26

How much attention should Stephen Harper devote to human rights issues during his visit to China?


 

 

How much attention should Stephen Harper devote to human rights issues during his visit to China?

  1. No country has any right to tell another country how to conduct themselves. Each country has it's own government-laws–rules-etc.– & we should stop intruding on such things!!!

    • Aren't you your brother's keeper, Mars, or does "brother" stop and start at your Mama's womb?

    • Stalin killed millions of people in his own country, Hitler wiped out Jews in his own country, try to think before you share your deep thoughts with others. You must be Chinese.

  2. I buy stuff that's for sale in Canada, but I don't want my purchases to reinforce or condone a production system that doesn't value or recognize human rights. Finding products that are socially responsible is very challenging. And it's frustrating because I don't have any say about what's imported and sold in our country. It's people in leadership and business positions who get to decide that. So, yes, I believe our government and business leaders are responsible to represent the values of myself and many many other Canadians who are not comfortable with encouraging the disregard of human rights in favour of obtaining products at cheap prices. I don't have the power to represent myself in these decisions. Therefore, it is my government's responsibility to do so. Harper doesn't have to lecture China, but he should take a stand on human rights and social responsibility the same way that so many Canadians are attempting to do – by not to consuming (or supporting the consumption) of products that come from poor labour and human rights standards. The more we buy from this type of system, the more we condone it.

  3. I was hoping China would give Mr. Harper a good lecture on human rights while he was there

    • Good one!

  4. Oh you Dick you!

  5. "…it's frustrating because I don't have any say about what's imported and sold in our country…"

    Uh oh, stop everything, we all forgot to ask Bonnie if it's OK that our national economy includes imports from the Chinese.

    • Ha. That's funny. Also rude and a quite childish, but funny nonetheless. I think you missed the point I was trying to make…or maybe you're actually making my point more clear. Clearly it's not possible or reasonable for individual Canadians to all have a say in what gets imported into our country. That's not what I'm suggesting should happen. I'm suggesting that our government should honour its responsibility to represent the values of Canadians in their decision making. Now, I know that not all Canadians care if the purchases we make are enabling the oppression and human rights abuse of people in some other country…so long as we get a good deal at Best Buy, right? But I believe there are enough Canadians who value social responsibility enough that it should have bearing on our leaders actions and decisions. The government can't ask us all for permission about what to import, but they can take a read of the our general views, opinions, and concerns when it comes to human rights and social responsibility if they want to.

  6. It seems that many no longer understand 'basic' human rights. Therefore, if we are going to lecture anyone we must be very careful not to be influenced in any manner by that kangaroo court system know as the Canadian Human Rights Commission. If we attempt to influence any thinking society with CHRC's vision, we'll likely be burned at the stake!

  7. The CHRC is not a kangaroo court or a court of any kind. Steyn and Levant wanted to make them selves into "free speech" martyrs and at least one of them SAID he was disappointed when not found guilty because of that.

    There are many GOOD ways that Canada can encourage the advancement of human rights in the world. Arrogant public prononcements made for show to a foreign leader is NOT one of them.

    Think about how we would react if some foreign leader came here and made snide remarks about Canada. We wouldn't like it even if he was right, and I don't think it would motivate us to change anything.

    • There is an entire book of evidence written by Levant, "Shakedown" that the HRC's are nothing but kangaroo courts. They are biased for and against certain identifiable groups and their victims are denied all the protections of legitimate courts (too many to list here).

      Lefties like Diana cannot refute any of the mountain of evidence. They think their mere repeated denials of the facts and personal reassurances substitute for evidence. They do not.

      • I actually agree with Stein and Levant that Section 13 of CHRA should be changed, perhaps deleted. Steyn and/or Levant would go further and get rid of the hate speech law in the criminal code, which would mean Canada adopting the "almost anything goes" American approach, unlike tradition in Canada and other western democracies. I've read quite a bit of the Steyn/Levant side of this argument. Are you aware of the other side? Are you interested?

        This is a video of a hearing of the parliamentary committee on the issue. The head of the CHRC explains the role and addresses various allegations against the CHRC. She's not a good speaker but is worth listening to, for the points she makes. Richard Moon, who studied the issue, recommends deleting Section 13, but notice his comment re the nature of the debate. Two members of the Jewish Congress recommend amending but not deleting Section 13. They are worth listening to, if you're interested in a counter-argument to Steyn/Levant. Their argument is quite compelling.

        http://www.cpac.ca/forms/index.asp?dsp=template&a

        • I wanted to add this to my last reply to Minaka where I posted the link to the CPAC video but couldn't. If you don't get to the video right away, go to "videos on demand" and search for "human rights committee".

