Is Harper trying for a record? 3 instances of hypocrisy in 3 weeks.

For your consideration: Three items of hypocrisy from the government of Canada all occurring in the past three weeks.

Item #1:  Organ donation = good.  Gay organ donation = bad.


According to the CBC, Canada’s Conservative government changed a federal government policy in order to forbid homosexuals from donating organs.  The catch?  There’s four of them:

a) The government of Canada neglected to tell key groups and medical professionals involved in minor, unrelated fields — fields such as organ donation — that the organ donation laws had been changed.

b) The government of Canada is still willing to accept homosexual women’s healthy organs, just not homosexual men’s healthy organs.

c) The government of Canada is still willing to accept homosexual men’s healthy organs provided they abstain from homosexual activity for a period of 5 years (although our gay brothers can take solace from the fact that, presumably,  the government has no problem with them engaging in ‘relations’ with women during said five year period).

d) The government of Canada is still willing to accept without question wildly promiscuous heterosexual men and women’s organs as well as the organs of heterosexual couples who engage in anal sex.

Item #2:  Canada opts out of UN global anti-racism conference because… racism will be discussed.

The government of Canada just announced that it will not be attending the annual UN global anti-racism conference because one possible topic will be:  anti-Arab racism and specifically anti-Arab racism in Israel.

The catch?  Talking about the racism of our enemies towards us and our allies is fine and good and worthwhile.  Talking about the racism of our allies towards our enemies is beyond the pale, a waste of time and, to quote a government official, a “gong show”.  Incidentally, the government isn’t alone on this front.  Former Liberal Justice Minister Irwin Cotler aptly summed up the party line of both major parties in Canada when he said last year, with a straight face and unquestioned by the mainstream media that:

“the most virulent of hatreds [is] namely, anti-Semitism.” (source)

more-equal-than-others.pngThus, hatred isn’t all equal.  Hatred towards our allies is the “most virulent of hatreds” while hatred of our enemies is somehow less “virulent” or horrendous.

Or perhaps we’re just reading too much into this.  Perhaps all hatreds are equal but some are just more equal than others?

Item #3:  Canada says threatening the world with nuclear weapons is unacceptable…. except when we do it.

Last April, Prime Minister Stephen Harper stated publicly and unequivocally that given  “the kind of values it [Iran] stands for…  I think our allies have a completely legitimate case in being concerned about a regime like that gaining access to nuclear weapons.” (source)

dr-strangelove.pngSeems reasonable.  The government of Canada would never support an offensive, bellicose regime having nuclear weapons.  It’s true that our allies may have nuclear weapons, but they would never be offensive or bellicose with them nor would they threaten to use them except, as has been official policy since the end of the Cold War, in retaliation against a nuclear attack.

The catch?

It turns out that an official NATO panel consisting of highest-level representatives from our nuclear-equipped allies (representatives including Britain’s former Chief of Staff Field Marshal the Lord Inge and the United States’ former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General John Shalikashvili) have just released a NATO policy document advocating a more aggressive, bellicose and offensive nuclear weapons stances for NATO.  This policy document includes reversing long-standing NATO policy and advocating in favour of first-strike, pre-emptive nuclear strategies for NATO.  The dossier also advocates “the use of force without UN security council authorisation” under some circumstances (source, source, source)dr-strangelove-2.png

Just as an aside, if a panel of Iran’s highest officials and generals just advocated Iran adopt such a position towards us, how do you suppose the North American media would react?  Do suppose maps would still bother depicting a chunk of land called “Iran” located in between Iraq and Afghanistan?



See also:

Propaganda in Action: The Iranian Hostage Crisis

Propaganda In Action: Canada as a force for peace in the world

Is socialism violent or is liberalism hypocritical?

The hypocrisy of anti-copyright campaigns

Israeli lobby group has begun to pay students to agree with Israeli policy

10 Responses to “Is Harper trying for a record? 3 instances of hypocrisy in 3 weeks.”

  1. 1 CT 23 January, 2008 at 11:38 pm

    Great post. I was utterly shocked to read that the organ donation rules had changed…that is so ugly…it makes me a bit ashamed of my country actually and I haven’t even read the rest of the post yet.

