, 08.09.2018 04:24 PM

KINSELLACAST 26: Trudeau’s right on Saudi Arabia, Lisa hate tweets, and the return of the Spin Twins!


  1. Cam says:

    the new Shure sounds great.
    It’s an improvement.
    might be EQ’ed a whisker bright… but that’s personal taste,
    and / or the bias of my headphones.

  2. Matt says:

    My issue with Trudeau and Saudi Arabia is, well, his totally incoherent and inconsistent foreign policy using different standards when it suits him.

    Here he’s critical of Saudi Arabia over human rights issues. He says publicly he won’t apologize, yet as has already been reported has reached out to several allies to help smooth things over.

    Yet he seems not to be bothered by China’s human rights record in his desire to get a trade deal with them. Or Iran’s human rights record in his rush to re-establish relations with them. Or Cuba’s record of rights violations with his glowing tribute to Fidel Castro after his death.

    • Fred from BC says:

      Well said, Matt.

      Also, there is an accepted diplomatic method of communicating discomfort or concern with another country’s actions if you are absolutely, positively compelled to do so. It’s not Twitter.

      • Peter says:

        I’m not so much troubled by the lack of consistency–it’s a messy world–as I am by the lack of competence and the tone of self-indulgent preening. Warren’s litany of Saudi horrors makes a good case for taking a principled stand, but we’ve accomplished nothing and seem to have forgotten the brave women we putatively spoke up for in favour of touting our superior virtue. If we’re serious, let’s be serious. There’s already been some good analysis of the madness of diplomacy by Twitter. Plus I’m not sure St. Peter would offer Canadians a group pass to Paradise when we’re clearly relieved our oil imports seem safe and are hoping to keep the military contract.

        I would be very proud if the Canadian government could do something for these women, but I cringe when I hear our Prime Minister go on yet again about his commitment to “human rights”, as if it were an all-inclusive vacation resort. Are we protesting because they flog women activists or trying to get them to radically reform their family law? Even worse is the repeated reference to Canadian values, which shows we are playing domestic politics on the fate of these women. Do we really think the poor and oppressed of the world are yearning for “Canadian values”? Imagine our reaction if, say, Holland criticized out aboriginal policies and called for us to adopt “Dutch values”.

        Here’s the rub: the Saudis are in a to-the-death struggle with another chronic human rights abuser–Iran–in the name of Islamist supremacy. There is great geopolitical consequence to that struggle and it’s a dirty world over there. If we’re going to try to help dissenting voices, could we please do our homework and think strategically, lest some valiant lives are lost because Canadians can’t stop boasting publically how righteous we are?

        • Kevin says:

          You’re absolutely right – it’s a messy world. But I don’t buy the idea that I have to shut up about someone’s brutality because they happen to be having a bad day at the office. Or because I risk being accused of preening or boasting.

          • Fred from BC says:

            No, but you should certainly consider the political and/or economic consequences before you go shooting your mouth off, especially if you have already demonstrated a troubling tendency to simply ignore such concerns. In a risk vs reward calculation, what is the reward here supposed to be?

          • Peter says:

            We’re not talking about whether you shut up or not, Kevin, we’re talking about the Canadian government’s policies and diplomatic efforts. Presumably you would agree they should be judged at least in part on their effectiveness? If we were really serious about trying to temper Saudi barbarism, we would put on our big boy pants and focus on oil and arms, which are the only things of interest to them, and settle in for the long haul. But as long as we are unnecessarily dependent on their oil despite being a potentially major competitor ( in part because Singh and much of progressive Canada never met a pipeline proposal they didn’t oppose) and beg to be allowed to sell them arms, our indignant tweets will be as effective as JT’s dressing up was in improving our relations with India. Indeed, they may make things worse for Saudi activists no matter how many compliments we get from the international press. Call me unCanadian, but I’m not very proud that seems more important to many of us than what actually happens to Saudi prisoners.

          • Kevin says:

            The reward lies in not only speaking out on behalf of the victims, but doing what you can to ease their situation. More people, and states, should adopt that approach.

          • Fred from BC says:

            “The reward lies in not only speaking out on behalf of the victims, but doing what you can to ease their situation.”

            Except we didn’t actually do that, did we? We had absolutely NO chance of “easing their situation” by making an ill-advised Twitter attack on the Saudi Arabian government. None. Everyone who knows anything about middle-eastern politics knows that…but not Junior. He actually made their situation worse.

            “More people, and states, should adopt that approach”.

            In a perfect world, sure. But notice how many of Canada’s many western friends have stepped up to support us? Yeah, that’s right…NONE. Not one. Because they all know better. If anything, they are embarrassed for us.

            I say again: there are a few established and commonly accepted ways to go about expressing concern about another country’s actions. Twitter isn’t one of them.

            And no, you don’t have to “shut up” about this. You’re a private citizen. Justin Trudeau, though, doesn’t have the luxury of being able to speak his mind wherever and whenever he wants. He can’t just blurt out the first thing that pops into his head. He’s the Prime Minister of Canada. He needs to start acting like it.

            (I hear he has started his typical backpedaling today, in fact)

  3. doconnor says:

    The reason a lot of people don’t think people on welfare deserve an increase is because they think a lot of them shouldn’t be on it. In economics these are considered “free riders”. I don’t know if you think they are 30%, 50% or 70% of welfare recipients.

    The purpose of the corporate tax cuts the government is planning is to encourage investment. However, these cuts will apply investments made in the past or investments that would have been made anyway. These are also “free riders”, but the percentage of free riders is at least 90%.

  4. Art says:

    A friend was having a discussion about the Saudi thing with some Conservatives on line. After much handwringing from the Conservatives he posted an old article by you in the Sun about whiny and insecure Conservatives. Too funny.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *