Canadian human rights lawyer David Matas and Canadian Foreign Ministry’s former Asia-Pacific Commissioner David Kilgour report

New Zealand Surgeons Condemn "Hideous" Organ Trade in China

quote:

---

Originally posted by huberman:
Why doesn't the NDP then ever call for an end to all trade with China in the name of improving these horrifying standards? We should tell China they cannot sell any goods here until they raise their human rights and other standards to a minimum level (just like the European Union demands for entry). The NDP could gain real moral high ground on this and shift public opinion, but they don't seem willing to upset the status quo too much. Where is civil society and our unions in calling for the same?

---

It's an old debate about whether we should trade with countries or not that don't abide by our moral/social/legal standards or by recognized international ones.

My bias is on the side of trading with everyone, unless there is a very exceptional internationally agreed boycott or sanction situation. But unilateral moralistic acts tend to be seen as just that, and not to work either.

For example, we could ban trade with countries which send troops to occupy and fight wars in other countries in absence of explicit U.N. decisions. But then we'd have to stop trading with the U.S., U.K., Australia, etc. etc.

Or, do we compare how bad China is domestically with how bad these other countries are internationally?

But how many women are in sexual slavery in both Canada and the US, I don't think we can afford to gloat about this. Good for China that the news is being broadcast, that would never have happened 20 years ago.

Corporations have some kind of oversight.

Is there a progressive board around here somewhere?

[ 18 June 2007: Message edited by: huberman ]

[ 18 June 2007: Message edited by: huberman ]

Wealth Concentration and Slavery

US Corporations, Politicians support slave trade

IMF, World Bank policies promote Modern Slavery

Multinational and Indian companies still profit from bonded child labour

The fact is it is major corporate capitalist elite agencies, not local small businesses or artisans, that are mainly responsible for the creation of this huge modern slave trade and the brutal oppression and working and living conditions that go with it.

[ 18 June 2007: Message edited by: Steppenwolf Allende ]

Again - things are not getting better, and are actually getting much worse when you look at China's role and conduct in:

- slavery and labour conditions
- Darfur
- Tibet
- the 'new evil' that is the organ trade

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
It's an old debate about whether we should trade with countries or not that don't abide by our moral/social/legal standards or by recognized international ones.

My bias is on the side of trading with everyone, unless there is a very exceptional internationally agreed boycott or sanction situation. But unilateral moralistic acts tend to be seen as just that, and not to work either.

For example, we could ban trade with countries which send troops to occupy and fight wars in other countries in absence of explicit U.N. decisions. But then we'd have to stop trading with the U.S., U.K., Australia, etc. etc.

Or, do we compare how bad China is domestically with how bad these other countries are internationally?

On balance, it's best to organize trade boycotts through recognized international bodies, IMO.

---

I stand 100% behind what unionist said above. Perhaps for differing reasons as well.

quote:

---

remind wrote:
How about we look to home first, and cast aspersions at a later date, when we actually have a leg to stand on?

---

By this logic we would have done nothing to end apartheid in South Africa, or done nothing to oppose Nazism etc.

Also, Canada is not on the Amnesty top twenty worst human rights offenders list consistently as China is. Canada has problems, serious ones, but we're always near the top of the list.

I guess I have to now add another unique offence directly targetted at Canada - China spying and running front companies in Canada

With friends like this why would Falun Gong, organ trade victims, Tibetans and slave/sweatshop labourers in China need any international or Canadian friends at all?

Funny, the CBC item above claimed it was the Chinese police who carried out the arrests.

So please bear with me and speak slowly:

We should stop trading with China... as punishment... ummm... for shutting down the slave labour bosses?

Or for invading Tibet 55 years ago?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Unionist:
Funny, the CBC item above claimed it was the Chinese police who carried out the arrests.

So please bear with me and speak slowly:

We should stop trading with China... as punishment... ummm... for shutting down the slave labour bosses?

---

Well you know it seems like the right wingnuts are infecting activists with lets not think further than, well...just can't think will have to do.

quote:

---

Originally posted by huberman:
Thank goodness for David Matas and David Kilgour - Canadians who really care and are willing to confront the issue unlike so much evasiveness on the issue here.

