59

Tough crowd


 

AFP tallies the walkouts.

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.

Judging from photos such as this, it might’ve been easier to figure out who didn’t leave.


 

Tough crowd

  1. So every G7 country except for Japan walked out of Ahmadinejad's speech. His audience consisted mostly of empty seats. It's nice to see that Canada wasn't the only county that refused to listen to this thug.

  2. Being ahead of the curve shows leadership. Way to go Canada!

    • Yes, but the PM was at a Tim's, rebuilding that curve.

      Real leadership would have required him to be at the UN, confronting Ahmadinejad with his own speech on human rights and the rights of Israel. Right?

      Real leadership is not blowing thousands of taxpayer dollars, millions if you count those idiotic actionplan ads, so that you can get a precious photo-op.

      • Would Iggy have condemned Ahmadinejad? Where does Iggy stand on this? Coderre must be steaming mad right about now. He must think his country is going to pot.

  3. I like the "Selfishiness" thrown in. Favourite doublespeak thingery. Kady O' envy anyone?

    “Selfishiness and insatiable greed have taken the place of such human concepts as love, sacrifice, dignity and justice. The belief in the one god has been replaced with self-belief.”

  4. What you call tough, I see principled.

  5. Nice to see Canada leading again. Weren't we one of the first (if not the first) to walk out of the Durban 2 anti-racism conferences as well?

  6. Walking out of a public forum is a cowardly act. Convince me otherwise. Courage consists of confronting enemies, not avoiding them. What would our soldiers in Afghanistan think of our PM's behaviour?

    • It's not so much cowardly as it's an empty gesture made only because there's very little chance of any blowback over it.

      • Lesser leaders would not have taken the stand Harper took. It won't make him any friends in the middle east. What it does do is strengthen the resolve of our allies. That's leadership.

        I guess Harper can't do anything right in Liberal partisan's eyes.

        • Wait, I thought Harper was at Tim Horton's today…what stand did he actually take? Telling his underling to stage a mock walkout? On literally the most reviled politician in the world?

          Wow! Talk about your fortitude!

          Conversely (and far more accurately) Harper can literally do no wrong in a ConBot's eyes…

        • And what part of the Middle East are you referring to ?

          Put a hold on that. I don't really want to know what you think.

        • And what part of the Middle East are referring to ?

          Put a hold on that. I don't really want to know what you think.

  7. I keep hearing Liberals and leftists criticize Harper for being silent on world affairs, but this isn't the first time that Canada has initiated actions like this in international forums, is it? But I guess the usual suspects only pay attention when global warming (while temperatures) drop and coddling China are the topics.

    • You know, the minute you question global warming is pretty much the exact moment you relinquish any claims to speaking at the grown up's table.

  8. What a circus. And the rubes lap it up.

  9. Now now kcm, he does have a point – after all everyone knows that restricted clubs were traditionally hotbeds of socialism!

  10. Our world is a far,far better place.

    Political theatre improves everything, don't ya find ?

    • It's certainly the least we can do. And I do mean *the least*.

  11. So every G7 country except for Japan walked out of Ahmadinejad's speech. His audience consisted mostly of empty seats (check out the photo Wherry linked to).

    It's nice to see that Canada wasn't the only country that refused to listen to this thug.

    • So true. I wonder if Ahmadinejad will ever get it?

    • There are plenty of good reasons for countries to walk out like this, but in doing so over something like anti-semitism instead of one of those better reasons only reinforces the belief that Jews control the world.

      • only reinforces the belief that Jews control the world.

        Robert, do you buy into this belief that Jews have undue power and influence? I mean no offence – I'm just trying to understand where you're coming from.

      • only reinforces the belief that Jews control the world.

        Robert, do you buy into this belief that Jews have undue power and influence? I mean no offense – I'm just trying to understand where you're coming from.

        • No. Where I'm coming from is intimate knowledge of how anti-semites and other bigots think. I have attended skinhead parties and argued with them. I have attended meetings where people like Don Andrews and Tom Metzger have been speakers. The anti-semitic sentiment Ahmadinejad was appealing to in his speeches will only be reinforced now that the western world has foolishly made it an issue of greater importance than it is.

