Harper in Colombia

[Michael Bluth]

From the speech the Prime Minister gave today in Chile.

Canada is committed to playing a bigger role in the Americas and to doing so for the long term.

Three key objectives form the basis of our engagement in the Americas:

First, to strengthen and promote our foundational values of freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law.

Second, to build strong, sustainable economies through increased trade and investment linkages, as well as a mutual commitment to expanding opportunity to all citizens; and

Third, to meet new security challenges, as well as natural disasters and health pandemics.

Hmmm, guess he does care about human rights. Or at least pays as much lip service to it as did Chretien.

[jdobbin]

Hmmm, guess he does care about human rights. Or at least pays as much lip service to it as did Chretien.

It is an easier speech to make in Chile which is a relatively stable democracy.

It seems that the Harper government has two different approaches when it comes to Colombia and say, China.

[Michael Bluth]

It is an easier speech to make in Chile which is a relatively stable democracy.

It seems that the Harper government has two different approaches when it comes to Colombia and say, China.

Why wouldn't they?

Two different countries. Two different parts of the world.

But it's somehow a failing of the Government for not using a cookie cutter approach?

[Michael Bluth]

It's not ending trade, it was refusal to negotiate and bring more in, not a spin, fact.

If you are going to actually use "facts" provide support.

Here I will state the fact that it was the Chinese not agreeing to meetings.

Here is a link to support my fact.

The following is a quote from the link to support the fact.

Discussions have been under way to try to arrange a bilateral meeting between Harper and Chinese President Hu Jintao. But some observers found it significant that, only days before the kick-off of the forum, no meeting had been confirmed yet.

"That's actually quite serious, because that means the Chinese want to tell us they're annoyed," said Michael Byers, the Canada Research Chair in global politics and international law at the University of British Columbia.

But good work on trying to make it look like Harper was the one avoiding the meetings.

[jdobbin]

Why wouldn't they?

Two different countries. Two different parts of the world.

But it's somehow a failing of the Government for not using a cookie cutter approach?

I'm sure China would like the Colombian human rights policy from the Harper government.

It would seem that human rights are inconsistently applied as policy in Canada.

[Michael Bluth]

I'm sure China would like the Colombian human rights policy from the Harper government.

It would seem that human rights are inconsistently applied as policy in Canada.

Do explain which specific parts of the Harper Government's "Colombian human rights policy" the Chinese Government would like?

Actual evidence from the Government's policy would be fair and honest. Then again, are you really interested in fair and honest debate?

[jdobbin]

Do explain which specific parts of the Harper Government's "Colombian human rights policy" the Chinese Government would like?

Actual evidence from the Government's policy would be fair and honest. Then again, are you really interested in fair and honest debate?

Canada's policy on human rights has been far more aggressive on China than Colombia. I doubt very much that Harper would tolerate his MPs visiting imprisoned union leaders or journalist in Colombia as he does with Jason Kenney in China.

The whole foreign policy changes bear some examination.

[jdobbin]

If you are going to actually use "facts" provide support.

Here I will state the fact that it was the Chinese not agreeing to meetings.

You already had a countering link in another thread that showed that Canada had not met any Chinese officials including their ambassador for seven months after taking power. That's a fact too.

[Michael Bluth]

Canada's policy on human rights has been far more aggressive on China than Colombia. I doubt very much that Harper would tolerate his MPs visiting imprisoned union leaders or journalist in Colombia as he does with Jason Kenney in China.

The whole foreign policy changes bear some examination.

Is there anything nearly as atrocious in Colombia as the treatment of Falun Gong in China?

All of your evidence about Harper's foreign policy is based on your "doubts" about what Harper would or wouldn't allow his MPs to do. Good work sir.

[Michael Bluth]

You already had a countering link in another thread that showed that Canada had not met any Chinese officials including their ambassador for seven months after taking power. That's a fact too.

Not really sure what a countering link is.

If the same article disproves made up facts posted by two different posters on two different threads, there is nothing against that in the rules.

