Stephen Harper is trying to politically cash in on Sri Lanka’s denying Bob Rae entry to their country in which Sri Lanka say Bob Rae was a “security threat”, which is truly an absurd argument by the Sri Lankins.
Meanwhile “security threat” was the VERY ARGUMENT that Stephen Harper himself used to “justify” ( if you can call it that?) why his government was unwilling to provide any proof of its policy allegation that income trusts cause tax leakage, and a policy move by Harper that caused Canadians investors to lose $35 billion, after Harper had deluded these people into thinking he would never do such a thing.
Who is more absurd? The Sri Lankins saying that Bob Rae is a “security threat” or Stephen Harper saying that releasing his proof of tax leakage is a “security threat”? This in nothing more that Harper, the Tin Pot dictator calling the Sri Lankan’s kettle, black
Today’s Toronto Star:
Prime Minister Stephen Harper's officials called the decision to bar Rae "unacceptable" and absurd. It is that, and more. It also follows an incident in which a Colombo mob vandalized Canada's high commission office while police stood by.
Friday, June 12, 2009
Stephen Harper condemning Sri Lanka, is the pot calling the kettle black
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
The Government of Canada through the PM could have spoken about the issue or not spoken about the issue.
He correctly supported a Canadian MP who was slighted by another Government.
Please consider the outrage had he not spoken out.
Ian:
You are completely missing the point.
Consider the outrage of Harper's outrageous comment that his proof of tax leakage is a matter of national security and hence can not be disclosed?
Huh?
Meanwhile his comments about Bob Rae's expulsion from Sri Lanka are compulsory pablum for the masses. Glad to hear that you lapped it up.
Releasing the income trust data would have been a "security threat"---WTF is that all about.
The only threat was that releasing the data intact would have resulted in the laying waste to the "Tax leakage" argument put forward by the gov`t. resulting in their dismissal as being irrelevant & unable to govern.
A security threat -- my God , was that the best they could do.
Well , I guess it must have been & it did work as nary a squeak came from many in the Hoc who blindly accepted blacked-out proof.
Disturbing indeed.
Dr Mike Popovich
Commonwealth was a prominent opponent of the apartheid regime in South Africa. In the 1960s, Canadian Prime Minister John Diefenbaker and Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru led a joint effort that read South Africa out of the Commonwealth. In the 1980s, Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney rebuffed efforts by UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and US President Ronald Reagan to dilute sanctions until South Africa really began to reform and democratize in a genuine and determined way. Commonwealth suspended Nigeria for 3 years after the 1995 hanging of the activist Ken Saro-Wiwa. Zimbabwe was suspended from Commonwealth in 2002.
The Commonwealth allows for member countries to be suspended for Human Rights abuses, but ignores the impact of greenhouse gas emissions on some of the poorest countries in the world. The definition of serious violations should embrace much more than it does now.
But present Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper's foreign and domestic policy has fulfilled the hopes of US conservatives. In 2007 Canadin Prime Minister Stephen Harper has successfully blocked more than 50 Commonwealth countries that were seeking a climate change resolution that would force industrialized countries to adopt a binding commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Canada’s lack of action on climate change is contributing to droughts, floods and sea level rises in small island states and vulnerable commonwealth countries such as Maldives, Bangladesh, and Mozambique. Canada’s emissions have risen by more than 25% between 1990 and 2007. Canada is at the bottom of the G8 league table for action to tackle climate change. Canadians consumes far more than their fair share of petroleum and owe a debt to developing countries of the Commonwealth for the impact of their emissions on the climate. Canada is getting away with climate crimes that are destroying homes and livelihoods of the people live in developing countries of the Commonwealth. Present Canadian government continues to support for the extraction of oil from Alberts tar sands, a process which is 3 times as damaging to the climate than extracting conventional oil. Extracting millions of barrels of dirty oil from Alberta tar sands and abandoning the Kyoto treaty is not the behaviour of a responsible commonwealth country and Canada should be suspended from Commonwealth immediately. Canada’s complete failure to cut its emissions is making the global situation worse. If the Commonwealth countries are serious about holding their members to account, then they should suspend Canada immediately since it is threatening the lives of millions of people in developing Commonwealth countries. Unless Canada is willing to stop blocking international climate negotiations through its continued support for the Alberta tar sands, Canada should withdraw its membership with Commonwealth. The Commonwealth should hold Canadian government to a higher standard.
- Nalliah Thayabharan
Post a Comment