The Saudi-Canada Clash: A Value War

Authored by Patrick Buchanan via,

Is it any of Canada’s business whether Saudi women have the right to drive?

Well, Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland just made it her business.

Repeatedly denouncing Riyadh’s arrest of women’s rights advocate Samar Badawi, Freeland has driven the two countries close to a break in diplomatic relations.

“Reprehensible” said Riyadh of Freeland’s tweeted attack. Canada is “engaged in blatant interference in the Kingdom’s domestic affairs.”

The Saudis responded by expelling Canada’s ambassador and ordering 15,000 Saudi students to end their studies in Canada and barred imports of Canadian wheat. A $15 billion contract to provide armored vehicles to Saudi Arabia may be in jeopardy.

Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman, who has been backsliding on his promises to modernize the kingdom, appears to have had enough of Western lectures on democratic values and morality.

A week after Pope Francis denounced the death penalty as always “impermissible,” Riyadh went ahead and crucified a convicted murderer in Mecca. In Saudi Arabia, homosexuality can get you a death sentence.

Neither President Donald Trump nor the State Department has taken sides, but The Washington Post has weighed in with an editorial: “Human Rights Are Everyone’s Business.”

“What Ms. Freeland and Canada correctly understand is that human rights … are universal values, not the property of kings and dictators to arbitrarily grant and remove on a whim. Saudi Arabia’s long-standing practice of denying basic rights to citizens, especially women — and its particularly cruel treatment of some dissidents — such as the public lashes meted out to (Ms. Badawi’s brother) — are matters of legitimate concern to all democracies and free societies.

“It is the traditional role of the United States to defend universal values everywhere they are trampled upon and to show bullying autocrats they cannot get away with hiding their dirty work behind closed doors.”

The Post called on the foreign ministers of all Group of Seven nations to retweet Freeland’s post saying, “Basic rights are everybody’s business.”

But these sweeping assertions raise not a few questions.

Who determines what are “basic rights” or “universal values”?

Saudi Arabia is an absolute monarchy that has never permitted women to drive and has always whipped criminals and had a death penalty.

When did these practices first begin to contradict “universal values”?

When did it become America’s “traditional role” to defend women’s right to drive automobiles in every country, when women had no right to vote in America until after World War I?

In the America of the 1950s, homosexuality and abortion were regarded as shameful offenses and serious crimes. Now abortion and homosexuality have been declared constitutional rights.

Are they basic human rights? To whom? Do 55 million abortions in the U.S. in 45 years not raise an issue of human rights?

Has it become the moral duty of the U.S. government to champion abortion and LGBT rights worldwide, when a goodly slice of America still regards them as marks of national decadence and decline?

And if the Saudis are reactionaries whom we should join Canada in condemning, why are we dreaming up an “Arab NATO” in which Saudi Arabia would be a treaty ally alongside whom we would fight Iran?

Iran, at least, holds quadrennial elections, and Iranian women seem less restricted and anti-regime demonstrations more tolerated than they are in Saudi Arabia.

Consider our own history.

From 1865 to 1965, segregation was the law in the American South. Did those denials of civil and political rights justify foreign intervention in the internal affairs of the United States?

How would President Eisenhower, who used troops to integrate Little Rock High, have responded to the British and French demanding that America end segregation now?

In a newly de-Christianized America, all religions are to be treated equally and none may be taught in any public school.

In nearly 50 nations, however, Muslims are the majority, and they believe there is but one God, Allah, and Muhammad is his prophet, and all other religions are false. Do Muslims have no right to insist upon the primacy of their faith in the nations they rule?

Is Western interference with this claim not a formula for endless conflict?

In America, free speech and freedom of the press are guaranteed. And these First Amendment rights protect libel, slander, filthy language, blasphemy, pornography, flag burning and published attacks on religious beliefs, our country itself, and the government of the United States.

If other nations reject such freedoms as suicidal stupidity, do we have some obligation to intervene in their internal affairs to promote them?

Recently, The Independent reported:

“Since last year, hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of innocent Uighurs and other ethnic minorities in the Xinjiang region in northwest China have been unjustly arrested and imprisoned in what the Chinese government calls ‘political re-education camps.’ Thousands have disappeared. There are credible reports of torture and death among the prisoners. … The international community has largely reacted with silence.”

Anyone up for sanctioning Xi Jinping’s China?

Or do Uighurs’ rights rank below those of Saudi feminists?


evoila HippieHaulers Fri, 08/10/2018 - 20:27 Permalink

I don't care about Canada, but it's my business when it's my tax dollars asshole.  I don't think my tax dollars should be spent on decimating Yemeni kids either, or supporting settlement building in the West Bank, or doing whatever the hell it is we're doing in Mali.

Saudis can do whatever they want, but they need to keep that shit over there, and the last thing we should be doing is helping their fanatical asses expand their presence and influence anywhere.

In reply to by HippieHaulers

philipat are we there yet Fri, 08/10/2018 - 21:22 Permalink

Yes, but it doesn't mean that any free society with democratic values has to surrender its integrity just to continue to appease so as to continue sell weapons systems? Both the UK and the US voted to put SA on the UN Human Rights Commission and the UK in particular was instrumental in electing SA as Chair of the UN Commission on Women's rights, apparently with a straight face?!. This is very good example of hypocrisy in the best interests of vested interests and no connection to matters of principle raised in the article.

