Given Adam Daifallah's love of fact-free statements, it is no wonder he has found a journalistic home at the National Post. Take a look at this gem:
Who's the party of human rights?Probably not what you expected.
Given this and so many other examples over the years from across the Anglosphere, it still amazes me how many people still associate support for human rights with the political Left, when the complete opposite is true. It's frustrating.
Le'ts a take a little stroll around the Conservative "Anglosphere", shall we Adam?
Let's start here:
Over the past five years, Australia’s record on human rights has been tarnished by international criticism of its policies toward refugees and asylum seekers, and its treatment of Indigenous people. The Commonwealth government’s reluctance—or, in some cases, refusal—to support the strengthening of international rights mechanisms, including the International Criminal Court, the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women, and the Convention Against Torture, have also been condemned. At the same time, Australians must continue to rely only on the shaky foundations of the parliament and the common law to uphold their rights. It seems more important than ever to explore the potential of a Bill of Rights for better defending and upholding human rights in Australia.
Hmmm...shaky start, there. It is worth noting that Australia has been run by conservatives during the years covered in that report. Let's move on.
How are things in merrie olde England?
The 1997 general election returned a Labour administration to power after a period of 18 years of Conservative government. Under Prime Minister Tony Blair, the Labour government, true to its 1997 election promise, published a White Paper entitled: "Bringing Rights Home", presaging the momentous introduction of the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA) which gave effect in domestic law to most of the rights enshrined in the (European) Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR). Rather than incorporating the ECHR into domestic law, the HRA sets out in primary legislation, domestically, human rights that are "expressed in the same terms" as their equivalents in the Convention.Amnesty International commended the UK authorities for the introduction of the HRA as an initial step to deepening a human rights culture.
However, the erosion of human rights by government policies purporting to fight terrorism – a tendency well-developed over decades in relation to the conflict in Northern Ireland – was given renewed impetus by the UK’s actions in response to the attacks in the USA on 11 September 2001.
"Let no one be in any doubt. The rules of the game are changing." So warned on 5 August 2005 Prime Minister Tony Blair in the aftermath of the July bombings in London when outlining a package of measures,(1) described as countering terrorism, that threaten human rights, the independence of the judiciary and the rule of law. In fact the government started changing the rules well before then.
Since 11 September 2001, the UK authorities have passed a series of new laws, even though the UK already had some of the toughest "anti-terrorism" laws in Europe. These laws contain sweeping provisions that contravene human rights law, and their implementation has led to serious abuses of human rights.
People suspected of involvement in terrorism who have been detained in the UK under the new laws have found themselves in a Kafkaesque world. They have been held for years in harsh conditions on the basis of secret accusations that they are not allowed to know and therefore cannot refute. Amnesty International considers that the UK authorities have effectively persecuted men they have labelled "suspected international terrorists" and a "threat to national security", with devastating consequences for the men and their families.
After the events of 7 and 21 July 2005 in London, more draconian measures were proposed. These included a new Terrorism Bill currently before Parliament. Some of its most sweeping and vague provisions, if enacted, would undermine the rights to freedom of expression, association, liberty and fair trial.
So the Labour Party was doing quite well reversing the Conservative party's damage to human rights until its rightward shift following the September 11 attack on New York and the subsequent terrotist attack on London.
Moving on...how about New Zealand?
Sadly, I couldn't even find anything on the subject of human rights on the web-page of the right wing National Party.
Should we even bother with the United States?
Hmmm...so far Adam is completely out of whack with reality. Well, he's crowing specifically about the Conservatives and their principled stand on human rights abuses in China. How are they doing overall?
Not so great if you are gay.
Not so great if you are an aboriginal person.
Not so great if you would rather fight crimes through it root social causes rather than by locking up by more people.
Not so great if you believe poor people have a right to a redress of grievances through the legal system.
I guess its kind of nice to see the Conservatives pushing for human rights for citizens of China. I just wish they had the same commitment to people's rights here at home.
Our little tour of the Anglosphere is over folks, and what did we discover? Conservatives really aren't all that hot on human rights after all, and Adam Daifallah is a right wing hack who belongs with his like-minded brethren at the National Post.
I did see the Harper--China--"concern for human rights" thing yesterday, and it really weirded me out.
What the fleep is he up to? He doesn't give a crap about human rights. It isn't even the kind of publicity he'd normally favour--one would figure he'd be bigger into the "boosting Canada's economy with trade deals" imagery. So what's going on? Just sour grapes/damage control because the Chinese turned down a meeting? Or is there something else happening here?
I was wondering exactly the same thing. I am tempted to say the whole thing was stage-managed to make Harper look good, especially since a meeting is now suddenly back on again. Still, I have no proof of that, only deep suspicions.
Well, if the current kerfuffle arose because of the case of Huseyin Celil, then I think that Harper/MacKay are just doing what they have to do, however little committed to human rights in any deep sense they may be.
I dunno: probably they are chewing nails at having to sacrifice trade advantages to stand on principle, but they do have to defend Celil as a Canadian citizen, and I for one am glad that they are doing it.
I agree that Daifallah is doing nothing but spin on this issue, as of course MacKay and Sandra whazzername are as well. And that page of his that you link to, Tim, with Daifallah doing his imitation of cool guy (in boring suit) -- *snerk.*
Our relationship with China has bothered me for a long time, though. The Liberals were embarrassingly trade-driven, I thought, and I'm sure that the CPC would prefer to be too. It is very odd that they have got themselves caught in a serious human-rights case.
As I read through that CTV report, listening to the Libs and the Cons trying to differentiate themselves from one another, I am just shaking my head. Of course they do that for electoral purposes, but they are all perfectly happy with the relationship Chretien established, even if it means raping the environment in China and destroying jobs in Canada. Neo-libs are like that.
I remember a photo that ran in the G&M of Bob Rae, then NDP premier of Ontario and also gung-ho member of Team Canada, sailing along the Yangtze River through the Valley of the Three Gorges before it was flooded, enraptured at the thought that he was going to be one of the last privileged people to see that wonder before it was flooded, and flooded by agreements that he had helped to drive through.
Let the Liberals have him. And remember Tienanmen Square.