Inkless Wells

Paul Wells on all the latest out of Ottawa—along with the occasional post about jazz. Follow Paul on Twitter: @InklessPW

Categories: Capital Read, Inkless Wells

Excerpt from the Prime Minister's Shanghai speech

by Paul Wells on Friday, December 4, 2009 9:18pm - 81 Comments

…”But China is doing more than just building itself a ‘hard’ infrastructure of roads and buildings. It is also in the process of building a ‘soft’ infrastructure. A pillar of which is a modern legal system based on the rule of law.

“It is impossible to underestimate the significance of the rule of law in a modern society. It is a profoundly inclusive concept. One that subordinates all social, economic, political, and individual behaviour to an agreed set of codes and regulations. To have meaning, these rules must not be the exclusive preserve of a privileged few. They must be the common property of all citizens. They must be clear to everyone, taught to everyone and applied to everyone in a uniform way.

“No one can be above the law. And no one can be forgotten by the law or denied its protection. And to be applied impartially, the rule of law means that there should be a clear separation of the prosecutor from the person who will ultimately pass judgement.

“Of course, the rule of law is about more than just a dry set of rules. The rules themselves reflect fundamental values of right conduct.

“The Canadian experience, and that of countries around the world, is that these values, and the rights that make them specific, are universal. They are endowed equally to all people, everywhere. Not on the basis of any special power or privilege, but purely and simply because they have been given the gift of life.

“That is why we call them human rights. And they not only protect individuals from abuse. They empower them to contribute fully and creatively to building a stronger society.

“Canada believes that frank discussion among nations about human rights can foster wider respect for and entrenchment of those rights. That while circumstances and experiences may vary from nation to nation, we all share a sense of what is just, what is right.

“True friends are never shy about exchanging views on important issues.

“And so, as a friend, I must tell you that Canadians are concerned when they hear reports from China of interference in the right of free expression. Or that people are imprisoned and badly treated for observing their spiritual beliefs. These reports transgress our most deeply-held convictions…”

Tags: It's Jean Chrétien, Speaking in February 2001

More by Paul Wells

User-Content

How accurate that you transcribed Harper's "air quotes" with each paragraph.

Paul Wells

Wrong again. You’re consistent.

User-Content

It was a "ha ha." Not a bilious outburst directed at any particular MacLean's blogger, which is entirely inappropriate for Blog Central, as we all know.
Auralius

Paul,
What did you think of Salutin's column in today's Globe and Mail? Don't agree with me that it is an example of enlightened and enlightening journalism.
User-Content

Gee, how did these comments get re-ordered all of sudden?

Dot

Pinyin wanted a second copy – easier to read backwards.

http://intensedebate.com/people/hellomike hellomike

How could that comment ever be considered worthwhile to type? Maybe you should quit before you get too excited.

User-Content

Ok, mommy.

hosertohoosier

Or as this will appear in the China daily:

The Prime Minister stressed that everything is fine in China. China is a great country with infallible leaders…
http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

Wow. Has any Canadian PM ever been so blunt to a Chinese audience? This tops Chretien's speech.

Dot

Read the tags.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

Ah, yes. I always forget to read the tags.

hosertohoosier

I did too. I guess I assumed Chretien's speeches in China were more like "Give us da money, hein. By da way, I can recommend a good advertising company if you want."

User-Content

*snort*

http://intensedebate.com/people/Stewart_Smith Stewart_Smith

I hate Harper and would likely punch him in the face given half a chance.

This speech however touches all the correct notes, since it frames the human rights issues/challenges of China within a positive context, looking forward rather than backward and as a result is constructive rather than useless.

jarrid

Why do left of center commenters indiscriminately use the word "hate" when discussing politcs?

kcm

Irony alert! Harper Haters! Ring any bells J?

http://intensedebate.com/people/sea_n_mountains sea_n_mountains

did you read the tag?

jarrid

Paul Martin and Jean Chretien were snivellers when it came to the Chinese. Chretien has continued his snivelling since he's left office.

On this front, Harper has outclassed his two predecessors in his handling of the Chinese. He'll earn their respect. They probably had contempt for Martin and Chretien.
kcm

This is a good speech…so where did he lift it from? [ slap...cynical bugger]

“It is impossible to underestimate the significance of the rule of law in a modern society. It is a profoundly inclusive concept. One that subordinates all social, economic, political, and individual behaviour to an agreed set of codes and regulations. To have meaning, these rules must not be the exclusive preserve of a privileged few. They must be the common property of all citizens. They must be clear to everyone, taught to everyone and applied to everyone in a uniform way"

Very good. Now who did you say observes this ideal? [ slap...slap...cynical bugger you!]

kcm

Clearly my opening remarks indicate that i had my doubts. Sigh…those tags…always the tags with Wells…@#$%^@

It is a great speech. I wonder who wrote it?

http://intensedebate.com/people/TwoYen TwoYen

Peter Donolo?

User-Content

Wrong again. You're consistent.

jarrid

You're a sad case Ti-G*y.

User-Content

"On this front, Harper has outclassed his two predecessors in his handling of the Chinese."

