Saudi Arabia expels Canadian ambassador for urging release of activists

[Remius]

Baird is a private citizen now.  He can say what he wishes with in the rights and privileges of our freedom of expression.  In fact he always could, but now as a private citizen trying to link him to party politics is grossly partisan.

Sorry but if you think that Baird cannot be linked to party politics you are mistaken.  He is a private citizen yes.  He is free to say what he wants to who he wants, yes.  But he is still a member of the conservative party, helped Doug Ford during his campaign and is a member of his transition team and you can bet still has input at the federal party level.

It isn't partisan to link him to anything that involves party politics because he is still heavily involved.  Don't kid yourself. 

 

[Halifax Tar]

Sorry but if you think that Baird cannot be linked to party politics you are mistaken.  He is a private citizen yes.  He is free to say what he wants to who he wants, yes.  But he is still a member of the conservative party, helped Doug Ford during his campaign and is a member of his transition team and you can bet still has input at the federal party level.

It isn't partisan to link him to anything that involves party politics because he is still heavily involved.  Don't kid yourself.

The Ontario PC party and the CPC are not the one in the same.  Not to mention you are not delineating the Ontario Provincial election from Federal Foreign Affairs.  His party membership is inconsequential.  And trying to formulate an argument around that will only lead us down a road where we start basing everything off of persons suspected or proven party membership.  He's a free man, he can say what he wants.  And any political interference or framing should just be seen as continuing the gross and disturbing partisanship we currently live in.

His comments should be ignored with an added eye roll for amplification.  He has no power, he has no say.  Its all just bluster.

The fact remains he ceased to be an elected Federal MP in Mar '15.  Trying to smear the CPC because of Bairds statements is at best a stretch and at worst gross partisan politics. 

This is a very slippery slope IMHO.

 

[Remius]

You missed my point entirely.

Just because he is a private citizen does not mean he isn't partisan nor does it mean he is not linked to party politics.  Provincial and federal politics have always been bedfellows as shown by many federal types participating and vice versa.  Where do you think Gerald Butts comes from? Where do you think the current Liberal envriro push comes from?

Now, if you someone tries to link what he says as CPC policy and take on that then I agree with you but I don't think anyone said that.  The comment that The Head said was that Baird was partisan.  He completely was as proven by criticising the very thing he did.

 

[Halifax Tar]

You missed my point entirely.

Just because he is a private citizen does not mean he isn't partisan nor does it mean he is not linked to party politics.  Provincial and federal politics have always been bedfellows as shown by many federal types participating and vice versa.  Where do you think Gerald Butts comes from? Where do you think the current Liberal envriro push comes from?

Now, if you someone tries to link what he says as CPC policy and take on that then I agree with you but I don't think anyone said that.  The comment that The Head said was that Baird was partisan.  He completely was as proven by criticising the very thing he did.

Remius,

Disagreement does not equal a missed point. 

I don't think anyone could deny that Baird holds political leaning I would even say a bias.  My point is that as a private citizen we should give his opinions about as much attention as you or I espousing a particular position.  He hasn't warmed a seat in the HOC since Mar '15.  Trying to tie his comments to the CPC or conservative folks is simplistic and another example of partisan politics.  Has the Leader of the Opposition come out in support of Bairds position ?  What about the Ont Premier ?, seeing as your drug him into this, Exactly.  Just ignore him (Baird).

Our 3 levels of government are separate and have stayed that way to allow for effective and concentrated governance at all levels.  Is there cross over in people sure, but they are separate parties and governments and you really should distinguish them separately because they are separate, no matter how like minded some of the people may be.

My position is not weather Baird is partisan or not, its trying to link that partisan stance to the current Federal Opposition is wrong and fact less.  My using of TheHead's quote was only to begin the position I hold, which is that you cannot link Baird to Federal Politics as he is a private citizen and acts on his own accord.  Any effort to link him to the CPC is simple gross partisan politics and only works to further the distance between the sides, the continuation of the unfounded vilification of former PM Harper and his governments and is being pushed by Canadian MSM and sitting Government.

He's a distraction, he should be ignored, as I said before. 

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Out of all that, you got I was saying, "'its Harpers fault' or 'other governments did it, why cant we?'"? 

Thanks for brilliantly illustrating my point.

No, that's just what I focused on.

Thanks for the show of faux superiority and disdain for personal opinion.

 

[BeyondTheNow]

This thread is moving downhill. A reminder that arguments are to be debated, not the user. If comments continue their downward spiral, the thread will be locked.

Staff

 

[garb811]

Baird is a private citizen now.  He can say what he wishes with in the rights and privileges of our freedom of expression.  In fact he always could, but now as a private citizen trying to link him to party politics is grossly partisan.

Sure, IF he had actually been asked to conduct the interview simply because he is now a private citizen.  But I find it hard to believe he was.  In the clip I watched the fact he was a former Minister of Foreign Affairs featured prominently, in addition to his role at Barrick, neatly tying the two roles and the reason for the interview together. 

So, I wonder why it was he was asked (or maybe offered) to do that interview.  I mean, it's not like someone like The Right Honourable Brian Mulroney, His Excellency José María Aznar (former Spanish PM), Secretary William S. Cohen, The Honorable Newt Gingrich or any of the other august persons on that board would have brought any gravitas to the interview.  Instead they chose the guy who did a complete 180 on air from his previous, very public, position.  I wonder why that was?  The same people (plus 1) are still in jail.  The Saudis are still up to the same things they were when he was criticizing them.  The only things that have changed is he has a new boss and there is a different Government in power. 

But you're right, maybe linking him to this on a political level may be wrongheaded.  Maybe he is just trying to be Joe Average, trying to get back into civilian life and make his way just like everyone else on his own talents and hard work instead of his past political life and connections.  So let's take a look at his website, where I'm sure there is no mention of his former role...

The Honourable John R. Baird, P.C.

Huh...well, maybe that's just a coincidence that his website is labeled with his, well earned, political honourific.  I'm sure the actual content is more mundane and focuses more on his non-political CV.

Mr. Baird is a Senior Advisor to various enterprises and a former Senior Cabinet Minister in the Government of Canada.
An instrumental figure in bilateral trade and investment relationships, Mr. Baird has played a leading role in the Canada-China dialogue and worked to build ties with ASEAN countries. In addition, Mr. Baird has worked closely with international leaders to strengthen security and economic ties with the United States and Middle Eastern countries.

A native of Ottawa, Baird spent three terms as a Member of Parliament and four years as Foreign Minister. He also served as President of the Treasury Board, Minister of the Environment, Minister of Transport and Infrastructure, and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons. Prior to entering federal politics, Mr. Baird spent ten years in the Ontario Legislature where he served as Minister of Community and Social Services, Minister of Energy, and Government House Leader.

I guess maybe continuing to link him to party politics isn't so shameful when that is the main thing he is promoting himself for. I'd be curious to know if he would have done that interview in the exact same situation but with a Conservative Government in the seat. After all, when it comes to finger pointing and blame laying, the Government in power seems to be a key criteria for some.

 

[Infanteer]

Too bad.  I always liked Mr Baird, but this just stinks of hypocrisy of the highest degree.  Trouble is, he knows what he wrote before, so why did he have no problems with the flip-flop?

 

[Good2Golf]

For a bit of perspective on the issue, what if we could for a moment consider that Canada was just sub-branding and re-transmitting the original messenger's demand, several weeks after the fact? Funny that MbS didn't tear the U.N.'s Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights a new one when it released the original admonishment of the Saudi Government's treatment of women

Note:  27 June is before 2 August, just for fear anyone thought that Canada had led such statements earlier than say, the International organization that at one time had its Human Right panel actually chaired by Saudi Arabia.

Saudi Arabia must immediately free women human rights defenders held in crackdown, say UN experts 
https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=23270&LangID=E

GENEVA (27 June 2018) – UN human rights experts* are urging Saudi Arabia to immediately release a number of women’s human rights defenders arrested in a nationwide crackdown by the authorities, as the country celebrates the official lifting of the ban on women driving on Sunday.

“In stark contrast with this celebrated moment of liberation for Saudi women, women’s human rights defenders have been arrested and detained on a wide scale across the country, which is truly worrying and perhaps a better indication of the Government’s approach to women’s human rights. We call for the urgent release of all of those detained while pursuing their legitimate activities in the promotion and protection of women’s rights in Saudi Arabia,” the experts said in a joint statement.

“Women human rights defenders face compounded stigma, not only because of their work as human rights defenders, but also because of discrimination on gender grounds,” they added.

The crackdown began on 15 May 2018 with a spate of arrests of prominent women’s human rights defenders. Over the following three weeks, some 12 other human rights defenders, including both women and men, were also arrested. The majority of them have been specifically advocating for women’s human rights and for the lifting of the driving ban. Reports indicate that a number of those arrested face extremely serious charges, raising fears that each could face up to 20 years in prison.

Although exact charges have not been confirmed, reports have stated that some of the defenders stand accused of engaging in suspicious communications with foreign entities working to undermine Saudi national security, and of trespassing against the country’s religious and national foundations.

Among those arrested is Mohammed Saleh Al-Bajadi, a co-founder of the now-banned Saudi Civil and Political Rights Association (ACPRA), who was reportedly forcibly disappeared from his home on 24 May 2018. There are also concerns over at least one woman human rights defender who is being held incommunicado.

“Saudi Arabia has won acclaim for its modernization under Prince Mohammed Bin Salman, including the ending of the ban on women driving, but these arrests portray a contradictory stance in policy regarding women’s rights,” the experts said.

Though four of those arrested have been released, the majority remain in detention. It is believed that some cases have now been transferred to the Special Criminal Court.

“We reiterate our long-time concern over others detained in Saudi Arabia on the basis of their activism and the exercise of their right to freedom of expression as well as their right to freedom of association, including Raef Badawi,” the experts said.

“We urge the Saudi Government to show a true commitment to improve its human rights record by taking a more progressive stance, especially with regards to women’s rights. The first step in demonstrating such commitment is to free the human rights defenders who remain in prison solely as a result of working to advance the enjoyment of rights for all,” the experts concluded.

The experts have been in contact with the Government of Saudi Arabia regarding the issues highlighted.

ENDS

* The UN experts: Mr. Michel Forst, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders; Mr. Seong-Phil Hong, Chair-Rapporteur of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, Mr. David Kaye, Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression; Ms. Fionnuala Ní Aoláin, Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism; Mr. Bernard Duhaime, Chair of the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances; Mr. Clément Nyaletsossi Voulé, Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association; Mr. Philip Alston, Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights; Ms. Ivana Radačić, Chair of the Working Group on the issue of discrimination against women in law and in practice.; Dubravka Šimonović, Special Rapporteur on violence against women.

The Special Rapporteurs are part of what is known as the Special Procedures of the Human Rights Council. Special Procedures, the largest body of independent experts in the UN Human Rights system, is the general name of the Council’s independent fact-finding and monitoring mechanisms that address either specific country situations or thematic issues in all parts of the world. Special Procedures experts work on a voluntary basis; they are not UN staff and do not receive a salary for their work. They are independent from any government or organization and serve in their individual capacity.

UN Human Rights, country page – Saudi Arabia

For more information and media requests, please contact: defenders@ohchr.org

For media inquiries related to other UN independent experts please contact:
Jeremy Laurence, UN Human Rights – Media Unit (+41 22 917 9383 / jlaurence@ohchr.org)

Hmmmm....makes one (some, critically) think.


Reagrds
G2G

 

[Journeyman]

Hmmmm....makes one (some, critically) think.

Good luck with that.

 

[garb811]

Too bad.  I always liked Mr Baird, but this just stinks of hypocrisy of the highest degree.  Trouble is, he knows what he wrote before, so why did he have no problems with the flip-flop?

Baird is on the International Advisory Board of Barrick.  Barrick owns 50% of a copper mine in Saudi Arabia, with the other investor being predominantly owned by the Saudi Government.  When the Saudis bought in, they did it for $210 million USD in 2014, so not exactly a chump change investment for Barrick at risk, and the project only really started to move forward after the Saudi's bought in, with production starting in 2016.  While Baird was making his TV appearances, Barrick was also stating, "...[the] political row between Saudi Arabia and Canada likely won’t impact its copper operations in the Kingdom." Could be a huge coincidence.  But since I don't believe in coincidence on this scale, I'm more willing to think this was the price for Barrick to be able to reassure its investors that there wouldn't be a negative impact on Barrick as a result of the ongoing spat.

As this has continued to fall out, I'm more and more inclined to believe that Saudi Arabia had a limit on the price it was willing to make and anything they truly needed was never going to be impacted.

