54

How to stage a walkout


 

The CBC’s Margo McDiarmid explains in this clip.

Essentially, our foreign minister, Lawrence Cannon, isn’t actually physically sitting in the general assembly proceedings today because his speech isn’t until Saturday. But just before the Iranian president speaks, Mr. Cannon will walk into the assembly, go to his place in the actual room, and when the president starts to speak, he and the other Canadian delegates will leave.


 

How to stage a walkout

  1. I'm so proud of Canada right now.

  2. Props to the government, but the visual is pretty funny.

  3. Germany plans to do the exact same thing. It will be interesting to see which other countries participate in this symbolic boycott.

  4. Germany plans to do the exact same thing. It will be interesting to see which other countries will participate in this symbolic boycott.

    • Actually, what I heard is that Germany will only walk out if Ahmadinejad repeats his Holocaust comments. Have they changed their position?

      • You're right in that Germany's statement was conditional while Canada's wasn't. That said, Germany has been one of Ahmadinejad's harshest critics, and it will be interesting to see how they respond to the speech.

    • Thank you for voting!
      Yes. Walking out sends a clear and unified message to Ahmadinejad. 92% (39,915 votes)
      No. The U.N. is a world forum where all views should be heard and exposed. 7% (2,881 votes)
      Undecided 1% (435 votes)
      Total Votes: 43,231
      View Comments
      Poll Daddy on Fox Newsite

      http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/09/23/rice-jo

  5. wouldn't it be fun if he gave his speech to an empty room.

    • Most of these speeches are given to a mostly empty room. Just wait 'till Canada's turn Saturday evening.

      • LOL Best line of the day!

  6. Let's hope Ahmedinejad actually shows up, otherwise Mr. Cannon will be in a tough spot.

    • "In Mr. Ahmedinejad's place, we happily welcome the Prime Minister of Sweden who will provide a two hour overview of carbon taxation and its role in combatting global warming…"

      • Heh.

  7. Cannon should stay and yell out, "You Lie!" at the first available opportunity. Now that would be an attention getter.

    • maybe slam a shoe or two as well.

    • How bout shoes? I hear that's pretty effective.

      • beat ya!

        • Tie. Where's the stopwatch damit?

    • Or Kanye West jumps on stage: "Yo Mahmoud, I'm really happy for you, I'll let you finish, but Israel has one of the best democracies of all time."

  8. So is this a one-country boycott so far?

    • I doubt it. It think it's guaranteed that Ahmadinejad will call the Holocaust a hoax and Germany will storm out.

      • I presume so, given what Germany has already said.

        However, I'm wondering if Canada was the only country to walk out before listening to the speech?

  9. Hey, <a hef="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8270174.stm">Canada's back.

    Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has previously said he does not believe the Holocaust happened, was due to speak later on Wednesday.
    Israel has called for a boycott of his appearance and the Germans have said they will walk out if he repeats the claim.

    There's no mention of Canada boycotting Ahmadinejad's speech in the article.

  10. Hey, Canada's back.

    Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has previously said he does not believe the Holocaust happened, was due to speak later on Wednesday.
    Israel has called for a boycott of his appearance and the Germans have said they will walk out if he repeats the claim.

    There's no mention of Canada boycotting Ahmadinejad's speech in the article.

  11. heh!

  12. What are the American delegates to the UN going to do? It would be pretty funny if Canada stages this so-called boycott while the American stay and listen politely. Its as if Harper thinks that Bush is still president.

  13. Is Harper refusing to listen to the speech not at least somewhat akin to the NDP opposing the budget without reading it?

  14. It's also worth noting that if Michael Ignatieff had his way, this week we would be in the middle of an opportunistic election. So much for his concern about attendance at the U.N.

    • Thank heaven for reasoned ideas. We're headed in the right direction, though. At this rate we'll be further ahead when we're farther behind.

  15. Presumably the point of the UN General Assembly is that world leaders can have a forum in which to speak rather than fight. If you hear something offensive, then express your displeasure, but deciding that in advance and planning a foolish display is bizarre.

    • A government that recently slaughtered a dozen of their own people and its the Canadian government that looks bizarre?

      • Why be choosy? Half the countries in attendance have probably slaughtered or disappeared a dozen of their own people ina similar time period.

        • You mean other than the fact that this country is assembling nuclear weapons and that this leader is using threatening language toward his own people and other countries?

          But indeed, why be choosy! It should be done every time. As for the contention that half the countries have slaughtered a dozen of their people in the last three months, you're not serious, are you?

          • Actually to be pedantic the US intelligence estimate concluded that the Iranians had abandoned their work on nuclear weapons some time ago. This was while bush was in office remember. Having said that we would be very unwise to trust these guys.
            I wouldn't want to be held down to half in three months, but i would contend that there are a good many countries out there with records as odious as Irans. I wouldn't have much of an issue with Harper's boycott if i thought it was purely on principle and not for domestic politics. There's little doubt Harper's assiduously courting the jewish vote in this country- there's nothing wrong with that, except he'll probably use this in another partisan attempt to smear everyone but his party as anti-semetic – which is crass not to mention a lie.

          • You are being completely disingenuous now. Where did US intelligence conclude the Iranians are not building nuclear weapons? Have a look at WSJ or are they just a bunch of zionists?

            What your complaint amounts to, is, as you say, the fact you think this is an attempt to smear everyone but his part as anti-semitic. You should probably look around more on that account.

          • You are being completely disingenuous now. Where did US intelligence conclude the Iranians are not building nuclear weapons? Have a look at WSJ or are they just a bunch of zionists?

            What your complaint amounts to, is, as you say, the fact you think this is an attempt to smear everyone but his part as anti-semitic. You should probably look around more on that account.

          • According to Newsweek, that's exactly what US intelligence has concluded. Your WSJ link is 18 months old.

          • The Newsweek article cites anonymous sources that conclude only that there is a moderate likelihood that Iran has not resumed weapons development. Do you really think that Iran is not a nuclear threat? Are you comfortable with the level of threatening language coming from the Iranian president toward his own people and other countries?

          • The Newsweek article cites anonymous sources that conclude only that there is a moderate likelihood that Iran has not resumed weapons development.

            From the Newseek article:
            "People are looking at the same information and reaching different judgments," he said. "Given all the developments in Iran, these assessments are hard to believe with any certainty. Nobody's been able to bring total proof either way."

            Do you really think that Iran is not a nuclear threat? Are you comfortable with the level of threatening language coming from the Iranian president toward his own people and other countries?

          • I hope that wasn't a low blow attempt to label me an anti-semite.If it wasn't maybe you could elaborate. As for the intelligence estimate/summary it exists – my ineptness prevents me from providing a link – i assume that's what newsweek was talking about.

          • What?
            I was not labelling anyone or anything. I quoted you. Was that out of context?

          • OK fine, i thought it might be my misunderstanding. I simply didn't understand your comment that i should look around more on that account. My bad.

          • Hey Ed, if you're so smart, convince our PM to follow your lead.

            What are you anyway? — "I'm safe because all my opinions are contingent on being opposite of everyone else who might have one? I don't have the courage to take a position, because, if I'm wrong, I might look silly?"

            You might want to pursue a career as a journalist, that way you could hide behind "popular opinion", since you seem to express none of your own with anything approaching conviction.

            So, there you go, Ed_Sweeney — simply another way of looking at your smugness.

          • I'm not really sure I understand what you mean, but thank you for expressing your very unique perspective that I am not opinionated enough. I shall frame your comment for latter use.

          • Yes, I really think that Iran is not currently a nuclear threat. Yes, I am personally comfortable with the level of threatening language coming from the Iranian president toward his own people and other countries. What do you want me to do, quake in my boots? The guy is a joke.

            The only country against which Iranian threats could mean anything right now is Iraq, and that only after the US leaves. Israel is armed to the teeth with first rate jets, pilots, and nukes. Turkey has the world's second-largest army. Pakistan has nukes and a large and professional conventional army. Russia is Iran's ally.

            What do you suggest we do about Iran, Ed — either now or later, if they ever do get nukes? Invade? Preemptively nuke them? Neither is feasible.

            Anyway, what do we care? There are lots of semi-crazy regimes around.

          • Yes, I really think that Iran is not currently a nuclear threat. Yes, I am personally comfortable with the level of threatening language coming from the Iranian president toward his own people and other countries. What do you want me to do, quake in my boots? The guy is a joke.

            The only country against which Iranian threats could mean anything right now is Iraq, and that only after the US leaves. Israel is armed to the teeth with first rate jets, pilots, and nukes. Turkey has the world's second-largest army. Pakistan has nukes and a large and professional conventional army. Russia is Iran's ally.

            What do you suggest we do about Iran, Ed — either now or later, if they ever do get nukes? Invade? Preemptively nuke them? Neither is feasible.

            Anyway, what do we care? There are lots of anti-Western regimes around.

          • Thanks for the link Jack.

  16. US, France walk out during Ahmadinejad's UN speech (AFP)

    UNITED NATIONS — France on Wednesday led a walkout of a dozen delegations, including the United States, to protest a fiery speech by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to the UN General Assembly.

    "It is disappointing that Mr Ahmadinejad has once again chosen to espouse hateful, offensive and anti-Semitic rhetoric," Mark Kornblau, spokesman to the US mission to the United Nations, said in a statement.

    Delegations from Argentina, Australia, Britain, Costa Rica, Denmark, France Germany, Hungary, Italy, New Zealand and the United States left the room as Ahmadinejad began to rail against Israel, a European source said.

    Israel had already called for a boycott of the speech, and was not present when the Iranian leader began his address. Canada had already said it would heed the boycott call.

    • Certainly makes Harper look good.

      • Oh, here we go. Ed is self-satisfied. Ed is going to solve all international disagreements. Let's isolate Iran. Heaven forbid we should try to figure out what motivates that nation. It's simple really. Whatever Ed believes is correct. He is a genius, after all. Machiavelli cannot hold a candle to Ed's genius (even though Niccolo has been dead these many years).

        In thought as much as indeed.

        • A genius, really? Stop it you're making me blush.

  17. So diplomatic approaches, like the one today, serve no purpose to you?

    And you really think that Canada should not bother to take a position on international issues until it is ready to engage in nuclear war?

    • There's no harm in them, but they don't mean much in terms of destabilising the Iranian regime. Presumably it will allow Ahmedinejad to head home and claim that everybody's out to get Iran, thus appealing to uninformed Iranian nationalists (the majority of the population); and it will be a shot in the arm to the anti-regime forces; but let's face it, the real problem is that the majority of Iranians is either indifferent to the police state or actively supports it, and they are obviously very well organised with ruthless militias etc. (They didn't even bring in the IRG this time.)

      Still, I'll be interested to see the Russian reaction, if any. Russia is the key to international pressure on Iran.

      "And you really think that Canada should not bother to take a position on international issues until it is ready to engage in nuclear war?"

      By "we" I meant you and me. Why are you so fired up about Iran?

Sign in to comment.