I also have a sneaking suspicion that the way for the West to counter the onslaught if Islam, which will not integrate into Western democratic society, is through education and, in particular, through women. Remaining silent makes no difference. In this particular instance, I applaud Canada for its integrity.

In reply to by are we there yet

Iskiab zippedydoodah Fri, 08/10/2018 - 23:31 Permalink

Good point, another point that wasn’t raised in the article, the issue was raised by Canada because of a Canadian citizen.  When the original guy was jailed for portraying Islam negatively, his wife fled to Canada and became a citizen.  Canada raised the issue with SA after they jailed the rest of his/her family.

In addition, fuck an Arab version of NATO.  

Plus, human rights are important for arabs.  Afterall, humans rights were used as the pretext to invade Libya and start the massive wave of migrants into Europe.  

Canada didn’t invade SA, they didn’t threaten them, they tweeted asking for the immediate release of a Canadian citizen’s imprisoned family.  

As they saying goes, ‘You can tell who’s in charge because you aren’t allowed to criticize them’.  What does that say about the current state of international politics?  Canada can’t critize SA, and the USA and EU won’t dare to.

In reply to by zippedydoodah

CPL PeaceForWorld Sat, 08/11/2018 - 23:40 Permalink

To point out something.  When the oil runs out well never have to deal with any of the sand jockeys ever again.  With that, keep driving until a bunch of worthless pumpkinhead dessert jackals are forevermore irrelevant.  The 'problem' solves itself given enough time.  The solution is sit and wait for the wind of time to blow them away into the long history of failure the inhabitants of the region are famous for.  Because that's all they are good at.  Failing and being the example to study to avoid failure. 

Besides its not like the lazy cunts do any other business.  They are the light that burns twice as fast and half as long.

In reply to by PeaceForWorld

2Blondboys evoila Fri, 08/10/2018 - 23:05 Permalink

Progressives want open borders.  That means everybody must speak with one voice. A group of elites will decide what can and cannot be said.  Religion will be out.  No allegiance to any flag.  Supposedly we will all get along with just one voice.  Yup, that is their stupid plan.  I have zero interest in telling any country how to conduct business.  The arrogance of telling other countries what to do and say.  Opinions should be noted.  Pressure should be removed.  Accept who they are and work as best as possible.  Let their people rise up and do something.  Please do not come to the US to change us.  Likewise, let us not do the same.  Global elites are busy bodies.  

In reply to by evoila

2Blondboys zippedydoodah Fri, 08/10/2018 - 23:15 Permalink

They lived peacefully because they were at that time less extreme on both sides.  Western societies went left, while Muslim societies went right.  Now there is a gap.  Iran once dressed western.  Yup, everybody got along.  Then progressives took over western nations     tilting our values, culture to the left.  Muslim nation’s reacted to this extreme change by banning and moving right.  Forcing societies to change is wrong.  Each country must decide.  Western nations can certainly disagree and should.  However, how did western societies become the judge of what is right?  

In reply to by zippedydoodah

justyouwait nidaar Fri, 08/10/2018 - 22:42 Permalink

Soros has Trudeau & the Liberals eating out of his hand. Most people in that country are too willfully ignorant of Soros to even care or realize that this evil man has nothing but the total destruction of western society as his goal. He and his like minded cabal made great inroads in the U.S. under Billy Bob Clinton, The Clown Prince George Bush II and the half black messiah. I believe the odds are not in our favor at taking the country back. Trump will need 8 full years and the full support of the Republican Party. I think the chances are very small.

Canada was already listing hard left when the Boy King came to office. Soros and his ilk have started drastic changes that they will only realize when it is too late. Trudeau's main competitor up there (Andrew Scheer) has so far not done much to indicate he isn't more of the same. He seems willing to say whatever he needs to say to get what he wants (votes) but when push comes to shove he seems happy to cave to the pressure. It would seem that they have no alternatives up there.

In reply to by nidaar

Albertarocks RubberJohnny Sat, 08/11/2018 - 09:10 Permalink

No, actually I'm not.  You mistook my comment as an insult to yourself.  It wasn't intended that way at all, it wasn't aimed at 'you'... it was aimed at any perpetrator caught screwing a goat.  An attempt at humour but I didn't word it correctly.  But you're quite right, there aren't many assholes in Alberta.  And I'm glad to report that I'm not one of them.

In reply to by RubberJohnny

Peanut Butter … RubberJohnny Sat, 08/11/2018 - 10:20 Permalink

You should go live there and give it a try.

In fact all western cavemen men that wish for women to be in kitchen and not have any rights to votes should immigrants to Middle East, I bet they would love the conditions they imposed on women and men in those regions.

Stop bitching about feminists working for western women's right cause we won't bother with other country like Middle East. 

My believe has always been change can happen if their people wanted to happen, so no external influence should be impose by the west. And of course I hope they get wipe off the face of this earth. 

In reply to by RubberJohnny

FreeEarCandy Fri, 08/10/2018 - 19:35 Permalink

Nice try, but her issue with Saudi Arabia was Yemen atrocities. You must be a Sunni in fear of being nailed to a cross....


Saudi Arabia Crucifies Man In Mecca While Decrying Canada's Human Rights

Nevertheless, morality is relative. A sadist is a masochist best friend. And then there is the question of the greater good. If I killed Hitlers parents I would have been ruled a criminal and hung by the neck until happy.