Ban on Grain imports?  Sounds bad but they hadn't imported any of the two crops they are banning this crop year and it is almost over, so they likely weren't going to anyway.  Even last year they only imported 0.5% of Canada's wheat shipments; more than that is left in the fields each year. What is interesting is they aren't banning soybeans, which they actually have imported this year.

Cancelling direct flights by their national airline?  Symbolic as it simply means people have to route through another location. Any other airline will be more than happy to pick up the extra passengers.  And, cancelling the flights has likely meant they have given up their landing slots at Pearson, meaning it isn't a matter of simply announcing they are going to resume flights when this calms down. They are going to have to negotiate for those and that is going to involve the Canadian Government.

For the medical trainees, that one might hurt short term but it is really going to impact Saudi Arabia in the long term as those folks being recalled are now going to have to be placed elsewhere to complete their accreditation.  I recall an article back in April that there were over a hundred Canadian medical graduates who weren't able to get a residency spot; guess at least some of those folks are going to be pretty happy now, and that's going to benefit Canada in the long run as most of those folks are going to stay in Canada when they are done.

Dumping Canadian investments, no matter what the cost?  All that really accomplished was making some other investors happy as they picked up a bunch of stuff at a bargain as they bought what the Saudis were getting rid of.

Recalling their Ambassador and expelling ours?  Again, highly symbolic but in the big scheme of things, a non-issue.  The Embassies remain open with a Chargé d'affaires acting in the Ambassador's stead and business carries on, just like it does when the Ambassador is away on vacation.

As others have pointed out, the ones that seem to really matter to the Saudis, sources of direct income and equipment for their security forces, weren't touched, so a lot of flash and not much bang in the long term.

 

[Blackadder1916]

. . .

For the medical trainees, that one might hurt short term but it is really going to impact Saudi Arabia in the long term as those folks being recalled are now going to have to be placed elsewhere to complete their accreditation.  I recall an article back in April that there were over a hundred Canadian medical graduates who weren't able to get a residency spot; guess at least some of those folks are going to be pretty happy now, and that's going to benefit Canada in the long run as most of those folks are going to stay in Canada when they are done.

. . .

You're on point with the rest of your post, however with the medical trainee aspect a few tweeks would be in order.  While you may have read an article about Canadian med school graduates not getting residency spots that would be more about them not being selected for their choice of specialty and not wanting to do something else.  The Saudis did not compete for the available residency positions in the "match".  They (and generally all Middle Eastern med students and residents who are "student visa" holders) attending med schools or residency have those slots bought and paid for by their government.  If the occupants of those positions are no longer there, the positions are also gone.  There are no sudden magical vacancies that a Canadian can slide into.  The number of Canadian residency positions are generally inline with the number of expected medical school graduates, and the funding allotted to the med schools by provinces is based on the expected requirement (subject to availability of money) for doctors.

As for the number of Canadian medical residency positions in 2018 there were a total of 3,308 vacancies (compared to 2,847 current year graduates who participated in the match), in the first iteration 3,080 residency positions were filled leaving 228 unfilled at the end of the first iteration.  By the final match 3,230 were matched to a residency (including current and prior year CMGs, IMGs and even a few USMGs) so leaving 78 residency slots unfilled (mostly family medicine).  Of the 2018 Canadian med school graduates 172 were not matched, but it would be disingenuous to say that an opportunity to have a residency wasn't there.  It's just that not everyone can be a surgeon, just as not everyone can be a jet fighter pilot.

 

[garb811]

You're on point with the rest of your post, however with the medical trainee aspect a few tweeks would be in order.  While you may have read an article about Canadian med school graduates not getting residency spots that would be more about them not being selected for their choice of specialty and not wanting to do something else.  The Saudis did not compete for the available residency positions in the "match".  They (and generally all Middle Eastern med students and residents who are "student visa" holders) attending med schools or residency have those slots bought and paid for by their government.  If the occupants of those positions are no longer there, the positions are also gone.  There are no sudden magical vacancies that a Canadian can slide into.  The number of Canadian residency positions are generally inline with the number of expected medical school graduates, and the funding allotted to the med schools by provinces is based on the expected requirement (subject to availability of money) for doctors.

