Call Girls, Human Rights, And Trade
Listen, having been interviewed countless times over the last decade-plus, I know full well what it’s like when something ridiculous escapes your mouth. There are times when you utter something that, as soon as it passes your lips, you realize that it was a bad idea.
Then again, I’m a musician, not the Prime Minister.
When one is the leader of a country, one should always remember to think before they speak. Not only is it always to their benefit, but can quite often save them from total embarrassment.
Case in point – Mr. Harper’s recent comment about the Dalai Lama…
“When Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper tried to explain in a year-end interview why he’d met the Dalai Lama in his Ottawa office, it was clear he wanted to show respect for the exiled Tibetan leader.
Unfortunately, it didn’t quite come out that way.
“I met the Dalai Lama in my office but I meet everyone in my office. I don’t know why I would sneak off to a hotel room just to meet the Dalai Lama. You know, he’s not a call girl,” Harper told OMNI television.”
What should be telling about that statement is not that the Prime Minister accidentally equated one of the world’s foremost spiritual leaders to a call girl, but that the comparison of sneaking off to a hotel to meet one would pop into his head so quickly. Time to check the books at the Chateau Laurier or the Westin?
Perhaps.
I also found this rather interesting (from the same article)…
“Harper is a strong critic of China’s human rights record and what he calls the “undemocratic regime” in Beijing.”
Interestingly, and despite this, Statistics Canada tells a different story…
“Canada’s total merchandise trade with China has soared in the last decade, reaching $42.1 billion in 2006 and accounting for 5.0% of Canada’s world trade. In 1997, China was Canada’s fourth largest trading partner, with total merchandise trade of $8.7 billion. By 2003, the country had emerged as Canada’s second largest trading partner, surpassing the U.K. and Japan. Imports from China were five times higher in 2006 than in 1997, while exports to the country had tripled.
A significant part of trade between Canada and China can be related to the globalization of production. In 1997, 34.3% of Canada’s exports to and 37.6% of imports from China involved two-way trade within the same commodity groups. By 2006, with exports four times their 1997 level and imports more than eight times their 1997 level, the two-way trade accounted for over 45% of exports and over 57% of imports. Leading commodities in the two-way trade include: organic and inorganic chemicals; plastic and rubber materials; iron and steel and articles made of iron and steel; industrial and agricultural machinery and equipment; electronics; automotive equipment and parts; optical, photo, medical and surgical instruments; wood products, paper and paperboard; and fish products.
The commodity mix of exports to China has changed little in the last decade. Indeed, of the 30 leading commodities exported in 1997, 25 remained in the list of 30 leading commodities exported to China in 2006.
In 1997, China accounted for 1.8% of Canada’s total imports of machinery and equipment (in classes 84 and 85 of the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System) from the world. Imports of machinery and equipment from China accelerated over the last decade and, by 2006, the country’s share in Canada’s total imports in that category grew to 13.6%. Imports from China in machinery and equipment also became more intensive between 1997 and 2006. The share of this commodity group in Canada’s total imports from China advanced from 23.6% in 1997 to 40.5% in 2006.”
Strong criticism, as usual, doesn’t include economics. Thanks Milton Friedman.
Want to bookmark or share this entry?
This entry was posted on Thursday, December 27th, 2007 at 9:31 am. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
December 27th, 2007 at 9:43 am
“What should be telling about that statement is not that the Prime Minister accidentally equated one of the world’s foremost spiritual leaders to a call girl, but that the comparison of sneaking off to a hotel to meet one would pop into his head so quickly.”
EXACTLY! But the chateau laurier is too obvious - is there a motel 8 in Kanata or Mississauga?
December 27th, 2007 at 9:57 am
I was thinking the other day that with some mega-hold hair gel, some crazy blue contacts, and maybe a couple of extra pounds, Pitt could probably pass for Harper. Just sayin’…
December 27th, 2007 at 10:13 am
Wow…I find his ” call girl ” comment really funny but sad at the same time…poor Harper !
This is something I would expect to hear from Bush
Like we say in french ” pas fort “…
December 27th, 2007 at 11:00 am
[quote comment="36532"]“What should be telling about that statement is not that the Prime Minister accidentally equated one of the world’s foremost spiritual leaders to a call girl, but that the comparison of sneaking off to a hotel to meet one would pop into his head so quickly.”
