Apparently We Do
Canada does not tolerate torture, but must sometimes work with countries that have questionable human rights records in its efforts to protect the public, a federal lawyer told an inquiry looking into torture claims by three Arab-Canadians.
[link]
By working with countries that torture, we tolerate torture.
Peirce began his inquiry submission with the strong declaration: “Canada does not countenance torture.”
countenance (v): to tolerate, support, sanction, patronise or approve of something
If our government works with countries who torture, it tolerates torture, if it did not, it would send a different message.
While we’re handing out definations, how do you define weasel?
Someone who says
And even if Ottawa did facilitate the men’s arrests, he argued, that would not violate the UN International Convention on Torture, saying the agreement obliges Ottawa only from preventing torture on its own soil not in foreign countries.
– we need a national shower after that.
I think I can see where you’re coming from on this, but I don’t see where you’re gonna get any satisfaction. There is no answer. Not on a national level.
As an individual consumer, you can refuse to do business with any company that does business with a country whose policies you deplore. But if you try to take that to a national level, you’ll end up not doing any business with anyone at all. Canada does major business with China, after all, and I’ve rarely seen a more deplorable human rights record.
“…the agreement obliges Ottawa only from preventing torture on its own soil not in foreign countries.”
There is no other option than for this situation to be the way it is. We as a nation do not allow (or we say we don’t, anyway) other govenments to tell us how to run our country. How can we dare tell other governments how to run their countries?
And even if we did start to interfere in other countries, where would we stop? Or would we stop? Who would listen to us? And who would fall down laughing at our efforts to be the world’s human rights monitor?
It does not follow that consorting with those who do not live up to the moral standards of Canadians, that it lowers such standards for Canadians. Chimera is correct.
Chimera: We are not telling other countries how to run their affairs, we are discussing how we act towards them. How can our government, with any legitimacy, speak against human rights abuses when we give those who practice it the ‘ole wink and a nod when it suits us to do so? How different is that from Iran, or China, or North Korea, or what has happened to our friends south of the border – the world (quite rightly) laughs when any of them talk about the abuses of others.
Raphael: It lowers our national standards in the same way it would lower your personal standards if you willingly cooperated with thugs, rapists, and violent criminals. How much respect and credibility do you give to those who do?
“We are not telling other countries how to run their affairs, we are discussing how we act towards them.”
Well, sorta, and it amounts to the same thing in the end. If we say to a trading partner that we will cease trade with you until you clean up your human rights record, we are, indeed, telling them how to run their affairs. It’s less direct than it is blackmail (or greenmail, since it would be financial pressure we are using to force the issue).
In your comment to Rafael, you mention standards, inferring that if one hangs with people of “high” standards, one automatically absorbs those high standards, and vice versa. Such is not usually the case, however, else we would all look and think and talk and walk and live exactly like everyone else. We’d commit mass suicide out of sheer boredom, I can assure you.
In reality, we all set our own standards on a personal level, and I don’t give a fig for the “national” standard — whatever it is, it’s not who I am. I trade with whom I trade for my own reasons that have little to do with what anyone else thinks, and I boycott whom I boycott in the same vein. And I don’t choose my friends based on their adherence to my standards, either. I’m the only person to whom I need answer. All other alliances are temporary or intermittent or both.
And when nations ally with one another for economic reasons, there is also an undercurrent of political alliance, most of the time. But not always. Convenience, expedience, strategy, they all come into play. It’s like a never-ending game of Red Rover.
Not at all, we are making decisions. If, for example, you decided that Stephen Harper really did have the necessary answers, joined the CPoC, and found yourself completely and utterly offended by my criticizing him and making fun of him, you would have a decision to make.
If you were a reasonable person [a stretch, I mean after all, you did just join the CPoC and get all evangelical on me about it
] you would probably send me an email, or make a comment, stating that you found my criticisms and jokes offensive, state your reasons why, tell me that you could no longer read stageleft, wouldn’t be commenting, and wouldn’t be clicking any of my Google ads (hint hint) if that sort of behaviour continued – and say you’d check back in now and again to see how things were going in that regard.
At that point you have made a decision regarding what is right for you, a decision that you are perfectly within your rights as to make, and now I have a decision to make. I can either quit criticizing Harper and retain you as a reader, commenter, and (via Google ads – hint hint) financial contributor, or I can continue to poke fun at him and lose your comments and your financial support.
It’s a choice that I have offered to many in (for example) the coffee industry, the chocolate industry, and the sweatshop supporting manufacturing/retail industry… see below.
Not at all, I am saying that if a person willingly chooses to associate with known thugs, rapists, and con artists, then that person is accepting that sort of behaviour.
Any Canadian who knows about the slavery and child labour involved in the chocolate industry, and who willingly chooses to by non-fair trade chocolate anyway, is well within their rights to accept, support, and promote via their financial contributions, those particular practices so that they can have access to cheap chocolate bars.
– after all, in Canada all we have to worry about it is whether or not there is slavery or child labour here, what happens in other places is not covered by our national social agreements – right?
“If you were a reasonable person [a stretch, I mean after all, you did just join the CPoC and get all evangelical on me about it
“
Argh! *wipes off monitor, desk, chair, floor* Was that nice? *sigh* I guess I didn’t want the rest of that sandwich, after all. Probably would a ended up with crumbs stuck between the keys, anyway…
All your examples look to be based on personal decisions, though — which I support completely — and not national ones.
Don’t tell anyone (:D), but I do have friends who are con artists, thieves, and thugs. We are friends for reasons other than their somewhat dubious illegal and/or immoral attributes. That doesn’t mean I endorse or accept behavior of which I do not approve. Their behavior when not in my company has absolutely nothing to do with me.
Do I want my government to tell me I cannot have my favorite chocolate bar because the chocolate has come from a place that has policies with which my government does not agree?
I do not.
I can make that decision for myself. If it’s important enough for me to make it, I will do so. The key point is that it has to be important to me. And in lots of instances, I just plain disagree with “our national social agreements.”
Stupid tags! Can you fix?
But you have accepted their behaviour. You have said, you are a con artist, a thief, or a thug, and you take advantage of the weak and the defenseless, but that’s OK, I like you anyway.
Absolutely, but you do accept their behaviour.
I agree it’s a fine line, and we all have to make our own decisions regarding it. Some are willing to accept, support, and explain away child slavery in the chocolate industry so they can have cheap chocolate bars, and some are willing to accept, support, and explain away their government, in their name, playing patti-cake with countries that torture and kill people so that they can “feel safe” because that same government tells them that they are.
And governments are like people. If, in this case, human rights are important to a government they will act accordingly, and if they are not, they won’t.
Fixed, by the way, you could always use [blockquote] [/blockquote] (replacing the [ ] with <> of course) instead of italics when quoting
“But you have accepted their behaviour. You have said, you are a con artist, a thief, or a thug, and you take advantage of the weak and the defenseless…”
I have not accepted anything if it does not occur in my company. I have no control over anything anyone else does (and can it be said that someone in need — and I mean real need, not out-of-drugs need — who shoplifted something at WalMart, is “taking advantage of the weak and defensless?”). What kind of friend would I be if I withheld friendship based on what are perceived by some to be character flaws?
“…but that’s OK, I like you anyway.”
Mmmmm….joining the con artist, thief, and thug club, are you?
Well, pull up a chair and make yerself comfy…
Blockquote…so that’s how it’s done! No, I don’t really know what I’m doing when it comes to computers and html tags. I pick stuff up as I go and hope it works. Let me try it…
(Now, I hope it worked…you don’t have a preview space anymore.)
Whooee! Embargoes have been used for centuries to influence other countries.
How did apartheid end? An international embargo crippled the SA racists and forced them to accept one man, one vote. A lot of Canadians were SA wine aficionados and probably didn’t like the government telling them they couldn’t buy SA wine. They wouldn’t quit buying it voluntarily, though, regardless of the injustice in South Africa. Enlightened nations came together and told SA that their system was rotten.
Unless things have suddenly changed, the Merkans are still using a trade embargo to try to get Cuba to change it’s system of government.
China? Not only do they torture and execute tens of thousands annually, they sell us poisoned and unsafe products. But their goods are inexpensive and we won’t stop buying voluntarily.
We do not need to kiss the ass of torturing countries. We are signatories to the Geneva Conventions which strictly prohibit us from handing over prisoners to known torturers. This ain’t Merka and the War on Terra does not mean human rights are waived. Human rights must never be waived.
JB