As for the number of Canadian medical residency positions in 2018 there were a total of 3,308 vacancies (compared to 2,847 current year graduates who participated in the match), in the first iteration 3,080 residency positions were filled leaving 228 unfilled at the end of the first iteration.  By the final match 3,230 were matched to a residency (including current and prior year CMGs, IMGs and even a few USMGs) so leaving 78 residency slots unfilled (mostly family medicine).  Of the 2018 Canadian med school graduates 172 were not matched, but it would be disingenuous to say that an opportunity to have a residency wasn't there.  It's just that not everyone can be a surgeon, just as not everyone can be a jet fighter pilot.

Interesting to know the more detailed workings of this, thanks!

 

[Remius]

Is it also true that Canadian residency spots that are funded by the government hence the limit?  But also because residents also require supervision by senior residents and staff.  Losing those Saudis means losing some of those senior residents who help train our own. 

Canada can replace those spots.  but they either have to attract other foreign students or fund more Canadian spots. 

However it might be their loss as well.  Canada has 4 of the top 50 medical schools in the world with U of T at 11th spot.  So some of those students might not get the same level of education depending on where they go.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

I've popped in and out of this thread reading through the commentary.  The arguments are familiar:

1.  Liberals/Left Wing are bad because they are pandering to their base for domestic political gain and are putting Canadian jobs/the economy/our relationship(s) at risk and are hypocrites!

Or:

2.  Cons/Right Wing are bad because they aren't standing up for human rights, are full of racists, misogynists, bigots, etc.  It's their fault we even have a relationship with Saudi Arabia!

The truth, of course, lies somewhere in the middle.  The real question the Government and Canadians need to ask:

What sort of relationship does Canada want to have with a country like Saudi Arabia? 

My personal opinion is we should completely cut ties with them because I think they are a dirty, backwards, despotic little country that is presently being propped up by their oil revenue. With this in mind though, we also need to stop buying their oil.  That means sucking it up and building some pipelines from Alberta to the Oil Refineries in the East.  It also requires us to stop selling them weapons which could mean that we find some alternative buyers for our weapons or we drastically increase how many we are buying for our own military.  If we don't want to do that than maybe its time for GDLS Canada to close its doors and move to a place where they are more comfortable selling weapons to despotic regimes? 

Whatever the government decides to do (I don't care if its Left or Right) it is high time Canada takes a crap or gets off the pot.  As the old saying goes:  "You can't have your cake and eat it"

 

[Brad Sallows]

Maybe the government is playing a deep and perceptive game.  With very little provocation, the Saudis have been induced to take actions which could give the government sufficient political cover to change position on the eastern pipeline and the LAV export deal.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Maybe the government is playing a deep and perceptive game.  With very little provocation, the Saudis have been induced to take actions which could give the government sufficient political cover to change position on the eastern pipeline and the LAV export deal.

This would be a truly excellent outcome for us!  Now if only the Government could buy some more LAVs.  The CAF should never have bought the TAPV and should have gone with 500+ additional LAV 6.0.

 

 

[Brad Sallows]

Could the CF under any reasonable scenario/requirement absorb much of the contracted production run (variously reported as 900+ to 1000+ chassis)?

 

[Good2Golf]

Maybe the government is playing a deep and perceptive game.  With very little provocation, the Saudis have been induced to take actions which could give the government sufficient political cover to change position on the eastern pipeline and the LAV export deal.

Considering the Saudis exploded at Canada a full five (5) weeks (well, 36 days, to be precise) after the UN OHCHR said the (almost) exact same thing, there is most certainly more to the matter than meets the eye (of those learned of the Twittersphere).

:2c:

Regards
G2G

 

[Blackadder1916]

Considering the Saudis exploded at Canada a full five (5) weeks (well, 36 days, to be precise) after the UN OHCHR said the (almost) exact same thing, there is most certainly more to the matter than meets the eye (of those learned of the Twittersphere).

Yes, the OHCHR initially makes the same comment and the Saudis . . .

Order the OHCHR Ambassador to . . .  oh, there isn't one;
Cancel all scholarships for Saudi students at OHCHR universities and order subsidized Saudi students home . . . oh, the OHCHR doesn't have any schools;
Sell any stocks in OHCHR companies . . . oh . . .

Hard to take action against an organization that doesn't even have a representative in the country who can be symbolically thrown out.
https://www.ohchr.org/EN/Countries/Pages/WorkInField.aspx