EXACTLY! But the chateau laurier is too obvious - is there a motel 8 in Kanata or Mississauga?[/quote]
I work doing 411/0/Relay for the deaf and hard of hearing for a telecom company, and if I remember correctly, Mississauga DOES have a Super 8 or a Motel 6 or something equivalent.
Worse comes to worse, there’s the Travelodge at the airport.
December 27th, 2007 at 2:36 pm
That comment is on par with what George Bush makes on a regular basis! I’m sure in hindsight Mr. Harper regrets the comparison of the Dali Lama to a call girl but when you are the Prime Minister there is no excuse for that comment.
December 27th, 2007 at 2:48 pm
Monkey - do you really want to play this game? With me?
December 27th, 2007 at 3:15 pm
[quote comment="36563"]Monkey - do you really want to play this game? With me?[/quote]
Heh heh, no. I’m surprised you didn’t already kick my ass. Thanks for not. Honestly, though, it was a totally innocent observation…of course, you’d have to practice the funny smirk…but just think of the possibilities if we could sneak you in to cover a few official duties…
December 27th, 2007 at 3:27 pm
Hey! The Dalai Lama just popped up on the side bar of my Facebook page!
December 27th, 2007 at 3:47 pm
[quote comment="36532"]“What should be telling about that statement is not that the Prime Minister accidentally equated one of the world’s foremost spiritual leaders to a call girl, but that the comparison of sneaking off to a hotel to meet one would pop into his head so quickly.”
[/quote]
LMFAO !!!!
And Harper “think” - surely you jest !!!
December 27th, 2007 at 4:21 pm
I think just the fact that he would think it’s ridiculous to meet him anywhere other than his office was a very insensitive thought. Call girl comment or not, it was stupid to say he meets everyone at his office and that no one is treated differently. The Dalai Lama is an exception.
December 27th, 2007 at 10:23 pm
That explains Stephen Harper’s silly smile and ever so faint, yet omnipresent traces of leftover eyeliner…
Nothing says ‘exception’ like Ice Cream and Hookers at the Hilton.
December 27th, 2007 at 11:04 pm
Ha ha, I can’t get away from this hooker, whore talk tonite. it’s everywhere.. these threads of infested with whoriness. It’s not hump day anymore folks.
December 28th, 2007 at 1:06 am
… i always wonder how much influence the mass consuming public has, when we v$te everyday through choice (of refusal, alternatives or direct marketed products).
I am not naive enough to believe personal avoidance of certain products and stores will will solve all the human rights abuses (HRA) , but at least people would begin to stand behind their claims of rejecting HRA. Nor am I suggesting we must become complete self-sustaining hermets who only posess what we need to survive one day to the next, but i question where that line should really be drawn and where does our personal responsibility lie?
For many Canadians like myself, we proclaim our outrage concerning such human rights abuses but continue on in our day consuming, many unaware of the full impacts on the environment and people of our ’stuff,’ and many not wanting to look in the mirror and ask ‘how are my choices truly affecting others?’ And to make it more complicated, it doesn’t help that the information we are given to help us make better choices are often misleading themselves (i.e. “Made in Canada,’ “Product of Canada”).
I do have hope and focus on the fact that there are people talking about the issues and showing interest in them and keep my head down focusing on those positives… until i come around to posts like this and then i get to bitch all over again (fun but exhausting) on related issues i work during the day to encourage people to become mindful of…
- now i guess is the time to state that i am by no means directly insinuating anyone here, and i definitely overwhelm myself with these overly simplistic thoughts regarding the complexities of global trade but, as i was once accused of, over analysis causes paralysis and i’m at the point there i am tired of hearing the talk but not seeing the walk, myself included -
re: Dalai Lama - he’s one of my heros, and honestly i’d call anyone , who is constantly happy and laughing like that, up to my room anyday.
December 31st, 2007 at 3:11 pm
[quote]Strong criticism, as usual, doesn’t include economics. Thanks Milton Friedman.[/quote]
I have a better idea, how about Canada enacts a policy of isolationism where we don’t trade with anybody. It will ultimately drive the country and the economy into the ground but dammit at least we wont be contributing to human rights abuses by the evil Chinese, or to terrorist camps run by those fascists down south.