April 20, 2007


"What exactly have we as Canadians brought to the Afghan people? As far as I can see it is instability,"

"Under the previous U.S. backed Taliban there may have been oppression, but there was not fear for people's lives every single day because of suicide bombers."

This is disgusting.

Who could possibly say that Afghans, especially Afghan women, were better off under the Taliban?

Is this some crazy Dipper? or a Radical activist?

No...It is Liberal MP Colleen Beaumier.

The party that stands up for women says ending the Taliban wasn’t worth it.

Executing women for going out in public. That is WAY better than instability…

In 1997, the Taliban dragged women into their houses by their hair, forced them into house arrest, stopped educating them, and 10 years later, instead of being proud to have helped end this horror, we have an MP saying we should have never intervened.

Mrs. Beaumier needs to be seriously reprimanded.

What the F@#$ is happening to the Liberal Party?

I have my own reservations about the Liberal Afghan position, but if we want to maintain any shred of our credibility in terms of foreign policy, we cannot stand by and listen to our own MPs say that we should not defend the rights and values we preach in our own country.


31 Commentaires:

Blogger In_The_Centre a dit...

Where did you hear/see these comments?

Is their a source?


4/20/2007 12:42 p.m.  
Blogger Antonio a dit...

yeah ill link the article in the main post

4/20/2007 12:45 p.m.  
Blogger Alexander a dit...

I think this is poor sensationalism and even worse logic Tony.

Thousands of CIVILIAN Afghanis have been killed, thousands more seriously wounded; and it keeps climbing. Not to mention the thousands of Afghani military personel killed and wounded, after all they were just doing their jobs.

Before any fighting broke out, there were parts of Afghanistan where women had their rights taken away and treated wrongly. But there were parts that were more relatively liberal towards women. Not everywhere did they have to cover up.

Further note, there are still parts in Afghanistan that prohibit women from exhibiting themselves and are still quite brutal to them.

Disregarding the instability that has plagued afghanistan, on these numbers alone, if there was no fighting in Afghanistan, parts of the country would still be horrible in their treatment of women, but thousands of Afghanis would not be killed.

However since the fighting, there has been those deaths, there has been just as brutal treatment towards women, there has been increased crime creating more and more victims, there has been whole infrastructures destroyed.

And it doesn't appear a band aid is going to fix it.

The Taliban is not solely responsible for the poor treatment of women in Afghanistan, it is a part of the various societies that exist in that country.

My last note is if she said the people of Afghanistan were better off under the Taliban, that does not imply she believes that solely the women of that country were better off. She quite possibly was using a utilitarian perspective, using death to outweigh torture etc.

4/20/2007 1:07 p.m.  
Blogger Kyle G. Olsen a dit...

Yeah, this is pretty sick. I don't know what is happening, I don't get how people can't square this mission with their obvious support for intervention in Darfur. We need to reassert a sane foreign policy perspective in the party, sense I can't see any right now.

Colleen Beaumier I would hope she would be stripped of her critic post for the Border Services Agency, but thats unlikely.

4/20/2007 1:12 p.m.  
Blogger fatness a dit...

Give me a break Alexander.

War isn't pretty. What's happening in Afghanistan is a war against the Taliban. The climb in deaths today are thanks in large part to the job half-done by the Americans, before they ventured into Iraq.

We DO NOT live in an ideal world, and in most parts of the world, violence is a way of life. So while we're in our cozy offices and homes typing away these comments on our computers, let's take a step back and be logical... and think.

Under the Taliban, men were not allowed to shave their beards. Now they can. Under the Taliban, music was outlawed. Not anymore. Under the Taliban, flying kites were outlawed. Now children can play with their kites, without fear of reprisal from a fanatical regime... These are just certain points, there are many others.

I will never buy the bullshit that Afghans were better off under the Taliban. Those are twisted comments from clueless far-left-wingers who have no clue how the world is.

Afghanistan will take a while to rebuild, and it won't be all lovey-dovey... people will die. But many strong stable democracies went through very bloody periods in order to achieve their present development. Who you might ask? All of the West, during the World Wars, not to mention the US during the civil war. The path to stability and democracy isn't a bloodless one ... all we need to do is look at our own history.

4/20/2007 1:20 p.m.  
Blogger Cerberus a dit...

Good post, Antonio.

It is shameful.

Of course there is instability. There is war still going on. There was instability in Rwanda and Bosnia after the world stepped in on humanitarian grounds as well. Maybe she and others think we shouldn't have stepped in there because of instability concerns.

Any transition is going to create instability, especially when the old regime continues to fight. It seems to be that the country continues to become more stable and the Taliban fighting reduced to the occasional cowardly suicide attacks now compared to a lot more outright face-to-face combat before.

And I admire the stretch to link the Taliban to the US and stating that there "may have been oppression". The US supported a broad coalition of anti-Russian cells. One of these emerged as the Taliban that took over the government after the Russians left.

It seems to me that a lot of Canadians on the far left and far right are desperately trying to have a polarizing Iraq fight here. You can hear it in the language they use to describe how "bad" or "good" the Afghanistan situation is, about how it is either a "US war" despite UN sanction and a broad coalition of forces or part of the global "War on Terror" despite the fact that Al Quaeda has been eviscerated in Afghanistan and the Taliban reduced to the occasional suicide bombing.

They use the same arguements for and against.


4/20/2007 1:25 p.m.  
Blogger mezba a dit...

Are we making it better now, or worse. I would argue we are doing a far better job in Afghanistan than Iraq.

4/20/2007 1:26 p.m.  
Blogger Antonio a dit...


I encourage you to look up the hansard debates from when we decided to participate in the mission.

Read the reasons people used.

Including Joke Layton and the NDP.

We intervened to find Al Qaeda. In the end, we ended a brutal regime that was one of the worst in recent history.

Now some people want to hand it all back, and go back on the promise we made to the Afghan people.

4/20/2007 1:27 p.m.  
Blogger wilson a dit...

''What the F@#$ is happening to the Liberal Party?''

When you campaign to the left, you get lefties.

When you choose a leftie as Leader, you get lefties.

When you have no clear policies, those in the party who joined on a one issue basis (enviro, anti-war...) are the loudest voices, lefties.

What response did Dion give to the 'they were better off under the Taliban' comment???

4/20/2007 1:58 p.m.  
Blogger Christian Conservative a dit...

Well said Antonio... like I said way back after the previous Afghan debate, my respect for Iggy went way up when I saw him stand in support of the extension.

I'm 100% behind getting our troops out of there by 2009, but the bloodthirsty thugs known as the Taliban don't work on our schedules or timetables... for the sake of the women and children of that nation, we have to stand firm until they can handle the thugs themselves... and that may take us beyond the Feb. 2009 deadline. (hopefully not much beyond)

4/20/2007 2:23 p.m.  
Blogger Alexander a dit...

Reply to fatness:

I am not denying the people Afghanistan have more rights now, but I will argue they don't utilize them.

There is footage of women in afghanistan in public spaces all under the taliban freely exposing their face and I fully acknowledge that was not the majority.

Now they have rights, and there is footage of women in Afghanistan still covered and afraid to go out in public.

Just because they have legal rights does not mean they have the social freedom to do so.

Finally fatness, the west went through democratic developments on their own progress at their own inclination. None had democracies imposed upon them. Democracy is not just a vote but multiple social, economic and cultural factors that all produce the system we hold dear.

Reply to Cerberus: I don't need a reply. I think his statement will be nicely rebuked by two years.
"It seems to be that the country continues to become more stable"

Reply to Antonio:
I agree that the reasons to go in were right ones. But I disagree with the imposition of a system of government that cannot sustain itself due to the lack of the very foundations to uphold it.

The Taliban needed to go.

But democracy overnight? There is no tradition of accountability to hold representatives accountable, there is no sense of individualism that is needed to enable people to feel empowered to vote; most pressing is no tradition of laws that manage religious and social tolerance.

Democracy is floundering right now in Afghanistan, not only due to instability of fighting affairs, but due to social, cultural, and political differences.

4/20/2007 2:33 p.m.  
Blogger Jason Cherniak a dit...

Why do you hold the whole party responsible for one MP, who is well known for her weird views on foreign policy?

4/20/2007 2:37 p.m.  
Blogger canuckistanian a dit...

"Who could possibly say that Afghans, especially Afghan women, were better off" before the invasion?

umm, afghans probably??? it is nice for us to say they are better off now, but the only people who can state that objectively are afghans.

was the taliban a tyrannical and disgustng regime? yes.

are afghanis better off now than they were before the invasion??? i don't know. who knows??? afghanis.

clearly there have been many improvements in the lives of some afghanis, while others are suffering more now than they did under the taliban. as for the cost/benefit analysis, it is difficult and often immoral to endorse the stalinesque argument that "to make an omelette you need to break a few eggs".

notions of "good and evil" are not helpful for realists, they are for those who prefer the "faith-based" realm. that such a view hinders attempts at rational policymaking is unambiguously incontrovertible.

not that i condone this mp's statement, nor do i think it a prudent political position for the liberal party to stake out. i personally feel we need to be in afghanistan, but the current mission is clearly folly. if we are truly concerned about the plight of ordinary afghanis, a far greater commitment in treasury and boots on the ground is required, and a radical shift in focus as well.

4/20/2007 2:38 p.m.  
Blogger Antonio a dit...


until she is reprimanded, or dismissed, her position reflects very badly on the party...

4/20/2007 3:05 p.m.  
Blogger bigcitylib a dit...

I suspect that by 2009 Ms. Beaumier's views will be the conventional wisdom.

4/20/2007 3:23 p.m.  
Blogger mecheng a dit...

Thank you Antonio for speaking out against this.

4/20/2007 3:35 p.m.  
Blogger Antonio a dit...

it is wrong now

it will be wrong then,

I actually support staying there way past 2009 if necessary.

We made a promise to these people.

4/20/2007 3:37 p.m.  
Blogger mecheng a dit...

And Jason,

You applauded the NDP for condemning McLelland.

Should not the Liberals condemn this kind of speech as well?

4/20/2007 3:42 p.m.  
Blogger mezba a dit...

Just because we helped the Afghan people for coming out of the hell-hole that was the Taliban does not mean we turn a blind eye to the problems that are there - and the rosy reports of Afghanistan today are greatly exaggerated.

As per the Toronto Sun, "Last year, a leading authority on Afghanistan, the Brussels-based Senlis Council, found the Taliban and its allies control or influence half of the nation -- roughly equivalent to Pashtun tribal territory. Its study flatly contradicted rosy reports of military success and "nation-building" from Washington and NATO HQ."

Clearly we need a lot of manpower to do the job properly. No job worth doing is worth doing half-assed. Either the rest of NATO pony up the troops and we go in with full power, or we come home.

4/20/2007 3:51 p.m.  
Blogger Alexander a dit...

Saying the Afghani's were better off under the Taliban is not "unforgivable." You have no right to make the claim that any Afghanis are better off. Cerberus contradictorily states people always try to characterize situations as bad or good, but then he applauds your argument which necessarily puts the label of "better" on Afghanistan.

Even Murder is forgivable.

I see this as sensationalism filled with a corrupt allegation based on indirect information.

We made a promise.

If I make a promise to get rid of the Taliban, it doesn't mean I promise to establish military bases, western democracy and its institutions and prop up a weak President. It means get rid of the Taliban.

To counter a predictable argument, you will retort the Taliban is still there. Well they are not in power. If Afghanis truly hate the Taliban, surely they can repress an oppositional force. But wait, NTO can barely do that. Why? Because Afghanis are not that motivated to fight the Taliban, if they were the Afghani army would be an actual fighting force instead of a poor militia.

4/20/2007 3:59 p.m.  
Anonymous Anonymous a dit...

Right on Antonio. If you apply her logic across the board:

* NATO should stop supporting the Afghan gov't.
* The UN should withdraw its resolutions that call for that support.
* Afghans should surrender to the Taliban in order to end the attacks on innocents.

And what's with Omar Alghabra accusing Canada of a witch hunt?

"What is it they want to accomplish? Is it to help the Afghani people or is it to go on a witch hunt, killing everybody, killing people around the rural areas of the Taliban?"

4/20/2007 4:15 p.m.  
Blogger Antonio a dit...

Oh I stopped listening to Alghabra when he said "My victory is a victory for Islam"

4/20/2007 4:18 p.m.  
Blogger The Rat a dit...

"Just because they have legal rights does not mean they have the social freedom to do so."

And women in Canada wear the Burqa, and want to hide their face when voting. If it's good enough for us . . .

Jason Chernak:
"Why do you hold the whole party responsible for one MP, who is well known for her weird views on foreign policy?"

Because it has been a long-standing Liberal tactic? Good enough? If not, then maybe what Antonio said.

"I suspect that by 2009 Ms. Beaumier's views will be the conventional wisdom."

Among whom? Liberal supporters? Nutbar Liberal supporters? Or just your mutual-fellatio-gang-members? Is that ti-guy in your pocket or are you just happy to see me?

4/20/2007 5:05 p.m.  
Blogger Chuckercanuck a dit...

"Is that ti-guy in your pocket or are you just happy to see me?"


4/20/2007 7:40 p.m.  
Blogger fatness a dit...

Jason Cherniak

Do something intelligent for once, and go back playing with your lord of the rings dolls.

4/20/2007 9:00 p.m.  
Blogger Antonio a dit...

ok I have a rule for Cherniak insults...

abd I am quite strict about it

if it is on his wall of shameless advertising...it's fair game...

now behave!

4/20/2007 9:21 p.m.  
Blogger JimTan a dit...


“Afghans should surrender to the Taliban in order to end the attacks on innocents.”

You forget that the Maoist rebels in Nepal have made peace with the government and establishment. This ended a 10-year civil war that has been as bloody as the Afghan conflict.

They managed this because foreigners were not involved. Nepalese could negotiate with fellow Nepalese to stop the bloodshed.

In contrast, the Afghan conflict can only end in an all-out war because NATO is opposed by Pan-Islamic militants. The hapless Karzai is now saying that not all Taliban are bad. That is, the local Taliban are acceptable.

That’s an Afghani speaking. You do not speak for the Afghanis.

4/20/2007 9:29 p.m.  
Blogger NorthBayTrapper a dit...

Good post. Ballsy and to the point.

I hope people realize how big a deal Afghanistan is. This is the World Series for the expansion of radical Islam. If it stops here, then they lose all credibility. If they succeed, they validate themselves in the minds of all of the countries who are next on their list (see Northern Africa and Southeast Asia).
I am encouraged that many Liberals still realize this, even though they are not allowed to say so. I hope that they are able to sway the rest of the party who are eyeing the Democratic win in the Congress and trying to copy their formula by equating Afghanistan with Iraq with cheap political points.

4/22/2007 2:00 p.m.  
Blogger NorthBayTrapper a dit...

Jason Cherniak said, "Why do you hold the whole party responsible for one MP, who is well known for her weird views on foreign policy?"

Kinda sounds like the Liberal modus operandi since the inception of the Reform Party. Unfortunately for the Liberals, a ball is round and bounces both ways.

4/22/2007 2:02 p.m.  
Blogger JimTan a dit...

northbay trapper said

"This is the World Series for the expansion of radical Islam. If it stops here, then they lose all credibility. If they succeed, they validate themselves in the minds of all of the countries who are next on their list"

You are wrong. Radical Islam is a reaction to the corruption of Arab regimes and the interference of western.

The extremists can only be defeated by their own people.

The militants will be validated if they are defeated by western armies and local collaboraters.

There is no domino effect. A Taliban victory in Afghanistan doesn't mean that miltants will win in Indonesia or Malaysia.

4/23/2007 2:23 a.m.  
Blogger Chris a dit...

Ironic that Cherniak would try to claim that one MP's views shouldn't be construed as reflective on the whole party. How eager would he be to start fear mongering if Cheryl Gallant was allowed to talk?

4/23/2007 5:53 p.m.  

Post a Comment

<< Home