hit counter script

March 31, 2011

CBC not nuanced in its moral equivalence

At issue: CBC.ca has an article that outlines a report from Amnesty International aboutCanada’s changed role as leader on human rights. The headline?

Amnesty slams Canada’s recent rights record

And how does the CBC describe the report?

Canada’s global reputation as a human rights champion has been eroded in recent years, according to a scathing Amnesty International report that doesn’t specifically name Stephen Harper’s Conservatives but raises frequent criticisms of foreign policy under the Tories.

Let’s look at how the CBC has reported other reactions from Amnesty international:

In Mubarek’s Egypt, we see “concern” expressed:

Hafez Abu Seda, president of the Egyptian Organization of Human Rights, said the suspects should be punished for “torture rather than ill treatment, because there is a huge difference.”

Amnesty International expressed concern Monday that witnesses in the trial could be harassed and urged the government to ensure their safety.

And according to the CBC, when else is Amnesty International “scathing” in it’s critique? When Amnesty describes Mexican justice system

Amnesty says it has evidence of Mexicans being tortured into confessing to crimes they didn’t commit. In a scathing assessment of the justice system here, Amnesty claims that those with money get better treatment than those who don’t have any.

When Amnesty describes “war crimes” in the Middle East:

Amnesty International issued a scathing report Thursday accusing Israel and Hamas of committing war crimes during a 22-day conflict in the Gaza Strip last December and January.

Stephen Harper’s crime for being “slammed” in a “scathing” report according to the CBC? He defunded Kairos, won’t let Omar Khadr back in Canada, and supports Israel…

Here’s Amnesty’s report on Canada. Would you call it “scathing”? I didn’t read about any torture, domestic military incursion, or human rights abuses by our Canadian government.

Lately, the conversation among a few has been drifting into hyperbole and gross distortions. The last time Michael Ignatieff spoke about “regime change”, he was advocating the invasion of Iraq. Now he suggests we live under a word we’ve come to reserve for the governments of brutal dictators. We see actual human rights abuses in some of the most hopeless parts of the world under the most evil governments. Yet, the moral equivocators of the world speak in nuanced words to please dictators and describe policy discord of a rights organization with Canada’s government in the same tones it reserves (and neglects to use) for the same. Isn’t it about time we got back to our adult conversation?

This entry was authored by at 11:00 PM | Tweet this | Comments (9)
| Feedback | #
  • Liz J

    Defunding Kairos, not letting Omar Khadr back in Canada, supports Israel, the only democracy in that part of the world, all positives to any mind capable of reason or a thought process beyond a turnip.

    How can anyone expect there to be any adult conversation with the present political demographic? Take a look at the juvenile antics of the entire opposition who plan to take over the reins of power if the winning party doesn’t get a majority. A coalition of losers is their definition of democracy, the party chosen by the people to govern should be left our altogether. That’s beyond reason, beyond contempt for the people and the democratic process.

    If Amnesty were doing their real work they wouldn’t be looking at Canada.

  • Jon Coates

    Let’s face facts. For the past 5 years, the CBC’s news department has been little more than a free propaganda machine for the Liberal Party. If I were Steven Harper, right after I was elected with a majority I would propose two changes: 1. There would be no further subsidy payments to political parties form the public treasury and, 2. I would cut CBC’s subsidies so deeply that they would have to fire some of the venomous people who pretend to be producers in their Toronto studios.

  • Gabby in QC

    Everybody should tone down the rhetoric and quit using words that elicit an emotional response. Even a simple word like “claim” — as in “Mr.X claims he did not do Y” as opposed to “Mr.X says he did not do Y” — carries an implied meaning. “Claims” sounds defensive on the part of the speaker and doubtful on the part of the listener, whereas “says” is a neutral statement.

    The media, lobbyists, NGOs, and all the assorted “militants” promoting their own cause (they gotta save their own jobs, after all) should buy thesauruses to help them choose the appropriate term that applies to given situations.

    On a different tack … I know some conservatives would like to see the CBC defunded completely. I disagree with that. I prefer one of two routes:
    1. Collapse all the CBC/Radio-Canada channels into one. Do viewers need to see the same “report” broadcast over and over again, hour after hour, on the CBC News Network? Do we really need two hours of Evan Solomon interrupting Conservatives but sitting in rapt attention listening to a Liberal? Why not combine entertainment hours interspersed with news hours throughout the day? And why not do so in the two official languages — on the same channel? That would cut down on costs, wouldn’t it?

    2. Collapse the CBC/Radio Canada into a PBS-style network which receives some limited public funding but most of its money comes from the public that chooses to support it.

    Of course, I realize both ideas are pie-in-the sky and will never be accepted. So, my only recourse is to fire off the occasional email to whichever media personality ticks me off, or comment on their blogs or on whatever story I find biased or inaccurate.

  • batb

    When does this crap end?

    I guess not till we FIRE. THEM.ALL — the CBC apparatchiks, that is. (I’m being hyperbolic; I would like to see, however, a considerable ramp down of government support for the CBC and its role circumscribed to genuine news programs — not left-lib commentary — and what they do best — or used to do best: providing top-quality musical programming, including choral music.

    Amnesty International has very little credibility left if they’re “slamming” Canada’s human rights record and register only “concern” for Egypt’s. ‘Talk about losing perspective. As for the CBC, they’re shills for the Liberal$ and lost their credibility years ago.

    Prime Minister Harper announced today that he will get rid of subsidy payments to political parties which are underwritten by taxpayers: hallelujah! If the Conservatives get a majority, this policy, alone, may put an end to the Liberal$, the Bloc, and maybe the NDP. Why should taxpayers subsidize political parties which can’t raise enough money from their supporters to stay in business? The CPC is the only party which isn’t asking the Canadian taxpayers to shell out for their continued existence.

    The gauntlet on both sides has been thrown down.

    So, let the games begin. Much is at stake.

  • Doug R

    I will certainly agree that hyperbole is one of the greatest problems with politics today, both in the media and from the political parties themselves, but are you sure this is the report you want to use to make this point? Personally, I believe it is imperative that Canada be held to a different standard than countries such as Egypt or Mexico. To suggest that we get an A+ year after year as long as our justice system remains free of corruption and we don’t torture anyone is ridiculous. Thankfully our country enjoys a solid international reputation of protecting human rights. I am very happy that the international community is willing to point out to us when we don’t live up to those.

  • batb

    Pointing out that Canada doesn’t “live up to” her commitment of upholding human rights (a criticism that applies across the board) isn’t the same thing as “slamming” Canada’s “scathing” (huh?) record, while showing only “concern” for Egypt’s.

    How about a comment on Amnesty International’s skewed, anti-Harper perspective rather than “slamming” Stephen Taylor’s reporting of this rather preposterous anomaly? (I don’t remember any criticism from Amnesty when the Chretien and Martin Liberal$ were in power.)

  • Anonymous

    Dear Amnesty International,

    So glad you have the time & resources to focus on such miniscule rights issues we have in Canada while you remain silent as Syria takes over leadership of the UNHRC.

    So, in closing, Blow Me.

    Yours truly,

    Canada

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_WWORTLS66NRFNQU2C7ADTD47BE Stephen Forrest

    Well, it’s one or the other: either Amnesty International is being excessive in the tone of its reports towards Canada when compared to Egypt, or it’s not and it’s CBC fault for distorting AI’s message.

    Take your pick; you can’t have both.

  • batb

    I kept trying to post a “correction,” blaming the CBC for their inflammatory language. However, why would Amnesty International even be concerned or try to wrap Canada’s knuckles when it never did when the Liberal$ were in power? So, actually, we can have it both ways in this instance: Amnesty International’s “frequent criticisms of foreign policy under the Tories” (why?) and the CBC’s over-the-top rhetoric in describing Amnesty’s criticisms of the Tories’ foreign policy.

    Recently, there seems to be a concerted effort on the part of the Left to tar and feather the CPC and our Prime Minister. It seems to have been orchestrated to hit the airwaves like a tsunami.