      • "…instead of one of those better reasons…"

        Walking out on a leader who denies the Holocaust happened and talks about annihilating Israel is what, a lousy reason? Spoken like a true leftist. Jews were persecuted in the Soviet Union and they were of course subjected to the genocidal policies of the Nationalist Socialists in Germany. What is it about the Jews that drive the left nuts?

        • Jews have been a persecuted minority forever, long before the Soviets and the Natzis. So give it up Jarrid. Anti-semetism is a blot on humanity and not just the laterday cause of sanctimonious righties like you.

          • My point is that the anti-semtic torch has been picked up latterly by the extreme left of the political spectrum.

            Someone once made the observation that anti-semitism stems from a hatred of the monotheistic God. They can't get to him so they take out their wrath instead on his chosen people. As good a theory as any I've heard.

            Funny thing, the Soviet Union was officially an atheistic state. The Nazis were also a godless bunch.

          • Maybe you should learn to be more precise with your accusations. The left is what you said, the generic left – not the extreme left.
            History doesn't back up your monotheistic theory – or how do you account for the churches [ Catholic and Moslems who are both monotheistic last time i checked ] persecution of Jews – they killed Christ and various other flimsy excuses for persecution. I have a longer memory than you it seems – it was only yesterday that Canada was turning Jews away.

          • Anti-semtism in the Catholic church, while it no doubt existed, was always based on a perverted theology, Catholics and Christians are nothing if not spiritual Jews. (To be Christian and to be anti-semitic is to be incoherent. A bit like being a pro-abortion Catholic if you will.) Relations have never been warmer between practising Jews and opractising Christians as they are today.

            But in the 20th and 21st centuries, that is to say, in the relatively recent past, I think I've put my finger on where the anti-semites lurk and what motivates these nut-jobs.

          • You keep on digging those anti-semites out from under the bed Jarrid, just don't be surprised if there are more than just lefties under there.

          • That's ridiculous. The Left is not generally anti-semitic, it's anti-hypocrisy and pro-underdog. Leftists used to be huge fans of Israel, at least until 1967 and often until 1982. It's when Israel began to resemble South Africa that Israelis ceased to be the ultimate underdog.

            "Relations have never been warmer between practising Jews and opractising Christians as they are today."

            There's certainly a temporary alliance between Zionists and apocalyptic, quasi-anti-semitic Christian fundamentalists in the United States. It's not quite clear why the Christian fundamentalists are so keen on Israel — it has something to do with Armageddon — but I think it's foolish of the American Zionists to have embraced those nutjobs. Anyway, as you well know, most Jews in North America are left-wing and quite rightly abhor Christian extremism, which has done so much to harm them over the last 2000 years.

            I guess what the last twenty years have seen is a transference of anti-semitism from one group of semites (Jews) to another (Arabs). (Interesting find from the Economist in that regard.) Both are non-Christian minorities and can, for that part of the paranoid right that is obsessed with social cohesion, be scapegoats for all that is wrong with society; more importantly, the defense of said minorities by the Left can then be spun by the far right as a weak-willed capitulation to amorality. The fact that these two groups, who are minorities in our society, happen to be at each other's throats half a world away should not blind us to the fact that the Arabs are being used now, as the Jews were used before, to further a dangerous demonisation of rational discourse.

          • Care to list those countries "no-longer-ultimate-underdog" Israel is planning to wipe off the map?

          • There's only one, and it's half gone. A slow-motion wipe, if you will.

          • Even you can't buy that garbage argument, Jack. If Israel really wanted to, the West Bank & the Gaza Strip would be lifeless dust by next Tuesday. Won't happen. Any neighbour to Israel is really not afraid of Israel unless said neighbour feels now might be a good idea to wander over and pick a fight with the IDF. Everyone in the region is terrified of the nuclear nutbar from Tehran.

          • There are other ways to wipe out a nation than with nuclear weapons.

