National Observer As scandal rocks Malaysian government, B


#1

nationalobserver.com/2015/07 … -gas-giant


#2

and your point is what? we do business with China which is not a model of democracy so why not Malaysia


#3

our local scandal is so much cleaner?


#4

by ‪Jabber63 » Thu Jul 16, 2015 8:25 pm
“and your point is what? we do business with China which is not a model of democracy so why not Malaysia”

That seems to be a pretty low ethical standard you’re expecting the provincial government to meet…about the level maturity of sophistication of a toddler* saying ‘he hit someone so why can’t I”?

Does this perspective apply just to the government’s interactions with Malaysia or does it apply to all participants in the extraction and export of LNG? ‘The Exxon Valdez caused some environmental damage, why can’t I’?

It seems to me that one responsibility of belonging to a democracy is supporting the improvement of democratic practices everywhere.

  • this comment is not meant to demean toddlers in any way.

#5

and how would you promote our values to these regimes, lets see trade with them and open their citizens to our standards and hope they improve their governments, and with Canada being an export country only way to do that is to trade with them


#6
  1. To the member(s) of the “Toddlers Brigade” who threw a note through my window attached to a Lego brick tonight: a) thanks for choosing the open window; b) in hindsight I must agree that toddlers can have a more complex and ethical world view than some adults in some cases c) yes HTMF would be so much better with colored pencils and glitter.

  2. To Jabber63: Do all your inner conversations resolve so easily? Was there a purpose in sharing this one?

Jabber63:
Me: “and how would you promote our values to these regimes?”
Myself: “lets see, trade with them and open their citizens to our standards and hope they improve their governments”
I: “and with Canada being an export country only way to do that is to trade with them”

Are you suggesting that trade, by itself, will promote democracy and that British Columbia as an exporting province does not need to consider the ethical and moral implications of its trading actions?

Are you seriously suggesting British Columbia has no other means of persuasion on the world stage than trade?

By the way: a nice little side-step - change the discussion from the provincial governments current actions to “Canada”


#7

[quote=“chien22”]
Are you suggesting that trade, by itself, will promote democracy and that British Columbia as an exporting province does not need to consider the ethical and moral implications of its trading actions?

Are you seriously suggesting British Columbia has no other means of persuasion on the world stage than trade?

By the way: a nice little side-step - change the discussion from the provincial governments current actions to “Canada”[/quote]

There is good reason for changing the discussion from the provincial governments to “Canada”. The federal government, not the provinces, has exclusive jurisdiction over “The Regulation of Trade and Commerce” with other countries, and inter-provincially for that matter (s91(2) of the Constitution). That’s why LNG proponents require export licences from the NEB, which is an entirely federal agency.

As for whether trade can promote democracy or achieve ethical or moral ends, that’s a difficult question. Was Diefenbaker a traitor to what was then called the ‘Free World’ when he started selling wheat to China in the 50s (we didn’t even have diplomatic relations until 1970) or was he years ahead of his time? Either way it was a pretty gutsy move for a Canadian prime minister in the midst of the Cold War.

Has an American blockade of Cuba achieved anything for human rights and democracy after 53 years? Apparently not. Maybe they should have maintained diplomatic relations and kept on trading like Canada did.

Mulroney’s trade boycott of apartheid-era South Africa was also a gutsy move, considering his ties to Thatcher and Reagan, and apparently did make a difference. Ottawa was the first foreign capital that Mandela visited after becoming president.

It will be interesting to see whether prime minister Mulcair establishes a red line with Malaysia. I rather doubt that he will be imposing a blockade.

That’s not an issue that British Columbia will be deciding though. It’s not an actor on the world stage. Anything it does internationally is subject to federal oversight and approval. The province does not have a foreign affairs minister, or a foreign policy, and it’s not competent on those issues, constitutionally or otherwise.


#8

[quote=“BTravenn”]

[quote=“chien22”]
Are you suggesting that trade, by itself, will promote democracy and that British Columbia as an exporting province does not need to consider the ethical and moral implications of its trading actions?

Are you seriously suggesting British Columbia has no other means of persuasion on the world stage than trade?

By the way: a nice little side-step - change the discussion from the provincial governments current actions to “Canada”[/quote]

There is good reason for changing the discussion from the provincial governments to “Canada”. The federal government, not the provinces, has exclusive jurisdiction over “The Regulation of Trade and Commerce” with other countries, and inter-provincially for that matter (s91(2) of the Constitution). That’s why LNG proponents require export licences from the NEB, which is an entirely federal agency.

As for whether trade can promote democracy or achieve ethical or moral ends, that’s a difficult question. Was Diefenbaker a traitor to what was then called the ‘Free World’ when he started selling wheat to China in the 50s (we didn’t even have diplomatic relations until 1970) or was he years ahead of his time? Either way it was a pretty gutsy move for a Canadian prime minister in the midst of the Cold War.

Has an American blockade of Cuba achieved anything for human rights and democracy after 53 years? Apparently not. Maybe they should have maintained diplomatic relations and kept on trading like Canada did.

Mulroney’s trade boycott of apartheid-era South Africa was also a gutsy move, considering his ties to Thatcher and Reagan, and apparently did make a difference. Ottawa was the first foreign capital that Mandela visited after becoming president.

It will be interesting to see whether prime minister Mulcair establishes a red line with Malaysia. I rather doubt that he will be imposing a blockade.

That’s not an issue that British Columbia will be deciding though. It’s not an actor on the world stage. Anything it does internationally is subject to federal oversight and approval. The province does not have a foreign affairs minister, or a foreign policy, and it’s not competent on those issues, constitutionally or otherwise.[/quote]

Great points BTravenn!


#9

Economics will always out-weigh human rights. There is great documentary of a homeowner in USA who decided not to have anything that was made in China in his house. I think it was a PBS show. After the electrical fixtures, TV, computers, stove, microwave, fridge, barbecue, beds, mattresses, washer, dryer, vacuum cleaner and electrical wire was removed, the homeowner was not so happy.

I think that the Chinese will have another revolution - it will be partially economic but mostly social and political. Ronald Regan, unfortunately, was right. Bury them with a better material economic syste. There it an amazing amount of pent-up demand. Hopefully when it is over they will not have a Putin running the show.

Malaysia is far ahead of China. When you think about it… do they have a Mike Duffy or Pamela Wallin?


#10