Ezra Levant goes on a Saudi ethics rant

[Tilter]

There should be no pro-Arab action until the males of that section of the world population join the human race. Walking upright doesn't always mean that they think as humans should. Any branch of animals that treat their female members like slaves are still sub-human.

[Smallc]

First of all, Ezra is certainly not like Rush Limbaugh.

You're right....he's like Glenn Beck. Rush Limbaugh, after all, isn't insane.

[Jack Weber]

You're right....he's like Glenn Beck. Rush Limbaugh, after all, isn't insane.

At least Glenn Beck was funny,in an unintentional paranoid lunatic sort of way...

Ezzy's just an ass...

[Moonlight Graham]

You're wrong on every count. This lie of yours that somehow if the West (specifically America) chooses to purchase Albertan oil over alternatives from tyrannies and non-free countries like Saudi Arabia and Venezuela, then the West should necessarily stop purchasing other products tyrannies and non-free countrieswithout reasonable Western alternatives, is ridiculous.

The point is simple, Albertan oil is an ethical alternative to oil from, say, Saudi Arabia. You then mention that we get a great deal of other products from China, which has a poor human rights record. Well, if you can point us in the direction of comparable alternatives to toasters and laptops from Western manufacturers, then we're all ears. Since no reasonable alternative exists at these time for many of these products that are typically manufactured in China and other poorer countries, you're making a stupid comparison between our purchasing of these products Levant's "ethical oil" argument.

The slippery slope is that if you care about the human rights ethics of importing from one country on one product, then you should be consistent and care about the human rights ethics of all imports from all countries. There are many products produced in countries with "unethical" regimes that Canada could choose to get from other countries. ie: Canada could get more or possibly all of its cotton from the US rather than China or Pakistan. Furthermore, if one cares about ethical imports then having Western businesses and consumers getting their products manufactured in countries like China presents ethical problems, since most Chinese manufacturing workers work under nasty conditions for peanut wages (about 60 cents/hour on average). Western countries also use their clout to secure very lopsided & exploitative terms of trade from virtually every underdeveloped country on the planet. All of this forms the very idea of "fair trade" products. If Canadians/the West bought

all of their products for ethical fair-trade prices/conditions, our standard of living would plummet.

And what the hell would be wrong with him being concerned with the profits of North American oil companies? He's a political commentator, not a CEO. I sure hope any patriotic Canadian would advocate for purchasing Canadian options over foreign alternatives where reasonable (quality and price being comparable, of course). It's so predictable and pathetic how leftists like you throw around "profit" as if it's a bad word.

Jump to conclusions much? Where did I say profits were bad? My point is that i'm willing to wager that Ezra Levant, a conservative from Alberta, is really only concerned with increased production/profits from Alberta oil sands, and is using the ethical oil argument to advance this interest when he likely doesn't give much of a toot about the human rights of Saudi women etc.

[msj]

Watching MG vs Bob is like watching a giant vs a midget.

Sorry, don't have anything more to add since MG has already stated it all in the first place.

[Keepitsimple]

I've mentioned this before but it bears repeating because of all the misinformation/lies that permeate cyberspace and the media:

1) The Oil Sands cover an area of over 140,000 square kilometers.

2) Since it's inception, Oil Sands production has disturbed only 602 square kilometers.

3) As of 2008, 67 square kilometers has been "reclaimed"

This might help to put into perspective the comparison that is being made - an environmental issue that is trivial (when it's understood) in the global context - against Middle East human rights that oppress millions.

Link: http://www.energy.alberta.ca/OilSands/791.asp

Edited October 10, 2011 by Keepitsimple

[blueblood]

The slippery slope is that if you care about the human rights ethics of importing from one country on one product, then you should be consistent and care about the human rights ethics of all imports from all countries. There are many products produced in countries with "unethical" regimes that Canada could choose to get from other countries. ie: Canada could get more or possibly all of its cotton from the US rather than China or Pakistan. Furthermore, if one cares about ethical imports then having Western businesses and consumers getting their products manufactured in countries like China presents ethical problems, since most Chinese manufacturing workers work under nasty conditions for peanut wages (about 60 cents/hour on average). Western countries also use their clout to secure very lopsided & exploitative terms of trade from virtually every underdeveloped country on the planet. All of this forms the very idea of "fair trade" products. If Canadians/the West bought

all of their products for ethical fair-trade prices/conditions, our standard of living would plummet.

Jump to conclusions much? Where did I say profits were bad? My point is that i'm willing to wager that Ezra Levant, a conservative from Alberta, is really only concerned with increased production/profits from Alberta oil sands, and is using the ethical oil argument to advance this interest when he likely doesn't give much of a toot about the human rights of Saudi women etc.

That's a fair point. There is one reason why oil is different than manufactured goods and that is oil costs the consumer the same whether it comes from the middle east or alberta. I don't think its an "ethical" issue as it is a national security issue. Manufactured goods from overseas cost the consumer less than goods produced over here for the time being. I am quite certain if manufactured goods cost the same produced here as in overseas, there would be a bigger kerfuffle about "shopping at home" because it would finally be cost effective to manufacture in north america.

Right now at this point in history, the middle east and their allies are perceived as a threat to the west, hence all the ethical oil marketing.

[Bob]

You're right....he's like Glenn Beck. Rush Limbaugh, after all, isn't insane.

Dumbest comparison ever.

[Bob]

The slippery slope is that if you care about the human rights ethics of importing from one country on one product, then you should be consistent and care about the human rights ethics of all imports from all countries. There are many products produced in countries with "unethical" regimes that Canada could choose to get from other countries. ie: Canada could get more or possibly all of its cotton from the US rather than China or Pakistan. Furthermore, if one cares about ethical imports then having Western businesses and consumers getting their products manufactured in countries like China presents ethical problems, since most Chinese manufacturing workers work under nasty conditions for peanut wages (about 60 cents/hour on average). Western countries also use their clout to secure very lopsided & exploitative terms of trade from virtually every underdeveloped country on the planet. All of this forms the very idea of "fair trade" products. If Canadians/the West bought

all of their products for ethical fair-trade prices/conditions, our standard of living would plummet.

Did you not read a word I wrote? I explained to you that the "ethical oil" argument advanced by Levant and others is contingent on a reasonable alternative (comparable price and quality) being available from modern, free, and civilized countries. If you think that Levant must also oppose the consumption of products manufactured in other countries such as China and Venezuela in order for the "ethical oil" argument in order to be consistent, then you obviously don't understand the argument. I guess you're not lying, you're really just unable to grasp the argument. My apologies, your "argument" wasn't predicated on deceit, but on ignorance.

I won't even touch the absurdity of your description of our current trade relationships with other countries as "exploitative" or "lopsided".

Jump to conclusions much? Where did I say profits were bad? My point is that i'm willing to wager that Ezra Levant, a conservative from Alberta, is really only concerned with increased production/profits from Alberta oil sands, and is using the ethical oil argument to advance this interest when he likely doesn't give much of a toot about the human rights of Saudi women etc.

Of course you view profits as bad, it's part of your ideology. In your world, profits are only acceptable if they aren't excessive. This is the natural conclusion of your false description of current trade relationships between Canada and poorer countries as "exploitative" and "lopsided". According to your sick worldview, we're just not paying coffee farmers enough for my Starbucks coffee to be "ethical" or "fair". Who determines what's ethical and fair? Why, you and your fellow myopic and anti-wealth leftists, of course!

[WWWTT]

The slippery slope is that if you care about the human rights ethics of importing from one country on one product, then you should be consistent and care about the human rights ethics of all imports from all countries.

Three problems with this approach:

1)There is an assumption made that the country imposing a ban for ethical reasons is clean free of any human right violations.

example.Canada bans imports of fruit from Brazil on the grounds that the Brazilian government is treating the aboriginal natives poorly,such as expropriating their land and shuffling them onto reserves.

2)I do not believe there is one or any country or ethnic group with completely clean hands when it comes to human rights violation.Would an importing country have to go back in time and see how long such exporting country has a clean record?

3)What is a human rights violation?How open is the interpretation and who would set the standard?Or even enforce this?

WWWTT

[cybercoma]

Since real human rights abuses are comparable to imaginary problems resulting from oil sands development in Alberta. unless you mean the "human impact" of creating jobs and wealth in Alberta as a result of this development, just as is done in Saudi Arabia?

The human impact of the environmental destruction happening in Alberta is just as real as the human rights abuses in Saudi Arabia. Anyone can stick their fingers in their ears, squeeze their eyes shut, and pretend it isn't happening, but isn't that Levant's criticism about buying oil from Saudi Arabia?

"Imaginary problems"... unreal.

[Bob]

The human impact of the environmental destruction happening in Alberta is just as real as the human rights abuses in Saudi Arabia. Anyone can stick their fingers in their ears, squeeze their eyes shut, and pretend it isn't happening, but isn't that Levant's criticism about buying oil from Saudi Arabia?

"Imaginary problems"... unreal.

The "human impact" of wealth creation and jobs, right? Those are bad things, eh? Maybe they're developing on some sacred Aboriginal burial grounds?

[cybercoma]

The "human impact" of wealth creation and jobs, right? Those are bad things, eh? Maybe they're developing on some sacred Aboriginal burial grounds?

Oil productoin in Saudi Arabia creates wealth and jobs too, right? By your thinking, we can just ignore the other problems. Edited October 10, 2011 by cybercoma

[bud]

I haven't seen that and it's a pretty serious charge: do you have a link?

he's repeated his support for ethnic cleansing a few times. here is one example:

Expulsion is the only real answer. At a minimum, mass revocation of voting privileges for Arabs/Muslims must be done in Israel.