          • Unquestionably, and totally besides any point here. Israel wouldn't nuke those territories, but it could still flatten them in little over an afternoon. And it will not happen.

          • I seem to have missed your point. Apparently the fact that Israel would not like to commit suicide by nuking itself is proof of its moral goodness?

          • Wow, you missed the subsequent point too. Israel could wipe out those territories by non-nuclear means. And it will not.

          • Because it is so just and good, presumably, not because it fears the total international ostracism that would follow such a move.

          • If you could let go of the oozing snark a sec, you would see that their own population would not stand for it. So, yeah, just and good belongs there somewhere.

          • I think you are about 10 years behind in assessing Israeli public opinion. Sure, there are still strong segments of idealistic opinion there — the most uncompromisingly moral in the world — but look at how they treated Gaza, and there was virtually no popular outcry.

            What I was referring to, meanwhile, was the gradual displacement of the Palestinians from all the good land, via the settlement program which continues unabated — with no popular outcry whatsoever. Israeli policy is virtually determined by those settlers and nobody, but nobody, has the will to push back. The results for the Palestinians are not genocide but slow motion expulsion from their lands, by force, in the name of what can only be called a racist ideology.

          • How soon we forget what happened the last time Israel pulled back.

            You've got a neighbour that you supply with electricity, that you send all sorts of humanitarian aid, and that sends their sickest to your hospitals. Their elected representatives, thoroughly dependent on your benevolence for even breathing, nonetheless have varying degrees of virulent rhetoric (depending on the political party) in their expressed desire to have you crushed, and they are either ineffective against or are actively engaged in taking fatal terrorist potshots at your soldiers and your citizens. You take measures to separate your citizens from this danger, exposing yourself to Jack MItchell's accusing you of "slow genocide by racist ideology."

            Wow.

          • Who said anything about "slow genocide"? It's more like slow-motion ethnic cleansing. Don't believe me? Check out the Google Earth images of the West Bank. The green bits that look like Mississauga are the settlements. The parched brown bits that look like Marrakech on a bad day are the Palestinian areas.

            I never thought I'd live to see the day when an intelligent person would describe Israel's treatment of the occupied territories as humanitarian. Apparently that is the case, however. Nothing, apparently — not three generations of Israeli teenage soldiers breaking into first your grandmother's, then your mother's, then your wife's underwear drawers and / or arresting you without much cause; not the checkpoints on the next block where they harass you for five minues every day as you trundle to work for your new Zionist neighbour at $1 an hour; not the occasional shelling of your community centre — basically, nothing at all — can justify "virulent" rhetoric against your benevolent occupiers, according to one Made You Look as he sits in his smoking jacket half a world away, pats his golden retriever on the head, and renews his subscription to Commentary.

          • The "slow genocide" line was from a too-rapid speed-reading of your text; you specifically wrote "not genocide," and I blew it. Sorry.

            The occupation is not humanitarian. The occupation is self-preservation. The aid to the civilians is humanitarian. And those territories would start to look a little more like Misssissauga (we shall assume for present purposes that this is a good thing) if they focused LESS on picking a futile fight with their peace-desiring neighbour for PR purposes (secure in the knowledge that any attempt to defend itself will arouse the vocal anti-Israel crowd worldwide), and MORE on developing an economy. See Jordan. See Egypt.

          • The "slow genocide" line was from a too-rapid speed-reading of your text; you specifically wrote "not genocide, and I blew it. Sorry.

            The occupation is not humanitarian. The occupation is self-preservation. The aid to the civilians is humanitarian. And those territories would start to look a little more like Misssissauga (we shall assume for present purposes that this is a good thing) if they focused LESS on picking a futile fight with their peace-desiring neighbour for PR purposes (secure in the knowledge that any attempt to defend itself will arouse the vocal anti-Israel crowd worldwide), and MORE on developing an economy. See Jordan. See Egypt.

          • Honestly now:

            1) Nazis….NOT LEFT WING

            2) Nobody, I mean nobody, is "pro-abortion".

            3) Catholics (and I'm a practising one) absolutely have a long and illustrious history with anti-semitism. Read up on the Florentine Ghetto and the popular, state and church sanctioned violence perpetrated against the Jews during the Renaissance (and that's just one example)

            4)If there's any warmth between Christians and Jews (outside of the general move towards integration in North America) it's because the far Christian Right, which embraces an apocalyptic version of Christianity, sees the Jews in Israel as a crucial first step towards the End Times.

            5) Your whole pet theory about how "leftists" hate the Jews because their God's chosen people sorta falls apart when you consider that, according to Jesus, the poor (who the Left most certainly purport to care about) are God's Chosen. Does the Left decide to love one group that God chose and hate the other one? That seems foolish.

            6) Care to explain why, if the Left is lousy with Anti-Semites, do…you know…actual Jews vote overwhemingly for the Democrats in the United States?

            (actually I'm delighted to have read your ramblings here…now I'll know that every time I see your name atop a comment that therein lies some idiocy.)

          • National Socialism is a derivative of Marxism. Like their marxist brethren, the Nazis were big on central economic planning. In modern Europe, genocide has always been a socialist idea, first advocated by Engels in 1849. The big backers of eugenics were socialists, H.G. Wells, Bernard Shaw to name just two.

          • Wow, I am actually gobsmacked at just how insane you actually are! Pretty much everything you`ve written here is wrong…so very, very, very wrong.

          • If you just bear in mind that the Conservative Party of Canada is not only correct in everything it advocates but uniquely righteous before a libertarian God, you can take a shortcut to jarrid's brainstem.

          • If you just bear in mind that the Conservative Party of Canada is not only correct in everything it advocates but uniquely righteous before a libertarian God, you can take a shortcut to jarrid's brainstem. As in, the Tsar restricted personal liberty and governed despotically, therefore the Tsar . . . was a leftist.

          • If you just bear in mind that the Conservative Party of Canada is not only correct in everything it advocates but uniquely righteous before a libertarian God, you can take a shortcut to jarrid's brainstem. As in, the Tsar restricted personal liberty and governed despotically, therefore the Tsar . . . was a leftist, or at least markedly to the left of Stephen J. Harper, Esq.

          • "…the poor (who the Left most certainly purport to care about)…"

            They certainly purportedly do. But consider the following Richard, as you hang on to your precious shibboleths. George Watson, a Cambridge University prof, made the following observation

            "When socialism was fashionable I used to ask those who believed in it why they thought public ownership would favor the poor. What struck me about their responses was not just that they did not know but that they did not think they were under any obligation to know. But if they had really cared about poverty they would have demanded an answer before they signed up, and would have gone on demanding an answer until they got one. In other words, they were hardly interested in solving poverty. What really interested them was looking and sounding as if they did."

          • Yay! Duelling Quote Time!

            "As near as I can tell, Socialism is Christianity in Practice." – Tommy Douglas.

          • "extreme left of the political spectrum."

            Stop crying. You guys still hate brown people, gays, atheists, and most women.

          • Most of the anti-Jewish hatred comes from the right. Indeed, left-of-centre parties in all G7 countries are overwhelmingly supported by Jewish voters.

            Very few Jews are fooled by the Evangelical right's embrace of their cause because they know what lies at the root of that particular "love."

  12. As Prime Minister of Canada Steve should have been boycotting/walking out on Ahmadinejad 's speech anyway because of what happened to Zahra Kazemi and currently to Maziar Bahari.

    The fact that he never mentioned it once as a reason is very telling.

    As many Iranian protesters have been saying in rallies here in Canada and in front of the UN, the holocaust denying stuff is almost a ruse and misdirection to take the world's attention away from the stolen election and continuing human rights abuses in Iran.

    Ahmadinejad 's holocaust denial and hatred against the State of Israel are another reason – but certainly not the only one – to turn our collective backs on him.

    By making it his only real reason for having Lawrence Cannon stage his walkout (becasue Steve was having a double-double) Steve gets to play to the so-con/Religious Right part of his base and continue in his wooing of certain elements of the Jewish community.

Sign in to comment.