aziqbal
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2010
- Messages
- 7,403
- Reaction score
- -10
- Country
- Location
Derek H. Burney: Senator Woo must atone for defending China's murderous regime
Is the senator working in the best interests of Canada by attempting to whitewash the sins of the Chinese government?
Author of the article:
Derek H. Burney
Publishing date:
Jul 08, 2021 • 6 hours ago • 4 minute read • 15 Comments
Sen. Yuen Pau Woo, leader of the Independent Senators Group, speaks to reporters on Parliament Hill in a file photo from June 19, 2018. PHOTO BY JUSTIN TANG/THE CANADIAN PRESSArticle content
The recent speech in the Senate by Yuen Pau Woo on a motion decrying flagrant Chinese abuse of Uyghurs was perplexing in many respects, not least because it was expressed by the facilitator or leader of the Independent Senators Group — the largest single group in the Senate — which acts primarily to advance the Canadian government’s agenda. To compare China’s treatment of the Uyghurs to the treatment of Indigenous children in residential schools was odiously reminiscent of tactics used by South African diplomats when their abhorrent system of apartheid was castigated by Canada, among others.
Sen. Woo blithely ignored countless other illiberal, authoritarian practices by China over seven decades including the starvation and execution of millions of its majority population during the disastrous reign of Mao Zedong (The Great Leap Forward, Cultural Revolution, etc.). Nor was there any mention of the recent subjugation of Hongkongers, including hundreds of thousands of Hong Kong-Canadians, in direct violation of the agreement with Britain transferring the city state back to China. The assaults on basic human rights from this brutal crackdown are too numerous to catalogue.
Along with this hostage diplomacy in retaliation for Canadian co-operation with an American bid to extradite Madam Meng Wanzhou to the U.S., China continues to abuse basic WTO trade norms by discriminating bully-style against Canadian agricultural imports.
Article content
In a separate newspaper opinion piece written with Prof. Paul Evans, Sen. Woo claimed that criticism of the domestic and international policies of China is driving “anti-Chinese racism” in Canada. Yet, he and Evans failed to acknowledge that much of this criticism is well-founded by intelligence agencies, scholars and experts on national security who are understandably concerned about Chinese attempts to infiltrate university research and steal Canadian technologies.
If the Senator is really concerned about growing anti-Chinese sentiment in Canada, he should be able to comprehend that it is directed at the dismal track record of the Chinese communist government, not its citizens, and certainly not the thousands of Chinese-Canadian citizens who have flourished under the benefits of Canada’s open society, and many of whom share serious misgivings about the behaviour of Chinese authorities. Sen. Woo has been a significant beneficiary of that openness ever since he arrived in Canada.
Article content
The claim that the Chinese government is more popular than governments in Canada and the U.S. is preposterous. What value is any poll of this kind in a country where electors can choose only communist candidates, except for a few mundane municipal posts? The difference between the “input” or “output” legitimacy of governments is one only a pedantic academic would embrace. After all, Adolf Hitler was popular in Germany — at least for a while — because of his “output,” just as Mussolini was popular for supposedly getting the trains in Italy to run on time. North Korea’s Kim Jong un enjoys almost 100 per cent popularity ratings as he presides over the slow devastation of his Hermit Kingdom. Are those standards of popularity that Sen. Woo endorses?
Article content
Whether the detention and brutal re-education treatment of Uyghurs constitutes “genocide” may be debatable, but it is essentially a symbolic label. In any event, the motion was defeated in the Senate 33-29, primarily by pseudo “independent, non-partisan” senators who obediently toed the government line. There were also 13 abstentions. Chinese authorities celebrated the negative verdict.
Article content
By indulging in false comparisons and ignoring the litany of abuses committed by Chinese authoritarians on their own people, as well as on innocent Canadians, Sen. Woo and a few foreign affairs cohorts in the Senate give new depth to the apologist term “panda hugger,” a term used by Australian author Clive Hamilton to denigrate similar pro-Chinese regime sentiments expressed by retired Australian politicians well before their country’s current deep freeze with China.
Sen. Woo should consider resigning from the Senate because he has demonstrated that, as a Senate leader, he is not motivated to “serve the best interests of Canada.” Instead, he should formally register as a lobbyist for the government whose “output” he so admires.
nationalpost.com
Is the senator working in the best interests of Canada by attempting to whitewash the sins of the Chinese government?