  2. 2 Chris Vickers 25 January, 2008 at 5:19 am

    I agree with you on the organ donation issue. Gay men are being unfairly targeted. I disagree with you completely on the alleged anti racism conference soon to take place in Durban. The last conference quickly degenerated into Jew bashing. The agenda for the new conference will feature further Jew bashing while the Sudan and Darfur are not on the agenda, nor will Myanmar’s continued extermination of their hill tribes, nor will China’s treatment of Tibet or Uighur. Apparently if people of colour commit extermination of other people of colour, it is not racism. Canada should not be there to lend this farce any credibility.

  3. 3 paulitics 25 January, 2008 at 10:19 am

    Chris, I’ve never been able to find a transcript of the proceedings of the anti-racism conferences in the past, however I think it’s a bit rich to say that the conference ‘degenerated into anti-semitism’.

    In the first anti-racism conference in Durban in 2001, the conference members passed more resolutions condemning the practice of anti-semitism than they did any other kind of racism.


    Click to access durban.pdf

    Does this sound like the work of a conference full of “jew haters”?

    Moreover, if you take a look at the documentation carefully, I think you’ll agree that there’s definitely a motivation for the U.S. and Israel opting out of last year’s conference. In addition to condemning anti-semitism in the strongest terms, the conference also committed the sin of deciding against the wishes of the U.S. and Israel to talk about reparations for former African slaves in the United States as well as Anti-Arab racism in Israel and the occupied territories. Don’t you find it odd that out of approximately 200 countries, the only two countries that opted out of the anti-racism conference when these two subjects were discussed was the United States and Israel?

    The only difference between this year and last year is that now the U.S. and Israel have the right-wing Harper government to join them in their abstention.

    I don’t think you can find any credible evidence to support the position that these three countries opted out of the conference because of non-strategic reasons.

    • 4 AbbaEban 9 October, 2009 at 4:14 am

      In the first anti-racism conference in Durban in 2001, the conference members passed more resolutions condemning the practice of anti-semitism than they did any other kind of racism.

      Ooooo…they condemned it… Somehow the word ‘condemn’ has lost all meaning…

      Arafat condemned terror attacks he funded himself (in English at least; it’s too bad the interest in the Arabic language only spiked after 9/11, if some of the networks had translated his Arab speeches they’d realize the “condemnation” was “lost in translation”…)

      Ahmadinijad condemns racism & perjudice as he hangs young homosexuals and lets their bodies dangle in city squares as a warning.

      Let’s face it –
      ‘condemnations, even when genuine, *don’t save lives*. Action is the one and only currency of any value, of an meaning.

  4. 5 AbbaEban 9 October, 2009 at 4:02 am

    The government of Canada just announced that it will not be attending the annual UN global anti-racism conference because one possible topic will be: anti-Arab racism and specifically anti-Arab racism in Israel

    Right, um, ya… But um… a Holocaust denier was a keynote speaker at said conference…

    You also had ‘esteemed experts’ who cal what is going on in Judea, Samaria & Gaza a “genocide” despite the fact that the Arabs who call themselves “Palestinians” are experiencing an explosive rate of population growth (Gaza had among the highest in the world up to a few years ago)…

    BTW – I say “Palestinians” because it is an artificial construct. The root of the name Palestine came from a Roman Emperor (Hadrian) who wanted to erase the Jewish identity of Israel after the Bar Kochba revolts. He renamed Israel to Palastina, invoking the name of the Jews ancient enemies, the Phillistines (who, despite ‘urban myth’ have nothing to do with “Palestinians” or Arabs; the Phillistines were not-Sematic people!). He also renamed Jerusalem to Aelia Capitalina (sp?) but luckily, that name did not stick.

    Pre-partition the Middle East was full of “Arabs”, it was only after the world created many artificial Arab Kingdoms (often to reward tribes who’d shown allegiance to the allies in the conflict against the Ottomans) that they became Yemeni, Jordanian, Saudi, Lebanese, Iraqi or yes, “Palestinian”. YES – THESE ARE ALL NEW NATIONS, THE VAST MAJORITY WITHOUT ANY HISTORICAL PRECEDENCE!

