid as the dentist up the street.

As far as the whole 'Harper lost the seat on the UN' thing, I wasn't aware that our positions on issues should be tailored to whatever is the prevailing view at the UN. Forgive me if I missed that one.

 

[Tonington]

As far as the whole 'Harper lost the seat on the UN' thing, I wasn't aware that our positions on issues should be tailored to whatever is the prevailing view at the UN. Forgive me if I missed that one.

And I didn't say that either. But if you wanted to poll the world on how Canada stacks up on global issues right now, that wouldn't be a bad start.

 

[wulfie68]

And I didn't say that either. But if you wanted to poll the world on how Canada stacks up on global issues right now, that wouldn't be a bad start.

What does most of the world know about how Canada addresses various issues? Aside from talking points by pundits on 15 sec newsbytes, most don't know and even more don't care. Aside from that, we should be careful about giving too much influence to people that don't know the situations Canadians are dealing with. I'm not saying we should be as xenophobic as the Chinese but we don't want to emulate a lemming either, which it seems is all some people aspire to.

 

[Tonington]

What does most of the world know about how Canada addresses various issues?

Canada shows up to international conferences, proceedings, meetings, etc. Diplomats are talking all the time. Even countries like Sudan can't keep the gate shut on things that are going on there.

 

[Bar Sinister]

Unless I missed it, it seems that only Walter noticed the main criticism of Canada's policies came from Gordon Laxer. I guess Margaret Atwood is just more fun to throw darts at. I also noticed that very few of those who posted comments disagreeing with Laxer and Atwood actually pointed out any flaws in the areas they singled out. Instead many tended to attack the messengers rather than looking closely at the message they are delivering. Does anyone actually think at Aboriginals in Canada have been treated fairly; or that Canada's environmental record is exemplary?

 

[captain morgan]

Unless I missed it, it seems that only Walter noticed the main criticism of Canada's policies came from Gordon Laxer. I guess Margaret Atwood is just more fun to throw darts at. I also noticed that very few of those who posted comments disagreeing with Laxer and Atwood actually pointed out any flaws in the areas they singled out. Instead many tended to attack the messengers rather than looking closely at the message they are delivering. Does anyone actually think at Aboriginals in Canada have been treated fairly; or that Canada's environmental record is exemplary?

Both Laxer and Atwood are critical of these policies based on their own subjective judgements. They are both fair game in terms of their opinions being dissected and criticized.

Yes, and I asked you what they changed it to...

The changes are akin to the dynamic that lead the UN/IPCC to change their marketing campaign from Anthropogenic Global Warming to Climate Change... That's not subjective, that is factually objective

They couldn't issue a formal statement saying that their policy was waning in the face of cooling temps, so they quietly started reinventing the issue to accommodate their earlier mistake.

You're seeing a similar dynamic today. The general public has much less interest in climate change so the UN starts hollering about accelerated mass extinctions to get some attention and then point to the causation being global warming/climate change.

 

[earth_as_one]

I agree with the Atwood. Canada is on the wrong side of issues like African aid (we are cutting back), Israel (unshakable support for their war crimes and ongoing crimes against humanity), climate change (increasing carbon emissions, no serious effort to reduce our greenhouse gas production) and peacekeeping (we have cut back our contribution to focus on Afghanistan).

As a developed nation, we have an obligation to carry our fair share of the burden to help undeveloped nations manage and reduce problems related to disease, malnutrition, illiteracy...

Israel is involved in an ethnic cleansing war with the people who had the misfortune of living on land some people believe God gave to Jews. Canada's relations with Israel should be based on their respect international laws, treaties and conventions regarding war and treatment of civilians and refugees, not Christian fundamentalist religious beliefs.

Canada is one of the largest per capita sources of greenhouse gases and we don't have a credible plan to deal with this issue or significant penalties or incentives to push Canadians and Canadian industries toward meeting our targets.

Canada has reduced its peacekeeping effort to less than 1000 people. Outside of Haiti, Canada has few people involved in peacekeeping missions.

 

[Tonington]

The changes are akin to the ...

That's what I thought. No direct answer.

...that lead the UN/IPCC to change their marketing campaign from Anthropogenic Global Warming to Climate Change...

When was it ever anthropogenic global warming? The branch of the UN that does this work is called the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Global warming is but one part of climate change, and of course they talk about it...The IPCC is the International Panel on Climate Change.

It's climate change that they deal with.

Here's a press release from 2008, see if you can find the word "global" followed by "warming" anywhere in there:
http://unfccc.int/files/press/news_...ation/pdf/20081014_press_release_itl_citl.pdf

How about a press release from 2007, again, see if you can find the word "global" followed by "warming" anywhere in there:
http://unfccc.int/files/press/news_...ion/pdf/20071215_bali_final_press_release.pdf

I'm through with you. You are full of $hit and you will refuse to admit it.

 

[mentalfloss]

Global warming is done like dinner anyway. The deniers have moved on to "Biodiversity" as the new conspiracy meme that will dominate the airwaves and wreak global havoc.

 

[Walter]

Global warming is done like dinner anyway. The deniers have moved on to "Biodiversity" as the new conspiracy meme that will dominate the airwaves and wreak global havoc.

We win. Got a link?

 

[captain morgan]

We win. Got a link?

Expect a youtube video from the one and a nonsensical rant from the other.

 

[mentalfloss]

We win. Got a link?

Over 50 per cent of CEOs in America and 45 per cent in Africa see declines in biodiversity as a challenge to business growth. In contrast, less than 20 per cent of their counterparts in western Europe share such concerns The findings, compiled in a study of The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB), indicate that corporate chiefs who fail to make sustainable management of biodiversity part of their business plans may find themselves increasingly out of step with the market place. The survey was undertaken by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP as part of the study released today.

Green goes mainstream: Biodiversity climbing corporate agenda


Your official tag should be: "biodiversity is the new socialism", but I'm sure you'll think of something cleverer. Of course, the American hegemony will always try and downplay the social democracies of Europe which they desperately need to catch up with.

Oh, and for the record, it's actually captain morgan's job to post useless youtube videos.