• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Saudi Arabia expels Canadian ambassador for urging release of activists

The problem with having principles and internal consistency is scale and limited resources (and by resources I mean willpower and clout).

I think if we only treated with countries who's current regimes have principles that met our litmus test for "moral and virtuous" then there'd be very VERY few countries in the world that we actually did business with.

So, why did we poke specifically KSA on this specific issue? I kind of agree that with KSA that we should stay out of their internal affairs, because we don't have the resources or energy to be the world's moral compass. If you're going to stick your nose where it doesn't belong, then you should go full tilt and not be hypocritical about it.
 
Remius said:
Maybe, as expressed in this opinion piece, it served to show the world KSA's true colours. 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/12/saudi-arabia-spat-canada-mohammed-bin-salman-true-colours

Ah. Got it. So Raif Badawi just gets to be collateral damage in all this, as Canada shows the world how evil the KSA monarchy is.

Too bad for her, huh?
 
SeaKingTacco said:
Ah. Got it. So Raif Badawi just gets to be collateral damage in all this, as Canada shows the world how evil the KSA monarchy is.

Too bad for her, huh?

How is it collateral? Wasn't he jailed back in 2012?
 
Remius said:
How is it collateral? Wasn't he jailed back in 2012?

An other interesting factoid. What is different between then and now? You would think this would have been raised in 2015 but nothing until now. So another question to ask is "why not?"
 
Lumber said:
Because they just jailed his sister.

Who cares? If the Trudeau Liberals actually gave a damn about the arrest of women's rights activists, where is the outrage from the following arrests I found in 30 seconds on Google?

https://www.iranhumanrights.org/2016/11/womens-rights-activist-arrested/
https://www.iol.co.za/news/africa/rwandan-activist-arrested-for-allegedly-challenging-government-11357704
https://www.indexoncensorship.org/2017/07/bahrain-activist-arrested-torture/
https://www.loc.gov/law/foreign-news/article/sudan-women-arrested-for-wearing-pants-are-released/
https://www.theverge.com/2018/2/9/16897048/metoo-china-feminism-activism

Are the Liberals more scared of Rwanda, Sudan, Bahrain, Iran and China than they are of Saudi Arabia? Or do they just pick and choose the outrage to further a narrative and virtue signal  for their domestic political audience? Nobody would care if they were consistent (they would probably be more applauded for that consistency), but it seems they pick and choose who and what to be outraged about.
 
PuckChaser said:
Who cares?

Take it easy Puck; I was merely answering the question "why did this happen now and not in 2012 when he was arrested." That's literally all.
 
Lumber said:
Take it easy Puck; I was merely answering the question "why did this happen now and not in 2012 when he was arrested." That's literally all.

I'm not targeting you, but the comment. Who cares if his sister was jailed? He's not a Canadian citizen, she's not a Canadian citizen, and his wife only became a citizen a month ago.
 
Thucydides said:
The KSA is doing things to advance their interests, and they likely see Canada's actions in a sinister light because of the way the Liberal government has been consorting with a known arm of the Muslim Brotherhood.
Yes, preserving and maintaining their monarchy. See above. Got it long ago without needling any explication, thanks. The question still remains why is that "permanent interest" so eminently understandable, relatable, rational and excusable, i.e. provokes sympathy, but the interest supported and defended in the tweet - due process - is dismissable with "virtue signalling".  Cynicism, partisan score-taking, and semi-intellectualizing only goes so far before one has to wonder.
No, the Liberals stepped into this one on their own.
Yes, and also nobody asked for or expected this fight. But now that it's upon us I would like to think we as Canadians, if not members of the CAF, are more principled than a den of blades.
 
Oh come on, of all the principles that "Canadians" might have, replacing due process in Saudi Arabia with something else, is not one of them.
 
Lumber said:
The problem with having principles and internal consistency is scale and limited resources (and by resources I mean willpower and clout).