    Much of what we now call Saudi Arabia (the Heraz region) was originally given to the Hashemites, who lost it to the House of Saud and then wanted ‘replacement land’ from the Brits, who owed them for their allegiance in the war against the Ottomans. The Brits gave them 70% of the Ottoman Province of Palestine, it became Jordan… yes, Israel sits on less than 20% of the former Ottoman Province of Palestine (the other % are Gaza & areas of Judea full controlled by PA).

    Of course – this was not according to Plan. The Brits had already promised the Jews ALL OF PALESTINE in the Balfour Declaration (of 1918 or 1920, the date escapes me right now… It was long before the name “Hitler” was on anyones radar… So much for Ahmadinijads rantings). They cut 70% of that land when they created Trans-Jordan. In 1948 the World went back on its word YET AGAIN, and instead of offering the Jews the remaining 30%, they split the remainder yet again, creating YET ANOTHER ARAB COUNTRY (even though 99% of the MidEast was already handed to the Arabs!).

    Israel accepted this raw deal… The Arabs rejected it.
    Israel declared statehood… The Arabs declared war.

    The rest is history…

    I know most of the people on this board won’t agree… Point is, there is more to this conflict than meets the eye… It has NOTHING to do with land, nothing to do with 1948 and everything to do with the mandated conquest of Dar Al Harab.
    This is what drove & justified Muhammed’s betrayal of the Jews at Khyber;
    justified and drove the imposition of Jizya (Koran 9:29, “so that they may feel subdued”) & forced movement through Surgun by the Ottomans; the Hebron massacre of 1929;
    the Grand-Mufti of Jerusalem’s open admiration of the Nazis & meeting with Adolph Hitler (yep! there are photographs)

    Try to seperate yourself from empty rheotric – if Israel was 1% as bad as its made out to be then do explain: WHY IS THERE ONE BREATHING ENEMY OF ISRAEL LEFT ALIVE? In its early conflicts Israel did not enjoy the American patronage it does today (the Americans only supplied major aid, very different from ‘selling weapons’ at the end of the last Major Conflict – the Yom Kippur War) – it was out-tech’d and outnumbered by Arab states who were far richer and far better position to wage war. Every conflict could have been its last. Yet in the 6 Day War, when Israel could have marched to Damascus, Amman or Cairo largely uncontested (it had TOTAL air superiority by then, the enemies armoured columns were thus sitting ducks) it did not. When it could have taken all of Lebanon, it did not. When it could have flattened all of Gaza without risking one hair on one young Jews head by using far cheaper techniques (artillery & ‘dumb’ bombs) during Cast Lead it opted for laser guided munitions – far more expensive and absolutely put the life of the marker & ground troops at risk.

    Why is it that Israel – the victor in all its conflicts, the nation that stands to gain the LEAST from peace – the one expected to make concessions? Since when do the losers of wars dictate terms? Since when do nations get do-overs?
    The Arabs invaded…They lost… Had they won we ALL know nobody would be discussing ‘occupied Jewish land’, it would just be another footnote in history.

  5. 6 web page 27 July, 2013 at 7:24 pm

    Heya! I just wanted to ask if you ever have any problems with hackers?
    My last blog (wordpress) was hacked and I ended up losing months of hard work due to
    no data backup. Do you have any methods to protect against

  6. 7 webpage 31 July, 2013 at 9:33 pm

    If some one wants expert view regarding blogging and site-building then i suggest him/her
    to visit this website, Keep up the fastidious job.

  1. 1 NATO and nukes | Toban Black Trackback on 27 January, 2008 at 12:24 pm
  2. 2 When you let a fundy run your country . . . « Five Public Opinions Trackback on 8 February, 2008 at 9:39 pm
  3. 3 Harper has just ordered his government to try and destroy the opposition parties’ funding yet again. « Paulitics Trackback on 27 August, 2009 at 9:59 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


home page polling resource

Click below to download the

Paulitics Blog Search

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.5 Canada License.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in the comments section beneath each post on this blog do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of the blog's author and creator. Individual commentators on this blog accept full responsibility for any and all utterances.


Progressive Bloggers

Blogging Canadians

Blogging Change

Paulitics Blog Stats

  • 863,988 hits since 20 November, 2006

%d bloggers like this: