Tuesday, June 16, 2009

Mishmash #2

According to the North Korean state-run news agency, Euna Lee and Laura Ling, who were sentenced to twelve years in prison, illegally entered North Korea in order to shoot a "smear campaign". Smear campaigns are designed to unfairly attack a person or an institution. If Euna

Lee and Laura Ling did illegally enter North Korea for the purposes of filming a report, would the report be unfair if it exposed....
mass starvation and prison camps
The world has already been given a clue.
What are North Korea's motives? The heir apparent, Kim Jong Un, may be trying to secure a place for himself independent of China, or he may be acting out China's whims. If China appears to be the only one to control North Korea, the US (and I suspect other nations) will be more than happy to re-adopt a status quo of North Korea under China's influence.
Things in Iran have gotten worse since the election. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad dismisses the waves of Mousavi supporters as merely "displeased" by the results. I argue as the ayatollahs have the real power, even if Mousavi was truly elected (and that may be the case), how far could he go with his reforms? If Mousavi is a true reformer and did have the backing of the ayatollah, would the West be pleased with an Iran less concerned with Israel and its proposed plans for the Palestinians and more concerned with re-shaping its image on the international stage? One can hope.
Jennifer Lynch, best known for her tangles with Ezra Levant, issued a speech in which she claims human rights commissions are unfairly targeted for abuse:

We are in a time when a mounting campaign suggests that equality has
been achieved in Canada. Certain detractors seek to caricature the human rights
system, and undermine its legacy and ability to ensure equality for all

This began with a complaint brought against Rogers Communications
by the Canadian Islamic Congress, in three jurisdictions: Federal, Ontario, and
British Columbia. All three dismissed the complaint.

Even before the three complaints were dismissed, many commissions
and tribunals experienced a cacophony of protest – by those who felt that
exposing mainstream media organizations to formal complaints is inconsistent
with Canada’s commitment to freedom of expression.

The debate moved to one of discrediting Commissions’ processes,
professionalism and staff. Much of what was written was inaccurate, unfair, and
at times scary:

Articles described human rights commissions and their employees in
this way:

“human rights racket”
“welcome to the whacky
world of Canadian human rights.”
“...(i)t sounds like a fetish club for
servants of the Crown”
“a secretive and decadent institution”

If Miss Lynch would kindly explain to the Canadian taxpayer why special interest groups are able and very willing with the government's help to stifle any form of expression they feel is injurious (or why she still wants to stifle free speech).
Perhaps Mr. Levant can explain it better:

No comments: