The working day to start on public transport? Samuel’s Footy Tips: 2008

Killing Whales vs Killing Tibetans, which is worse in the land of Rudd?

March 18th, 2008 at 02:44pm

I can’t help but agree with Andrew Bolt on this one:

Kevin Rudd: “I don’t have a magic wand, but the Australian Government will do everything within our power to put pressure on the …. …. to bring this slaughter to an end.”

Fill in those missing two words. Did he damn the:

A: “Chinese Government”, now killing Tibetan protesters.
B: “Japanese Government”, now killing whales.

Now contrast those fighting words with this mild caution:

“…from my point of view, I would call upon the … … to exercise restraint.”

Again fill in the missing words. Was Rudd tut-tutting the:

A: “Chinese authorites” (sic), for killing people protesting its occupation of Tibet.
B: “Japanese authorites” (sic), for killing animals for food.

The answers, “B” and “A”, respectively.

I can’t help but feel that in a country where human life is generally considered to be the most valuable resource of all, the fact that our government is more than willing to lambaste the Japanese government for slaughtering whales, but won’t extend the same courtesy to the Chinese government for a greater travesty, is downright strange and lousy, especially from a governing party that are happy to try and prevent our drug smugglers from being executed.

Samuel

Entry Filed under: General News,Samuel's Editorials

Print This Post Print This Post

2 Comments

  • 1. Tony McLeahy  |  March 19th, 2008 at 1:01 am

    I can’t help but agree with Andrew Bolt on this one:

    Well…you could help but agree – you could come up with your own opinion for once instead of instantly adopting the views of the right-wing pundits and talkback hosts that you love so much.

    I can’t help but feel that in a country where human life is generally considered to be the most valuable resource of all, the fact that our government is more than willing to lambaste the Japanese government for slaughtering whales, but won’t extend the same courtesy to the Chinese government for a greater travesty, is downright strange and lousy…

    The difference is that whale slaughter is occuring in Australian waters, and Kevin Rudd is the Prime Minister of Australia, not Tibet.

    This may seem “strange and lousy” by your standards, it is not strange by the standards of heads of state who are accountable for their words and actions Whale slaughter was condemned by many other countries, not just Rudd, who also asked China to exercise restraint .

    …especially from a governing party that are happy to try and prevent our drug smugglers from being executed.

    As opposed to the former “governing party”? They did NOT criticise China and they were also ” happy to try and prevent our drug smugglers from being executed.”

  • 2. Samuel  |  March 19th, 2008 at 1:49 am

    Well…you could help but agree – you could come up with your own opinion for once instead of instantly adopting the views of the right-wing pundits and talkback hosts that you love so much.

    I’m not sure if you’re being serious or just making a smart-alec remark. Why is it so hard for you to believe that it is possible for somebody to agree with Andrew Bolt (to take one example of a generally right-wing commentator). Did I miss the law of physics which claims that this is impossible?

    And the way you phrased that, you make it sound like you would be more willing to consider my opinion if I hadn’t made any reference to Andrew Bolt. There are two reasons why I mentioned him, one being that he summarised the point quite nicely, and the other being that if I had expressed my opinion, somebody would most likely have accused me of copying Bolt’s idea. As you can see, none of the reasons had anything to do with how I formed the opinion…I did that before I read Andrew Bolt’s blog entry.

    I keep making this point that I often form these options before I see or hear others expressing similar views…but you don’t believe me so I’ll stop wasting my keystrokes and get back on topic.

    Tony, or anybody else, can you explain why Kevin Rudd couldn’t have called for an end to the deaths in Tibet? He may not have any power over what happens in Tibet, but that’s no reason why he shouldn’t express his desire for the deaths to stop…all it means is that he can’t easily go in and there and make it stop.

    As opposed to the former “governing party”? They did NOT criticise China and they were also ” happy to try and prevent our drug smugglers from being executed.”

    The point I was making isn’t the one you have alluded to. I was not trying to say that the previous federal government were in favour of executing Australian drug smugglers, merely that they were less inclined to defend them than the current federal government:

    Close friends of condemned Nguyen Tuong Van flew to Singapore last night for what they admitted would be the hardest week of their lives in the final days leading up to the former Glen Waverley sales executive’s execution at dawn on Friday.
    [..]
    Opposition foreign affairs spokesman Kevin Rudd, standing between Ms Lew and Ms Ng during a media conference outside a Port Melbourne restaurant yesterday morning, again urged Prime Minister John Howard to raise the matter at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Malta.

    He also called on Foreign Minister Alexander Downer to reconsider the decision not to appeal to the United Nations’ International Court of Justice.

    (Source: The Age: November 27, 2005. Article)

    I would be interested to hear your response Tony.


Calendar

March 2008
S M T W T F S
« Feb   Apr »
 1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
3031  

Most Recent Posts

Search Blog or Web

Login/Logout

Ads By Google


Blix Theme by Sebastian Schmieg and modified for Samuel's Blog by Samuel Gordon-Stewart.
Printing CSS with the help of Martin Pot's guide to Web Page Printability With CSS.
Icons by Kevin Potts.
Powered by WordPress.
Log in