Haw haw haw!

http://intensedebate.com/people/Jenn_ Jenn_

Wow, I'm glad I read Dot's comment, because I was going to say, "Yes! Exactly! Now why doesn't he live by these words?"

Now I see why. I didn't realize I liked Chretien as much as it would seem I do.
http://intensedebate.com/people/jolyon jolyon

Is this Harper and why is talking about the rule of law?

ChiComs are not moving towards rule of law, this speech is laughable. Tho I did like the bit about endowed rights.

http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

The tags, jwl. Read the tags.

Dot

I should have stayed quiet. This could have been really entertaining. Good one, pw.

User-Content

He didn't include a source. That was the first clue.

http://intensedebate.com/people/hellomike hellomike

I can't imagine what it's like to be a journalist in the internet age, seeing first-hand through comments how many people completely miss the intent of what you write.

Or were letters to the editor this bad, too? Depressing thought…
Mulletaur

"And so, as a friend, I must tell you that Canadians are concerned when they hear reports from China of interference in the right of free expression.".

And how do Canadians react when they hear of reports of torture from China ?

Lame-o.
Peter Jay

Good on Chretien.

Still, China's feeling its oats. It's post-Olympics, post-US-European meltdown w/ China barely seeing a blip.

China in 2001 vs China 2009. They have pictures from every year since the 90s of the Oriental Pearl side of skyline from across the Huang Pu in Shanhai (you can see them at the bottom of the Oriental Pearl — think CN Tower). Anyway, the difference between 2001 and 2008 was unbelievable.
kcm

Good one PW. Can we say this goes some way to slaying the constant refrain from the conbots that Chretien had no principles; Chretien was afaid to speak truth to power; Liberals always value expediency over principle? i doubt it, but nice find. Chretien was a very good PM, if not an always ethical one.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

It was a great speech, too, based on the excerpts that were posted. By presenting it the way he did, Wells made an excellent point. I had absolutely no idea that Chretien had been so blunt and direct with China. Good for Chretien.

User-Content

Nice save.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

Did you put air quotes around those words?

User-Content

No.

http://intensedebate.com/people/andrewcoyne Andrew Coyne

What a provocative and petulant speech. After the arrogant and cavalier approach Chretien has taken here we will have to work hard to rebuild this critical relationship.

Besides, by what right do we lecture the Chinese on the rule of law given our experience with the sponsorship scandal?

http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

LOL.
User-Content

And they expect us to pay cash money for this, folks.

G.,,,

I must be missing several layers of sarcasm in this thread.

I thought it was a decent speech as quoted.
I hear the tone of 'you've come a long way baby' in it and an appeal to a higher standard of human rights as a practical way to get better results from any society.

I do know that the PM could not be more aware of the stage he is standing on, and even if his obligatory Chamberlain-ian speech was expected, it was also expected that he make it.
As well as the reception it was reported to have received.

I have playing the Moody Blues album In Search of the Lost Chord in my mind ever since I wished that the Prime Minister had responded to the Premier's chide with,'Dr. Livingstone, I presume?'

I don't know which direction China is going to take.
And I don't think anyone else knows, either.

http://intensedebate.com/people/jolyon jolyon

"Besides, by what right do we lecture the Chinese on the rule of law given our experience with the sponsorship scandal?"

I think you are on to something, Coyne. I was wondering why there was no hand-wringing from the useful idiots here about the 'hypocrisy' of Chretien talking about "interference in the right of free expression" when our government, as just one easy example, has been hounding Boisson.

HRCs and hate speech laws interfere in our 'right of free expression' across Canada every day but few seem to mind.

kcm

"I think you are on to something, Coyne. I was wondering why there was no hand-wringing from the useful idiots here about the 'hypocrisy' of Chretien talking about "interference in the right of free expression…"

False equivalencies was Ac's theme. I think you missed the irony…guess it just wasn't obvious enough.

http://intensedebate.com/people/sea_n_mountains sea_n_mountains

speaking of false equivalences… please compare and contrast Chretien treatment of sponsorship with Harper treatment of Colvin allegations…. hint: one took actions to have allegations properly investigated by proper authorities resulting in their own party being punished at the polls and wrongdoers being appropriately sanctioned (with another crook going to jail yesterday)… one not so much.

http://intensedebate.com/people/jolyon jolyon

"speaking of false equivalences… please compare and contrast Chretien treatment of sponsorship"

Chretien's behaviour was similar to the kid who murders his parents and asks for mercy from court because he's an orphan. Using Chretien as some sort of paragon of virtue is very funny indeed.

http://intensedebate.com/people/sea_n_mountains sea_n_mountains

I will let Wells respond to that one….

wilson

Beauty AC!!!
Now I see why china has snubbed Canada for a decade….Chretien giving a real Canadian human rights speech, in public.

User-Content

Wow. Has any Canadian pundit ever been so blunt to his audience? This tops the last thing Coyne said.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

Coyne is in top form these days. I also found his "De Gaulle" lampoon yesterday quite amusing.

User-Content

"I also found his "De Gaulle" lampoon yesterday quite amusing."

You mean the one in which Coyne confused domestic and international diplomacy?

Nah. I wasn't that good. In fact, it was kind of embarrassing.
Dot

I didn't think it was a good analogy, and said so at the time. In hindsight, I should have described it as "false equivalences".

http://intensedebate.com/people/Jenn_ Jenn_

But he did nicely demonstrate my point about hypocrisy.

User-Content

Whyte, Coyne, Wells, Steyn, Amiel, Cosh…

What do they have in common? One degree removed from a felon how stole millions from his own company.

http://intensedebate.com/people/s_c_f s_c_f

If you own something, you can't steal it.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

I believe that will be his epitaph.

http://intensedebate.com/people/s_c_f s_c_f

The whole point is that he didn't own it, not anymore.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

Ah, but we're groping toward the truth together. It had been his company but was his no longer, yet he treated it as if it still was. Seems to me he was so used to being surrounded by yes-men that he figured he could get away with anything merely because he willed it.
Mulletaur

Black clearly had delusions of grandeur, he thought he could outdo Robert Maxwell.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Inkless Inkless

No. He wrote, in so many words, that he never would.

http://intensedebate.com/people/OntarioTown OntarioTown

Geez, Coyne, we all know governments have corruption, etc. but here we deal with it. In China they don't.

That's the difference. We allow free speech, journalists to write about issues and we investigation crimes and corruption.

On the angry high horse again.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Jenn_ Jenn_

Yes, but to be fair, at the time of that speech, we hadn't dealt with the sponsorship scandal. So, at the time of that speech, Chretien was a hypocrite. Although also to be fair, he may, just possibly, not have known what (or who) our sponsorship funds were funding then, either.

http://intensedebate.com/people/OntarioTown OntarioTown

Don't know if Chretien knew or not at the time, but it was Chretien that called in the Auditor General and RCMP.

The point is – we have laws, measures to deal with the – China doesn't.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Jenn_ Jenn_

Well, we used to (in Chretien's time). Now we seem to have . . . laws that are ignored, such as Parliamentary precedence, etc.

http://intensedebate.com/people/andrewcoyne Andrew Coyne

Sigh. Maybe I need to take a tip from Wells, and put a tag at the end of the post: "I'm being IRONIC."

Holly Stick

Just add it after your name
http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

NO! It'll undo all the fun…
Dot

Are you being sarcastic? Now, that would be ironic.

http://www.sarcasmsociety.com/irony/howtorecogniz…

Ccc

It's just too easy.

Read the tag, folks.

http://intensedebate.com/people/danby danby

Yes, it's very easy when the "read the tag" comment has already been up for 14 hours

shouldIsellyourwheat

Some points before we beatify Chretien:
1) Chretien shut down the Somalia inquiry when it began to get interesting.
2) Chretien violated Quebec's referendum laws and spending limits. And well Adscam (True, the PQ tried rigging the ballot counting.)
3) Chretien befriended and "partied" with the head of the RCMP. The RCMP never seriously went after Chretien in his scandals Chretien ignored the multifude of problems at high levels of the RCMP during his watch.

kcm

He also mangled the English language, and throttled innocent protesters…it's just amazes me that Canadians gave him 3 staight majorities…what were we thinking?

hosertohoosier

Possibly they were thinking about Preston Manning or Stockwell Day as Prime Minister. It is also possible they were thinking about the elimination of the deficit; sustained economic growth and job growth; a marked reduction in crime; reduction of support for sovereignty from a '95 near-miss to below 40% (and delivered the clarity act without a major fuss). After his last majority win he also greatly expanded liberties for same-sex couples and pot-smokers, and kept Canada out of a war that would have been disastrous for our troops (and the Quebec provincial election). Chretien's policies made Canadians freer, more united, richer and safer – for that I am willing to forgive a little corruption.
http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

Getting that close to the face of the prime minister makes you, all of a sudden, a not-so-innocent protester. Between him and Aline and the Inuit carving, they've got lessons for RCMP's VIP security detail…

http://intensedebate.com/people/Jenn_ Jenn_

And while we're on the subject of human rights abuses by others, but never our own, has everyone read Pearson's blog of Friday?
http://glenpearson.wordpress.com/2009/12/04/time-…

Holly Stick

Yes, shame on the Harper government for cutting funding to Kairos? Was it because they expressed concern about global warming? Or about aboriginal people and migrant workers at the tarsands? Or about the practices of Canadian mining companies in other countries? Which dirty secret are the Conservatives trying to hide now?

http://intensedebate.com/people/subscribr subscribr

Paul, you might as well disable tags if you're not going to use them properly. Tags actually have a purpose and you routinely abuse their intended use.

McC

maw… poor muffin.

Auralius

Did Mr. Harper "have any frank discussion" with his Indian counterpart about human rights violations during his visit to one of the oldest democracies in the world? If yes, did he mention the exemplary treatment of 300 million untouchables, 50 million slaves, child labour, pollution, etc.?

http://intensedebate.com/people/Jenn_ Jenn_

I am absolutely amazed at the number of people who comment on a blog posting without reading all (or any of) the other comments first. That's often the best part!