  8. If you were a political prisoner in China, Cuba, somewhere in Africa… you may appreciate such snide remarks.

    • Better yet-let's send all political prisoners to the U.S.A. to stand trial , if guilty , sentence them to death.

  9. That's true, and it could be encouraging to dissenters too, but I think there's a way of doing it, not as a routine part of a formal greeting.

  10. Even "social responsibility" means different things to different Canadians. For example, the same people who are the biggest scolds on the subject often vacation in Cuba, which is basically a giant locked corral for people with the recalcitrant ones killed, penned up in jails or kept in line with prods.

    Some tourists turn a blind eye just for the dollars they save, but others are shameless enough to insist that the under-nourished human cattle say they enjoy being cooped up (when saying anything else would lead them to the slaughterhouse) in return for mythically superior health care than can't even provide them with an aspirin for a headache.

    • Some of the people who cheer Harper for preaching human rights to other countries are the same people who defend his government by saying there is no problem with torturing prisoners, or denying accused persons a trial for years on end, if not forever.

  11. As I see it from the world according to hart; Canadians want inexpensive goods. Economics 101 state money flows to the best price. That is a reality unless sanctions are placed as a barrier to import.
    I for one am in favor of "real" free trade for all. That though is a topic which requires 20 pages here for discussion.
    Cheers,
    Hart In Winnipeg
    http://hartbeatthehippie.blogspot.com

  12. No person has any right to tell another person how to conduct themselves. Each person is goverened by their own –laws-rules–etc.– & we should stop intruding on such things and let insanity run rampent!!!

    BALOGNIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Dan

  13. Re other democracies and Hate Speech: It is clear that the US is the democracy out of step, not Canada. (see Wikipedia on Hate Speech for one source). ____Re Canadian tradition: Canadian law has never protected free speech to the exclusion of all other rights and considerations in the absolutist manner of the US Constitution. If you think otherwise, state the law.____Re: Professor Moon's Supporting CHRC Position: Moon DID NOT support the CHRC.__position. He recommended that Section 13 of CHRA be repealed.____Minor point but the CHRA was passed in 1977, not the 60's, and the Criminal Code was amended to include hate speech in 1970 (see CHRC web site).____http://www.chrc-ccdp.ca/publications/report_moon_

  14. Let me get this straight. Harper is harping at the Chinese about human rights, torture, etc., while Harper's government is handing over Afghanistan prisoners to be tortured. Followed by the Harper cronies blacking out of information that did not suit their image in the missives regarding the situation.
    Harpers lame attempt at pretending that his government was not involved is disgusting. Surely we Canadians need to know what our government is involved in and at what level of torture is being done in our name, before we start to chide another government for doing so.

    • to the donna, if you think that anything that the Canadian gov't does even remotely resembles what goes on in China you have been living under a rock. Just look around you at the so called refugees/criminals that show up on our shores and become part of the welfare system or come here only for the benefits that Canada has to offer. Regarding Afghanistan, what do you possibly think that we should do with prisoners from there, bring them over here and put them also on our welfare system and let them become gov't enabled terrorists, build and forever staff prisons in Afghanistan, what?? Give your head a shake!

  15. Re: CHRA and Criminal Code: Hate speech in the Criminal Code is dealt with through the criminal justice system. CHRA promotes equality of opportunity in federally regulated work places. CHRC looks into complaints and sometimes refers them to an administrative tribunal. Section 13 on internet hate is an anomaly in that sense, repesenting about 2% of cases.

    Re Crushing Canadian Freedom: Conviction under the criminal code can result in a jail sentence. In ten years there were 32. Being found guilty of distributing hate on the Internet under CHRA results in an order to stop, sometimes fines.. There were 16 cases of non-compliance in about 7 years. (See CHRC web site) Re: Motivation behind hate speech legislation: This arose out extreme widespread horror over Nazi Germany actions, Holocaust, etc. To suggest this was limited to "leftist special interests" is nonsensical and quite insulting to conservatives. Any examination of Canadian cases would show they aren't about fussy political correctness but about hatred that would revolt any normal person on either the political left or right.

  16. Most valuable resources;

    Canada: Natural resources and brain power.

    China; Slave labour and prison guards.

Sign in to comment.