---

Nothing evasive about what I said. Thought about trying to be an activist at home, and stop thinking we have a right to tell the world what to do?

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:

And frankly, David Kilgour would be the last person whom I would believe regarding anything. Especially on the issue of human rights.

---

Yeah remind, I agree with you, and let's add David Matas to the gallery of unlikely human rights advocates. Matas is a professional pro-Israel booster who rates countries (including China) by their attitudes to Israel. This great champion of "human rights" enthusiastically supported the Israeli bombing campaign against Lebanon last year, because of course anything goes in the "War on Terror", and condemned Louise Arbour for criticizing both Hezbollah and Israel for possible war crimes!

I'm quoting this incredible rant by Matas in full, so as to show the rank partisanship of this critic of China - and I'm boldfacing some of the parts which show how "courageous" this lobbyist is:

quote:

---

Matas, the senior honorary counsel of B’nai Brith Canada, charged that “false symmetry” permeates Arbour’s statements. As he put it,“Hezbollah, which is attacking, and Israel, which is defending, are treated alike.”

Matas said that Arbour offered “not a word about possible alternatives open to Israel to defend itself” and made “no reference to the use by Hezbollah of civilians as shields.”

As a result, he said, “Arbour has made a gratuitous suggestion that Israel is violating international law, without legal or factual foundation and, at least in form, put Hezbollah and Israel on an equal footing.”

Accusing Arbour of getting her international law “wrong,” Matas said she is “insensitive to context – the unwarranted, unprovoked terrorist attacks by Hezbollah and Hamas against Israel, and the need for Israel to defend itself.”

Matas said that while her comments are couched in the language of international human rights law, she appeals to “anti-Zionist states who tyrannize the UN human rights institutions.”

“These states care little about human rights and a whole lot about delegitimizing Israel through criticism of imaginary human rights violations,” he said.

“Though it is probably unrealistic to have expected her to defend Israeli behaviour, she could have said nothing. By pandering to the anti-Zionist lobby, she has acquitted herself improperly.”

By suggesting that Israel may be guilty of major human rights violations, Arbour feeds Hezbollah’s and Hamas’ propaganda machines, reinforces their commitment to terrorism and envenoms the Arab-Israeli conflict, he said.

“I regret that she has fallen prey to the corruption of human rights promoted by anti-Zionist states. I regret even more that the UN, in this case the office of the United Nations high commissioner for human rights, continues to self-destruct when asked to deal with Israel.”

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
Or for invading Tibet 55 years ago?

---

So everything has been great since then according to you? Do you consider Amnesty International and affiliated groups a bunch of right wingers?

Here's some of what they have to say in 2007 about the Genocide Olympics (often referred as such b/c of China's role in Sudan and Darfur):

"When Beijing was awarded the 2008 Summer Olympics, one important undertaking
made to the IOC was that China would work to improve human rights before 2008," said
Michael Craig, chair of the coalition. "The Olympics are only a year away and human
rights in China, rather than improving, have in significant ways deteriorated."

http://www.yorku.ca/ycar/Events/Other/Rights%20Now%20Forum.%202June2007.pdf

[ 19 June 2007: Message edited by: huberman ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by huberman:

So everything has been great since then according to you?

---

No, I think the human rights situation in China is deplorable.

But I deplore human rights abuses everywhere. I don't single out bad communist places far from home for extra venom.

And I don't exaggerate by insinuating that maybe China condones slave labour (remember the topic of this thread??).

quote:

---

unionist wrote:
And I don't go over the top by promoting a trade boycott.

---

Great. I know what you don't do. What do you propose other than business as usual and buying/importing goods en masse that are made by exploited labour?

You've said you support internationally supported boycotts ie: through the U.N. - I've showed you how useless the U.N./international community can be as in watching Rwanda and Darfur unfold - the latter in slow motion.

So give me your solution, b/c your silence is deafening and complicit IMO. I advocate leadership as in the South Africa economic sanctions to end apartheid (Canada and Scanadinavian countries showed leadership in this).

quote:

---

Originally posted by huberman:

What do you advocate other than waiting for an international effort that is not coming (it needs to be initiated by someone - I say us)?

