News   Jun 28, 2024
 2.7K     3 
News   Jun 28, 2024
 1.6K     1 
News   Jun 28, 2024
 599     1 

G-20 Summit in Toronto

But how valid is a criticism from a country with an atrocious human rights history? To go back to the example of a child molester ... do you think a child molester can really criticize someone else's behaviour around children? Seriously -- they don't necessarily realize why THEIR behaviour is considered wrong, so how can they criticize someone else's?
 
But how valid is a criticism from a country with an atrocious human rights history? To go back to the example of a child molester ... do you think a child molester can really criticize someone else's behaviour around children? Seriously -- they don't necessarily realize why THEIR behaviour is considered wrong, so how can they criticize someone else's?

What is this simplistic, stupid analogy. It's dumb.
 
What is this simplistic, stupid analogy. It's dumb.

This is really about having zero credibility.

When offering advice on how to treat other human beings when you have a very graphic history of violations commited against others, is called hypocrisy. If Saudi Arabia condenmed how a woman was treated in Canadian courts, you couldn't and wouldn't listen to what they said due to their own extreme treatment of women.

Again, it's called hypocrisy.

N Korea even critizing us on how our police acted in the summit and how people were treated is beyond laughable. Considering what they do to their own citizens. When you have psychopathic dicatators of nations doing things to their populations and they see nothing wrong with this, you can't have a dailogue with them. And someone on this board thinks we should consider "their" advice?

There is clearly something out of wack when thinking it's perfectly acceptable to listen to monsters offering opinions.
 
Last edited:
This is really about having zero credibility.

When offering advice on how to treat other human beings when you have a very graphic history of violations commited against others, is called hypocrisy. If Saudi Arabia condenmed how a woman was treated in Canadian courts, you couldn't and wouldn't listen to what they said due to their own extreme treatment of women.

Again, it's called hypocrisy.

N Korea even critizing us on how our police acted in the summit and howpeople were treated is beyond laughable. Considering what they do to their own citizens. When you have psychopathic dicatators of nations doing things to their populations and they see nothing wrong with this, you can't have a dailogue with them. And someone on this board thinks we should consider "their" advice?

There is clearly something out of wack when someone thinks it's perfectly acceptable to listen to monsters offering opinions.

See, this is how easily manipulated and dumb the masses are... they won't even check to see if what they're saying has any inkling of truth. They just work themselves into a frenzy and believe whatever they want to believe and run with it.
 
But how valid is a criticism from a country with an atrocious human rights history? To go back to the example of a child molester ... do you think a child molester can really criticize someone else's behaviour around children? Seriously -- they don't necessarily realize why THEIR behaviour is considered wrong, so how can they criticize someone else's?
The child molester may be a hypocrite for telling someone else to improve around children, but does it change the validity of the statement? If a child molester points out that you're molesting children and that it's a bad thing that you probably shouldn't do, should you just ignore his advice? Or because he's a hypocrite suddenly it's not that bad to be a child molester? Hilarious logic there.

Maybe Iran isn't in a position to criticize us on our social policies. But just because they're not in a position to criticize doesn't mean that their criticism doesn't have any merit.
 
See, this is how easily manipulated and dumb the masses are... they won't even check to see if what they're saying has any inkling of truth. They just work themselves into a frenzy and believe whatever they want to believe and run with it.

It takes a special kind of mentality to eliminate individual persons by lumping them all into a category of "mass" and calling them all dumb.

That anyone would not be remotely suspicious of the accusations or charges made by the leaders of Iran or North Korea (worse) strikes me as really naive. Typically, such statements are politically motivated, and are not directed at the well-being of the population. Reasonable criticism can be found closer to home, and you really don't have to await the opinions of despots or child-abusers to steer clear thinking.
 
Maybe Iran isn't in a position to criticize us on our social policies. But just because they're not in a position to criticize doesn't mean that their criticism doesn't have any merit.

What evidence do you have that Iran might actually have something constructive to provide when it comes to human rights?

Would you take mergers and acquisitions advice from a four year old on the off-chance they might have something insightful?
 
It takes a special kind of mentality to eliminate individual persons by lumping them all into a category of "mass" and calling them all dumb.

That anyone would not be remotely suspicious of the accusations or charges made by the leaders of Iran or North Korea (worse) strikes me as really naive. Typically, such statements are politically motivated, and are not directed at the well-being of the population. Reasonable criticism can be found closer to home, and you really don't have to await the opinions of despots or child-abusers to steer clear thinking.

You still don't get it, it takes a special kind of person to read my post and still not get my reference. Another reading comprehension loss for you.
 
What evidence do you have that Iran might actually have something constructive to provide when it comes to human rights?

Would you take mergers and acquisitions advice from a four year old on the off-chance they might have something insightful?

What does being constructive have to do with anything? And what are these awful analogies?
 