I think if we only treated with countries who's current regimes have principles that met our litmus test for "moral and virtuous" then there'd be very VERY few countries in the world that we actually did business with.

So, why did we poke specifically KSA on this specific issue? I kind of agree that with KSA that we should stay out of their internal affairs, because we don't have the resources or energy to be the world's moral compass. If you're going to stick your nose where it doesn't belong, then you should go full tilt and not be hypocritical about it.

My issue with this entire spat with Saudi Arabia is how it was handled via Twittersphere as opposed to proper diplomatic channels.  I think we’ve done Samara Badawi a great disservice with the rout we’ve taken which is 100% for domestic political consumption as opposed to actually helping the jailed activists. 
 
PuckChaser said:
I'm not targeting you, but the comment. Who cares if his sister was jailed? He's not a Canadian citizen, she's not a Canadian citizen, and his wife only became a citizen a month ago.

Roger roger.  :salut:

PuckChaser said:
Or do they just pick and choose the outrage to further a narrative and virtue signal  for their domestic political audience?

This. Politics in this age is highly reactionary, and suffers from long term memory loss.
 
Lumber said:
This. Politics in this age is highly reactionary, and suffers from long term memory loss.

Which is why I mostly ignore politics now.  I’m completely apathetic to the politics in Canada and elsewhere atm. 
 
Perhaps it was wrong for major government institutions to join the information age and social media. I understand why they did it; if everyone is using twitter and facebook, then in order to seem relevant, you need act in kind. How can you reach your constituents if you’re using mediums that your constituents no longer use (i.e. news paper, cable, radio)?

Perhaps what has happened is that government institutions have become infected by the same rot that plagues larger society; that is that social media and access to instant information has created a culture that is reactionary, unforgiving, short sighted, ignorant and judgemental. By adopting the use of social media for communication and every day business, they thought they were merely being progressive and reaching their constituents at their level.

They thought that by using proper grammar, spelling, and avoiding ad hominem attacks that they could participate in social media in a mature and professional way, and avoid the toxicity that plagues the general public. What they failed to realize is that merely participating is enough to alter the fundamental mindset of how they perform politics.

Or maybe not; this is all conjecture.

Perhaps government institutions (and by this I include the CAF), should take a step back and go back to traditional means. Have official government websites with official government bulletins and communiques that have no social media feeds attached to them. If people want more info, then make them work for it.
 
I mentioned this earlier:  Germany and Sweeden both used other platforms to call out the KSA and suffered similar backlash.  This isn't about Twitter.  It's about being called out.  The KSA wants the world to shut up.

Calling out other countries is a long standing diplomatic tool.  Be it twitter, the radio, a letter or a speech.

Too many people are focussing on the tool used to do it. 
 
Lumber said:
Perhaps it was wrong for major government institutions to join the information age and social media. I understand why they did it; if everyone is using twitter and facebook, then in order to seem relevant, you need act in kind. How can you reach your constituents if you’re using mediums that your constituents no longer use (i.e. news paper, cable, radio)?

Perhaps what has happened is that government institutions have become infected by the same rot that plagues larger society; that is that social media and access to instant information has created a culture that is reactionary, unforgiving, short sighted, ignorant and judgemental. By adopting the use of social media for communication and every day business, they thought they were merely being progressive and reaching their constituents at their level.

They thought that by using proper grammar, spelling, and avoiding ad hominem attacks that they could participate in social media in a mature and professional way, and avoid the toxicity that plagues the general public. What they failed to realize is that merely participating is enough to alter the fundamental mindset of how they perform politics.

Or maybe not; this is all conjecture.

Perhaps government institutions (and by this I include the CAF), should take a step back and go back to traditional means. Have official government websites with official government bulletins and communiques that have no social media feeds attached to them. If people want more info, then make them work for it.

I'm wondering who the constituents are that are following government departments on Social Media.  How many ordinary Canadians are following these organizations on Twitter and Facebook?  Are these outlets really serving the general Canadian public, or are they just feeding the media and activist groups?
 
To borrow a line from HB in another thread, although I rarely wade into political threads, this is germane and I'm surprised it hasn't been posted because from my point of view, it perfectly frames the "problem" we have with the ongoing friction within the political threads. 

Prior to the news article, a few questions to pose in advance:

If it is amateurish of the current liberal government to conduct diplomacy via twitter, that would stand to reason that would apply to all Canadian governments, correct?

If the liberal government has no business in raising the issue of the Badawi's, that would apply to all Canadian governments, correct?

If the liberal government is "virtue signaling" via tweeting about human rights abuses, that would apply to all Canadian governments, correct?

If the liberals are showing moral weakness by not immediately cancelling the LAV contract while criticizing the KSA for their human rights record, that would apply to all Canadian governments, correct?

In the world of diplomacy, where precedents have meaning, would it be incorrect of the liberal government to expect the same reaction to one of its diplomatic initiatives (all things being equal) from the KSA as the KSA gave the former government to the exact same act?

And finally, what are we to make of a former Cabinet minister who was a staunch defender of human rights while in office, including directing tweets towards the KSA for their human rights, yet who now is attacking the liberal government for carrying on the tradition he set, considering he is now a member of an advisory board of a company that has a major stake in a project in the KSA?

Like it or not, for reasons that I'm going to try to figure out, the Badawi's are a bi-partisan issue for Canada; that certainly explains the deafening silence emanating from the conservatives on this issue.

Full article at link at the National Post.  Shared in accordance with the fair dealings provisions of the Copyright Act:

This has not been a good hour for Canada’: John Baird slams Trudeau government on Saudi state TV

...
When Baird was foreign affairs minister under then prime minister Stephen Harper, he was known as a frequent and sometimes aggressive supporter of human rights abroad.

“It’s completely hypocritical; this was a guy who was extremely vocal on human rights,” said Thomas Juneau, a Middle East analyst at the University of Ottawa.

It was Baird who suspended diplomatic relations with Iran in 2012, calling it “among the world’s worst violators of human rights.” He also helped orchestrate a 2010 meeting in which Harper directly confronted Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni over a bill that would have mandated lifelong prison sentences for homosexuals.

Baird had even issued tweets calling for the release of Badawi. “Deeply concerned that Raif Badawi will be publicly flogged again this week. Canada continues to urge authorities for clemency in this case,” he tweeted in January 2015.

Canada is deeply concerned by flogging of @raif_badawi – it is a violation of human dignity and freedom of expression http://t.co/jrjTc3qYMc
— John Baird (@Baird) January 15, 2015

Soon after that tweet, Baird personally raised Badawi’s case with Prince Turki Al Faisal, a member of the House of Saud.
...
 
Turn around 180 degrees. The constant 'its Harpers fault' or 'other governments did it, why cant we?' Blaming previous governments is standard fare. However, it doesnt mean anything to moving forward. The exception being making things better. Do we blame Trudeau Sr for Junior being PM? How far back do you want to blame? You can't march forward with confidence, if your walking and looking over your shoulder. Kinda a rear view mirror/ windshield thing. If a politician is using 'the other guy did it too.' He hasnt got a reason for what hes doing.
 
recceguy said:
Turn around 180 degrees. The constant 'its Harpers fault' or 'other governments did it, why cant we?' Blaming previous governments is standard fare. However, it doesnt mean anything to moving forward. The exception being making things better. Do we blame Trudeau Sr for Junior being PM? How far back do you want to blame? You can't march forward with confidence, if your walking and looking over your shoulder. Kinda a rear view mirror/ windshield thing. If a politician is using 'the other guy did it too.' He hasnt got a reason for what hes doing.

I think it has more to do with Baird criticising the tweet when he himself did the exact same thing back in 2015 involving the Badawis.

It's hypocrisy and he does not come off as credible. 
 
Back
Top