[Jack Weber]

he's repeated his support for ethnic cleansing a few times. here is one example:

That's not precisely ethnic cleansing...

It's more like ethnic exclusion...

Distasteful nonetheless,and he did intimate that it should be a minimum benchmark...

[Smallc]

Dumbest comparison ever.

You're right...Glenn Beck is still too high a comparison.

[Moonlight Graham]

Three problems with this approach:

1)There is an assumption made that the country imposing a ban for ethical reasons is clean free of any human right violations.

example.Canada bans imports of fruit from Brazil on the grounds that the Brazilian government is treating the aboriginal natives poorly,such as expropriating their land and shuffling them onto reserves.

2)I do not believe there is one or any country or ethnic group with completely clean hands when it comes to human rights violation.Would an importing country have to go back in time and see how long such exporting country has a clean record?

3)What is a human rights violation?How open is the interpretation and who would set the standard?Or even enforce this?

This is the problem with human rights in general. All "human rights" are subjective, philosophical moral judgments based on what people deem as right or wrong.

[WWWTT]

This is the problem with human rights in general. All "human rights" are subjective, philosophical moral judgments based on what people deem as right or wrong.

True,but I do not believe this should distract from trying to achieve some kind of consensus from all nations around the world.

I believe it is difficult when several countries in the west try to impose some moral values on others.Those other nation must reply with some kind of "just look in the mirror" responce.

In other words how can the US,Canada or Britain be such champions of human rights(at least our definition)when we ourselves were some of the greatest violaters of human rights by our own definition not too long ago?

WWWTT

[Sir Bandelot]

I think that all around the world, given the option people prefer products that are procured ethically and without undo damage to the environment. This has to do with sustainability.

Obviously when there is no alternative we will buy whatever is the only option, but the consumers of the future want ethical consumption. Increasingly, the consumer is demanding it and companies would be wise to pay attention. Those that use this as part of their marketing strategy will do well, and eventually succeed over others, especially if they can also be competitive in terms of quality and economy.

[cybercoma]

I believe it is difficult when several countries in the west try to impose some moral values on others.

I don't. Moral relativism leads to nihilism. If there isn't some absolute standard of morality, then there is no morality at all. Everything is permissable. I don't think it's ethnocentric at all to say that genocide is not a cultural privilege, among other injustices and immoral actions.

[Michael Hardner]

he's repeated his support for ethnic cleansing a few times. here is one example:

Bob didn't call for ethnic cleansing. He said that if the same conflict in the ME happened here, then it would be considered as a possible response.

Please don't put words in other posters' mouths.

[Moonlight Graham]

I don't. Moral relativism leads to nihilism. If there isn't some absolute standard of morality, then there is no morality at all. Everything is permissable. I don't think it's ethnocentric at all to say that genocide is not a cultural privilege, among other injustices and immoral actions.

There should be some universal standard, but it must be broad to include the worst offenses, and not every freedom only some cultures hold dear. Some cultures cut the foreskin of the penis off their babies, while i'm sure other cultures would find that disgusting & cruel.

Freedom from things like murder, rape, genocide, slavery, torture, arbitrary arrest/detention, and i'm sure more, could be called universal rights I would hope.

Reading the Universal Declaration of Human Rights reads like the US Bill of Rights or similar texts, clearly having a western view of rights even though they apparently honestly tried to have people from all major cultures help draft it (with the exclusion of an African rep I believe).

[Rick]

Bob didn't call for ethnic cleansing. He said that if the same conflict in the ME happened here, then it would be considered as a possible response.

Please don't put words in other posters' mouths.

Have to agree with bud on this one.

It's quite clear that Bob's intent was to call for ethnic cleansing.

I know I've seen similar posts by him before too but I just let it slide as simply more of his nazi fascist rhetoric.

[Tilter]

I have to agree with you Moonlight.

A good example would be the US!

The US has the highest incarciration rate in the world!If that isn't a human rights violation then non exist!

Thanx for injecting some reality into the debate!

WWWTT

Somewhere or another I read that Canada's incarciration rate was higher than the USa's, that the per capita rate was higher here.

We can't cut off the imports from China---- what would we do with 500 empty W**marts or 50,000 Dollar stores with no stock? :lol: :lol:

[Michael Hardner]

Somewhere or another I read that Canada's incarciration rate was higher than the USa's, that the per capita rate was higher here.

It's very difficult to understand how any study could come up with that result.

Incarceration Rates - Wikipedia

Canada is 123rd of 216 countries studied.

Source: Entire world - Prison Population Rates per 100,000 of the national population. Highest to Lowest Rates. World Prison Brief. International Centre for Prison Studies. School of Law, King's College London. Accessed on January 24, 2011.