Last edited:
Great article by David Olive in today's Star.

http://thestar.blogs.com/davidolive/2010/07/what-we-dont-know-about-the-g20-security.html

i'll fast forward to his conclusion (but read the rest of the article, he has some interesting points about bicycles being used against horses)

I'd still like an inquiry of the G20. Because, as I say, Toronto missed its chance to create a new world-class forum for wide-ranging discussion of the major issues of the day, most of which were not on the agenda of the G20 heads of government.

There undeniably was over-reaction by security. It's recorded on cellphone cameras, on Twitter messages, and eyewitness accounts spread by word of mouth. For their part, Mayor Miller and City Council, the premier, and the law-enforcement establishment have been knee-jerk in absolving security of any misconduct.

You don't have 20,000 visitors descend on a place without certain unacceptable behaviour occuring. I would think that's self-evident. It's also obvious that you should not execute any mission - a combat operation, the launch of a new product, or the introduction of a government program - without a follow up "lessons learned" exercise. That is or should be standard practice. It long has been standard practice in the more sophisticated militaries, of Canada, Britain and especially the U.S. The civilian equivalent, in Canada, is royal commissions and probes like the Gomery inquiry.

That's what's still required regarding the G20 summit in Toronto.
 
Well, again, much like the on & on & on about 'release the photos', I expect that just like the 'more sophisticated militaries', Chief Blair and the other head honchos are having a serious discussion of what went right and what went wrong, without revealing to the general public (and therefore the protestors for the next meeting) the content of that debriefing.

Mr. Olive is being disingenuous when he says that a Royal Commission or public inquiry is necessary here. I expect that a thorough debriefing has been done, and the security apparatus has already come to its conclusions about what it would do different next time. But they aren't about to tell you.

My bet is that they do little differently. They might advertise to the general public beforehand that deliberate acts of vandalism will result in arrests, but do you really think the police are willing to wade in and grab a guy in the midst of a mob of thousands they don't want to rile? If the protestors grabbed one of the looters and turned him over to the police, I bet that peaceful protests would get a lot more leeway afterwards. As it stands, I expect that the police think they did a good job. 1. No one died or got seriously hurt, that I've heard of. 2. The leaders were never seriously threatened in any way, at any time. Wasn't that their mandate? So why would they want/participate in a public inquiry?
 
What does being constructive have to do with anything?

What do you think SiP meant by:

"doesn't mean that their criticism doesn't have any merit."?

He seems to be implying that Canada should listen to what Iran has to say about human rights because there might, just might, be something worthwhile or useful for them to tell us about how to behave.
 
What do you think SiP meant by:

"doesn't mean that their criticism doesn't have any merit."?

He seems to be implying that Canada should listen to what Iran has to say about human rights because there might, just might, be something worthwhile or useful for them to tell us about how to behave.

Right, I agree with that. There's definite possibility in Iran's criticism, it doesn't mean that Iran's intentions are well-meaning, they're probably not trying to help Canada in any sincere way, regardless if it's true or not.
 
Who cares if they're actually trying to help in any way? If they are trying to help, good for that. If they're not trying to help but want to appear passable as doing so, they need to have what may be real criticism. And if it can pass as real criticism, it's worth looking at as real criticism. And hey, who would know more about human rights violations than Iran? If our policy during the G20 was disrespecting human rights, who would have an easier time of spotting that kind of behaviour than Iran?
 
Well, again, much like the on & on & on about 'release the photos', I expect that just like the 'more sophisticated militaries', Chief Blair and the other head honchos are having a serious discussion of what went right and what went wrong, without revealing to the general public (and therefore the protestors for the next meeting) the content of that debriefing.

Mr. Olive is being disingenuous when he says that a Royal Commission or public inquiry is necessary here. I expect that a thorough debriefing has been done, and the security apparatus has already come to its conclusions about what it would do different next time. But they aren't about to tell you.

Right, let's take away the transparency. Y'know, the same main criticism that Iran is taking for its handling of protests. We can give the police all the powers without having to answer for anything.


My bet is that they do little differently. They might advertise to the general public beforehand that deliberate acts of vandalism will result in arrests, but do you really think the police are willing to wade in and grab a guy in the midst of a mob of thousands they don't want to rile? If the protestors grabbed one of the looters and turned him over to the police, I bet that peaceful protests would get a lot more leeway afterwards. As it stands, I expect that the police think they did a good job. 1. No one died or got seriously hurt, that I've heard of. 2. The leaders were never seriously threatened in any way, at any time. Wasn't that their mandate? So why would they want/participate in a public inquiry?

You're really telling it like it is without bias... NOT. That's an awful summary. I think one can reasonably believe that the police had the ability to grab the looters, at least more than one would believe that things would get out of control if the police actually targeted the people clearly in masks breaking glass. And you kind of missed the whole suspension of civil liberties thing, one of the main problems of this event and also a main criticism of Iran.
There are just a lot of different arguments that are clouding the situation. A lot of people would believe your opinion to be exaggerated and idiotic and possibly the other way around. An inquiry would give some clarity to what actually happened.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top