---

What do I advocate in the case of China?

1. Business as usual. Absolutely no sanctions, measures, whatsoever. Nothing.

2. Clean up our own human rights and labour abuse house. That's the best contribution we can make to the world on that front.

3. Concentrate our efforts on joint action in international bodies. I frankly don't give a damn how impotent you think they are. The alternative is superpower gunboat diplomacy and might makes right. No thank you.

4. Within those bodies, concentrate our first efforts on stopping aggression of one nation against another across recognized international boundaries. Again, that effort must begin at home - we need clean hands.

5. Ask huberman again: Do you think the Chinese government permits slave labour? Because I didn't get that message from your opening post.

ETA: I just noticed you changed "slave labour" to "exploited labour".

You want to boycott goods from countries that exploit labour?

[ 19 June 2007: Message edited by: unionist ]

I believe much of the labour in China is 'slave labour' although not of this incredibly extreme sort in the cbc item. They still use child labour, prison labour and there is still slave labour after this raid (Steppenwolfe speaks well to different and varying forms of it above).

I want to boycott goods from countries that have among the worst human rights standards consistently, year after year, incorporated into their production process, which undercuts our labour standards at home. It's called fair trade.

We are not saints, but if you can't at least meet our (low), universally-accepted minimum standards (no child labour, no slave labour, prison labour, prolific amounts of sweatshop labour etc.) then you shouldn't be allowed to sell here. Otherwise your business as usual stance leads us into a race-to-the-bottom.

quote:

---

Originally posted by huberman:
Why should we reward all of this with business as usual?

---

If China, or anyone, commits a crime in our jurisdiction, or internationally, collect the evidence and bring it before a tribunal. They exist.

As for "business as usual", it's about sharing this world in peace. You would boycott China, but not the U.S. That makes you (sorry, it's how I feel) a hypocrite. I would boycott neither. Such boycotts are rationalizations for big capitalists who want to snag economic advantage. There's only one problem. Trade wars can lead to shooting wars. So be careful what you wish for. And start fixing your own country before you go lecturing an ancient civilization, which is struggling to emerge from horrors far worse than Canada has ever known, that they must adopt your values.

ETA: Also, if you want to moralize against them, make sure you're accusing them of crimes which they actually commit as a state. The slavery and organ stuff just doesn't wash. Tien An Men Square does. Running a dictatorship and forcing everyone to participate in the world market and succumb to foreign investment does. But I don't suppose that last bit is grounds for a boycott, eh?

[ 19 June 2007: Message edited by: unionist ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
As for "business as usual", it's about sharing this world in peace. You would boycott China, but not the U.S. That makes you (sorry, it's how I feel) a hypocrite.

---

Who told you to make such assumptions?

My view is that we should not trade with the U.S. either until it gets universal health-care. It is so fundamentally unjust that 50 million are uncovered and left open to bankruptcy for routine medical treatment.

We should only trade on an equal footing with countries, otherwise we are assaulting domestic labour. The U.S. does not have minimum wage in several states either, and rapidly declining unionization rates.

I think we should only trade with democratic nations that have similarly high standards, or with nations that have lower standards but are showing real signs of improvements in the area of human rights (the U.S. and China as incredibly rich nations, dominating the global economy, are abhorrent in their approach to their own people).

We have every right to further ban trade with China for its manipulation of its exchange rate (keeping it artificially low, destroying jobs in Canada and beyond), its spying/theft of technology from us, and its even far worse treatment of domestic labour than the U.S.

We need to trade in a manner that raises standards, not as currently lowers standards.

And enough already with this nonsense:

quote:

---

Trade wars can lead to shooting wars

---

Your earlier talk about 'gunboat diplomacy' is a joke, as Canada has none (or none that would work). It is not a military argument, simply one that says we as a country have every right to refuse to buy/import products that involve all this severe exploitation of humanity. We are simply asking that you meet some of our basic standards or else there can be no fair, equitable trade and we are assaulting the quality and dignity or our own domestic labour.

As a Canadian it is your obligation to protect these standards, not pit Canadian workers against Chinese slave/child/exploited labourers.

quote:

---

Originally posted by huberman:
My view is that we should not trade with the U.S. either until it gets universal health-care.

