An excerpt from the above linked-to article by Mike Blanchfield follows:
China is pressuring a committee of Canadian Parliament to rescind its invitation to the leader of Hong Kong’s democracy movement to appear before it and give testimony, The Canadian Press has learned…
Lee, a veteran pro-democracy activist, was one of several people arrested last December after more than two months of demonstrations against restrictions that the Beijing government is imposing on Hong Kong’s first election in 2017.
The protests paralyzed Hong Kong and gave rise to a new opposition movement that is seen by Chinese President Xi Jinping as a threat to his country’s stability.
My two online responses to the above linked-to article follows:
“The protests paralyzed Hong Kong and gave rise to a new opposition movement that is seen by Chinese President Xi Jinping as a threat to his country’s stability.” You can’t really twist someone’s arm to do something that they want to do, Can you? The author suggests a narrative where Stephen Harper, on principle, opposed the human rights record of the Chinese regime but then reality set in, accompanied by reminders of it from a business lobby (not to be confused with Canadian CITIZENS who want a say in matters, like the tar sands, affecting them), and he started talking nice. Are we really tossing out the ‘stability’ line here? Really? And yes, the ‘author’ is doing so by failing to point out that the Chinese President is ‘claiming’ that he’s concerned about stability. It’s not a good thing, my friend, when stability means ZERO democracy. Are we clear?
China pressuring Canadian Parliamentarians? Should we be more upset about this than the fact that the Chinese gov, through it’s oil companies (they are not private companies) has been allowed to self-regulate here in Canada[?] In other words, China has already been given, just like that, political power by this government. They already have had more to say, effectively, about matters that are very, very important to Canadians, not to mention the planet [than Canadian citizens themselves]. Are Canadian voters okay with the way neoliberal governments like Harper’s government, trample democracy and trade political power in return for being a glorious player who other players in the mafia capitalist system [can] admire?
The author had the opportunity to call readers’ attention to the use of the term ‘stability’ by people like Stephen Harper and Xi Jinping. He chose to channel their propaganda instead.
Let us remember, also, that Paul Dewar, the NDP’s foreign affairs critic, belongs to a Party that is okay with the Alberta tar sands operations. Thomas Mulcair, who the mainstream media are not solidly against (unless he’s talking about Dutch Disease), wants pipelines – wherever. (See “Mulcair’s NDP: The New Liberal Party” by Murray Cooke) Therefore, He wants the tar sands operations. But he wants ‘responsible’ development of the tar sands. It’s hard to argue with being responsible, now, Isn’t it? Stability, too, just can’t be bad, Can it?
I wouldn’t vote for the Green Party, but I must say, Elizabeth May seems to be doing the job we usually look to the NDP to do. See Elizabeth’s Epoch Times article titled “China’s Stake In Canada’s Oil Sands A National Security Threat.” Why the Epoch Times feels the need to substitute ‘oil’ for ‘tar’ I don’t know. Then again, I’ve always found the Epoch Times to be not quite right.