Harper stands firm on human rights in china
- Thread starter Avro
- Start date
"He who is without sin cast the first stone". ???
Politics would be a pretty quiet sport with only the sound of crickets chirping...:lol:
Politics would be a pretty quiet sport with only the sound of crickets chirping...:lol:
Perhaps.
But he is the leader of one of the freest nations on earth, and he is not a mass murderer. He should be taking absolutely no crap from the Chinese gov't........
Hey Colpy I agree Harper is not a mass murderer, but 14 year old doing life 25 year parole for murder is over the top with very little support for human rights.
We should do as we preach. ;-)
Yep....especially when it is very clear he can't get a fair trial.
Bring him back to Canada....much as I despise the entire useless bunch!!!!!!
EAO, I am STILL waiting with bated breath for your response to post no. 59 in this thread............
Excuse me for interrupting but how did a thread comparing Harper'saction or inaction to China's blatant disregard for human rights get turned to an Israel bashing discussion.
What has Harper's government done to augment the score we have in that Carleton index Colpy? Yes, thankfully Canada has a very good record, but it's one that has been built over generations here in Canada. Further, that score does not in any way address the specific points EAO made about our government supporting actions which make our leaders hypocrites.
If you want to make this about magnitudes, well undoubtedly China loses on that metric. But the nature of hypocrisy isn't one determined by magnitudes.
It's not up to one country to dictate to another country any more than it is for a province to dictate to another province. Quebec doesn't openly criticize Ontario for its discriminatory Catholic school policy any more than Ontario criticizes Quebec for its language laws. Individual persons are subject to local laws, local governments are subject to provincial laws, provincial governments can settle disputes between one another in federal court or in some cases it can be resolved through the passing of a federal law if it doesn't conflict with the provinces' jurisdictional authority, and so naturally countries ought to settle disputes between one another through international bodies such as the world court or the UN General Assembly.
How would Harper react if Ontario suddenly decided to introduce trade restrictions against Quebec as long as it didn't repeal its Bill 101, and Quebec introduced trade restrictions against Ontario as long as it didn't repeal its religious education laws?
And then imagine provinces raising trade barriers against Alberta because they didn't agree with Alberta's environmental policy?
I'm sure Harper would not be happy. It's not up to one province to stick its nose in the jurisdiction of another; such issues must be taken up by a higher authority, and in the case of Canada it goes from the individual to the family (based on various family laws) to the city to the province or territory to the federal government to the world court.
We don't appreciate it when other countries stick their noses in our affairs either, such as the EU banning our seal products or dictating logging policies to BC as they've done before. We would also not appreciate it if China started criticizing Ontario's religious education policies or Quebec's language laws or our governments' disrespect for treaties signed in good faith with the First Nations, and rightfully so.
For the UN or the UNHCR or the General Assembly or the World Court to criticize Canada, that's appropriate since that's equivalent to the Supreme Court of Canada deciding on Quebec's language laws of Ontario's religious laws, or the Federal Government passing laws within its jurisdiction over Canada, or a provincial government passing laws or granting or denying local government powers or a local government passing or enforcing bylaws, and so on down the line.
It would not be appropriate though for another country to dictate to Canada any more than it would be appropriate for Quebec to dictate to Ontario, or Ottawa to Toronto, etc. down the line.
If Harper reserves the right to criticize other countries, then they have every right to stick their noses into our affairs too, unless we believe in double standards I suppose.
Oh yeas, by the way, what's Harper going to do about human rights in Canada with regards to Ontario's religious laws for example? See no evil, hear no evil, unless it's from abroad?
In principle, unless it's done through the appropriate channels, yes.
If for example the Province of Ontario has an issue with Quebec's language laws, then it brings it up in the Supreme Court of Canada rather than just badmouthing Quebec in the public media or taking the law into its own hands. Same with Quebec if it should have an issue with Ontario's religious laws.
Looking at it that way, Harper is certainly free to bring up China's Human rights issues through his ambassador on the floor of the UN General Assembly, or through the World Court. If the UN General Assembly should vote in favour of some kind of sanctions against China, then by all means we abide by those sanctions. It's not up to him though to just badmouth China publicly.
Same in reverse. If a country has an issue with Canada, then it brings it up through the appropriate channels, be it the World Courts, the UN General Assembly, etc. No country or its leader has a right to take it upon himself to be judge and jury. If a country's leader just started badmouthing Canada publicly, I'd e highly offended. If his issue is genuine, then certainly he could bring it up with the appropriate international bodies and they could decide on appropriate actions against Canada, but no individual country should have a right to just dictate to us on their own authority.
Likewise, Canada has no obligation to listen to any other country criticizing our human rights record seeing that we're beyond their jurisdictional authority. That's what the UN and the World Court and the UNHCR are for.
When George Bush went to the UN to ask for help to fight Iraq, that was well within his right. The UN approved the war in Afghanistan and so it was well within the US' right to go there. It did not approve the war in Iraq. Likewise, no member of the Ontario Provincial Police should have a right to just go into Quebec without approval from either Quebec or the Federal Government. So in like manner no US soldier had a right to go into Iraq without appropriate authority.
Harper's own opinions about China are his opinions and his alone, until they become approved by the appropriate international bodies.
Pretty much. It'd be good form to mention in which capacity he speaks from to begin with, however, instead of letting people guess whether he speaks personally or officially. It's diplomatic. The Cons seem to have a problem with making it clear to others, especially the newsmedia, in which capacity they are speaking from.
Pretty much?
You don't even have to read between the lines to see that in Machjo's world you can't be critical of another province without approval from a committee....not even the media can.
Isn't this the same sort of garbage that occurs in totaliarian states?
You don't even have to read between the lines to see that in Machjo's world you can't be critical of another province without approval from a committee....not even the media can.
Isn't this the same sort of garbage that occurs in totaliarian states?
So where does the intrusion stop? If one country's people think it's perfectly cool to dance naked in the streets and the neighboring country doesn't, then you are saying the neighboring country gets to interfere. Nice.
If a private citizen wants to be critical of it, sure. If Harper on some Sunday morning wearing his jeans and a T-shirt is just answering a reporter's question about his personal opinions about China, fine. But in an official capacity a PM, Harper should be more diplomatic on the world stage. If he wants to criticize China officially, then do it through the appropriate channels.
Exactly. If the neighbouring country sees it as some kind of international human rights issue, then it's certainly free to bring it up to the appropriate international authorities. If they say dancing in the streets is fine, then that's the end of story and the neighbouring country will just have to live with it. I suppose it could just prohibit doing so within its own borders as that's its jurisdiction, but would not have th right to go out and invade the other country.
If the appropriate bodies decide dancing in the streets naked is a human rights violation or absolutely barbaric, then the UN could decide on appropriate sanctions, but not just any individual country on a whim.