---

Well, I admire your commitment to universal health care. If you could find 9 other consenting adults to agree with you, you'd have a minyan - but you still wouldn't have a prayer.

Anyway, I've got news for you: The U.S. already has universal health care. It just ain't free yet.

quote:

---

What kind of unionist tells Canadians you should compete against such abysmal standards (standards that are far worse than the U.S.)?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
We shouldn't compete. We should exchange, share, and live in peace. We'll work out our problems, and they'll work out theirs. That's the kind of unionist I am.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Phonz:
Ah, yes. That's the global version of the trickle down theory. Trade first, human rights second.

---

Are you suggesting China should stop trading with Canada until we resolve all our human rights issues? That's a bit harsh.

What about province by province? Québec and B.C. can stop trading with all other provinces until they adopt anti-scab legislation?

Calls for using trade as a weapon to carry the White Man's Burden are really a little anachronistic.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
Are you suggesting China should stop trading with Canada until we resolve all our human rights issues? That's a bit harsh.

---

And, are you suggesting, as it would appear, from the wording of your "question," that, in a contest between Canada and China, that China would somehow win in the human rights arena?

quote:

---

What about province by province? Québec and B.C. can stop trading with all other provinces until they adopt anti-scab legislation?

---

Union/anti-union politics aren't a human rights issue, at least not in this country.

quote:

---

Calls for using trade as a weapon to carry the White Man's Burden are really a little anachronistic.

---

Don't know what "white man's burden" you're talking about here. I'm for using trade as a weapon to stop human rights abuses. That's not a white issue, nor a man issue, it's a human rights issue.

quote:

---

I don't want "trickle down". That's the language of arrogant superiority.

---

But that's what you're advocating.

quote:

---

I want self-righteous prigs to keep their noses, boycotts, and armies out of other countries' affairs, unless and until international law and bodies decide collectively that action needs to be taken.

---

So, as a self-righteous prig, you believe I don't have the authority to boycott a country, based on their appalling human rights record, unless and until my govvie tells me to? Great. That's very enlightened of you.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Phonz:

So, as a self-righteous prig, you believe I don't have the authority to boycott a country, based on their appalling human rights record, unless and until my govvie tells me to?

---

Sorry for the misunderstanding. Yes, by all means, go ahead and teach those evil Chinese Communists a good lesson. Don't wait for big bad governments to make a decision. Buy yourself some nice non-Chinese human-rights-friendly clothes - maybe Guatemalan, or Bangladeshi, or Pakistani, or Sri Lankan - they're all available on the shelf here. And they're guaranteed to be in the Western White Man's good books, so what me worry?

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
Sorry for the misunderstanding. Yes, by all means, go ahead and teach those evil Chinese Communists a good lesson. Don't wait for big bad governments to make a decision. Buy yourself some nice non-Chinese human-rights-friendly clothes - maybe Guatemalan, or Bangladeshi, or Pakistani, or Sri Lankan - they're all available on the shelf here. And they're guaranteed to be in the Western White Man's good books, so what me worry?

---

Actually, my clothes are almost all made in Canada or in the U.K. (riding stuff). Again, don't know what you're going on about with the "western white man" stuff.

quote:

---

But maybe also consider why you are haunting a progressive left-wing discussion forum with your pro-U.S. health care, pro-U.S. foreign policy, pro-Western civilization morality, and I've lost track of the rest in your brief foray into the slummy world of left-wing politics. Hope you've picked up some good stories to tell.

---

Didn't think I was "haunting." Actually thought I was contributing, especially when Remind said she was "honoured" by my contributions.

I'm "pro-U.S. health care"? News to me. I'm pro health care. Very concerned about the Canadian mess.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
But maybe also consider why you are haunting a progressive left-wing discussion forum with your pro-U.S. health care, pro-U.S. foreign policy, pro-Western civilization morality, and I've lost track of the rest in your brief foray into the slummy world of left-wing politics. Hope you've picked up some good stories to tell.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Phonz:

... how hilarious the self-righteous left is.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
Sorry, I should have specified that the was just a bookmark - you used the codeword up there which speaks volumes. You're out!

---