[jdobbin]

Not really sure what a countering link is.

If the same article disproves made up facts posted by two different posters on two different threads, there is nothing against that in the rules.

I'm saying that you are wrong in terms of which country was the first in cancelling official meetings. You've already seen that reference but somehow still think it is China that started with the cancellations.

[jdobbin]

Is there anything nearly as atrocious in Colombia as the treatment of Falun Gong in China?

All of your evidence about Harper's foreign policy is based on your "doubts" about what Harper would or wouldn't allow his MPs to do. Good work sir.

I think you must be joking. There are 17,000 a year murdered in Colombia. It has the second greatest amount of displaced people in the world after Sudan. The Supreme Court of Colombia is investigating people close to the president and the U.S. has put a pause on the trade relationship until these issues are resolved.

[Michael Bluth]

I think you must be joking. There are 17,000 a year murdered in Colombia. It has the second greatest amount of displaced people in the world after Sudan. The Supreme Court of Colombia is investigating people close to the president and the U.S. has put a pause on the trade relationship until these issues are resolved.

To repeat, any evidence other than your "doubts" about what Harper would allow his MPs to do?

[Michael Bluth]

I'm saying that you are wrong in terms of which country was the first in cancelling official meetings. You've already seen that reference but somehow still think it is China that started with the cancellations.

There was tit for tat in the cancellations. This is the first time you acknowledged that.

Thanks for at least moving a little bit towards the direction of honesty.

[jdobbin]

There was tit for tat in the cancellations. This is the first time you acknowledged that.

Thanks for at least moving a little bit towards the direction of honesty.

Tit for tat means going back and forth. It was seven long months of no official contact between Canada and China.

[jdobbin]

To repeat, any evidence other than your "doubts" about what Harper would allow his MPs to do?

I see you haven't gone on to argue that Colombia's 17,000 murders is not so atrocious.

As far as what Harper would allows his MPs to do, he seemed to have no trouble with them criticizing China.

[Michael Bluth]

As far as what Harper would allows his MPs to do, he seemed to have no trouble with them criticizing China.

Yes sir you are correct.

Any actual evidence to support your 'doubts' vis-a-vis MP comments about Colombia?

Try as you might, your drive by, unsubstantiated innuendo isn't appropriate.

[Michael Bluth]

Tit for tat means going back and forth. It was seven long months of no official contact between Canada and China.

so you are now admitting it wasn't all the Harper government's fault? thanks for that

[jdobbin]

so you are now admitting it wasn't all the Harper government's fault? thanks for that

Quite the spin there. Seven months. Seven months of meetings cancelled by Canada with no explanation.

[jdobbin]

Yes sir you are correct.

Any actual evidence to support your 'doubts' vis-a-vis MP comments about Colombia?

Try as you might, your drive by, unsubstantiated innuendo isn't appropriate.

Report me then.

[Michael Bluth]

Yes sir you are correct.

Any actual evidence to support your 'doubts' vis-a-vis MP comments about Colombia?

Try as you might, your drive by, unsubstantiated innuendo isn't appropriate.

Report me then.

Naw, I'll behave how I feel like behaving. Thanks for trying to tell me what to do though.

[Michael Bluth]

My spin was substantiated.

Yours was so false you moved off it...

[jdobbin]

Naw, I'll behave how I feel like behaving. Thanks for trying to tell me what to do though.

No problem. You seem to be one who needs instructions. Perhaps if I had web page that read: Conservative Talking Points, you would follow those without question.

[jdobbin]

My spin was substantiated.

Yours was so false you moved off it...

What a laugh. Once again you are caught in the web of your own illusions.

The Tories were responsible for no contact for seven months. The Chinese tried to get their ambassador to meet MacKay and were rebuffed until the Globe and Mail reported it. What a way to run a ship.

[Michael Bluth]

No problem. You seem to be one who needs instructions.

Only because I don't share your hatred for anyone who dares to oppose your views or your self-loathing.

Nice attack on the Conservatives though.