Author of the article:
Derek H. Burney
Publishing date:
Jul 08, 2021 • 6 hours ago • 4 minute read • 15 Comments
The recent speech in the Senate by Yuen Pau Woo on a motion decrying flagrant Chinese abuse of Uyghurs was perplexing in many respects, not least because it was expressed by the facilitator or leader of the Independent Senators Group — the largest single group in the Senate — which acts primarily to advance the Canadian government’s agenda. To compare China’s treatment of the Uyghurs to the treatment of Indigenous children in residential schools was odiously reminiscent of tactics used by South African diplomats when their abhorrent system of apartheid was castigated by Canada, among others.
Sen. Woo blithely ignored countless other illiberal, authoritarian practices by China over seven decades including the starvation and execution of millions of its majority population during the disastrous reign of Mao Zedong (The Great Leap Forward, Cultural Revolution, etc.). Nor was there any mention of the recent subjugation of Hongkongers, including hundreds of thousands of Hong Kong-Canadians, in direct violation of the agreement with Britain transferring the city state back to China. The assaults on basic human rights from this brutal crackdown are too numerous to catalogue.
Most pointedly, Sen. Woo sidestepped the plight of the two Michaels (Kovrig and Spavor), who were essentially kidnapped by Chinese authorities, tried on dubious espionage charges, and who have been detained now for more than two years in dreadful conditions “justified by COVID,” and denied anything other than symbolic consular assistance. One would think that no-one supposedly representing the Canadian government could make any speech about China without mentioning the despicable treatment of these two Canadian citizens.
Along with this hostage diplomacy in retaliation for Canadian co-operation with an American bid to extradite Madam Meng Wanzhou to the U.S., China continues to abuse basic WTO trade norms by discriminating bully-style against Canadian agricultural imports.
Article content
In a separate newspaper opinion piece written with Prof. Paul Evans, Sen. Woo claimed that criticism of the domestic and international policies of China is driving “anti-Chinese racism” in Canada. Yet, he and Evans failed to acknowledge that much of this criticism is well-founded by intelligence agencies, scholars and experts on national security who are understandably concerned about Chinese attempts to infiltrate university research and steal Canadian technologies.
If the Senator is really concerned about growing anti-Chinese sentiment in Canada, he should be able to comprehend that it is directed at the dismal track record of the Chinese communist government, not its citizens, and certainly not the thousands of Chinese-Canadian citizens who have flourished under the benefits of Canada’s open society, and many of whom share serious misgivings about the behaviour of Chinese authorities. Sen. Woo has been a significant beneficiary of that openness ever since he arrived in Canada.
Article content
The claim that the Chinese government is more popular than governments in Canada and the U.S. is preposterous. What value is any poll of this kind in a country where electors can choose only communist candidates, except for a few mundane municipal posts? The difference between the “input” or “output” legitimacy of governments is one only a pedantic academic would embrace. After all, Adolf Hitler was popular in Germany — at least for a while — because of his “output,” just as Mussolini was popular for supposedly getting the trains in Italy to run on time. North Korea’s Kim Jong un enjoys almost 100 per cent popularity ratings as he presides over the slow devastation of his Hermit Kingdom. Are those standards of popularity that Sen. Woo endorses?
Article content
Whether the detention and brutal re-education treatment of Uyghurs constitutes “genocide” may be debatable, but it is essentially a symbolic label. In any event, the motion was defeated in the Senate 33-29, primarily by pseudo “independent, non-partisan” senators who obediently toed the government line. There were also 13 abstentions. Chinese authorities celebrated the negative verdict.
Instead of believing that human beings, like markets, are best given as much freedom as possible, the Chinese Communist Party contends that almost every aspect of human life requires oversight and intervention. As Bruce Dickson wrote in The Party and the People, it “will not tolerate demands that would challenge its monopoly on power.” Endless re-education and re-certification campaigns and the power of the gun are what enable the Chinese regime to maintain a stranglehold on absolute power. If that is the style of government Sen. Woo prefers, then he is living in the wrong country.
Article content
By indulging in false comparisons and ignoring the litany of abuses committed by Chinese authoritarians on their own people, as well as on innocent Canadians, Sen. Woo and a few foreign affairs cohorts in the Senate give new depth to the apologist term “panda hugger,” a term used by Australian author Clive Hamilton to denigrate similar pro-Chinese regime sentiments expressed by retired Australian politicians well before their country’s current deep freeze with China.
Sen. Woo should consider resigning from the Senate because he has demonstrated that, as a Senate leader, he is not motivated to “serve the best interests of Canada.” Instead, he should formally register as a lobbyist for the government whose “output” he so admires.
Derek H. Burney: Senator Woo must atone for defending China's murderous regime
Is the senator working in the best interests of Canada by attempting to whitewash the sins of the Chinese government?
