News

Shilling for Mo and the Liberals

By Kevin Steel ⋅ January 1, 2008 ⋅  Email this post ⋅  Print this post ⋅ Post a comment

This is a bit like shooting ducks in a barrel, but it’s a holiday and I’m up for something easy, so here goes.

I’m reading this column by Michael Byers in the Toronto Star: From rogue nation to world leader and I’m wondering, why does this guy seem to be channeling Jean Chrétien and Maurice Strong?

"[Harper] has also picked unnecessary quarrels with China over human rights…

…Kyoto Protocol–arguably the most important treaty ever…

It’s time to move NATO troops out, and UN peacekeepers in.

And then, let’s get serious about the "responsibility to protect" where it’s needed most: in Africa."

There’s no little description at the bottom of the column telling me about this writer. Could he be this Michael Byers? Why, so he is. Byers works at the UBC’s Liu Institute which opened in 2000. Maurice Strong, sinophile, father of the Kyoto Protocol, was the chair of the institute’s International Advisory Council. You remember the Liu Institute because it was created as a place for former Liberal Foreign Affairs Minister Lloyd Axworthy to warm his butt while helping to plot scams like the climate change jiggery-pokery (successful) and global gun control (unsuccessful).

Byers ends his column with "This year, let’s elect a government that shares this vision. Let’s shake the "rogue state" label – before it sticks." (I wonder which ‘government’ that’s supposed to be?) The rogue state label? Byers starts his column with a quote by some unnamed British wag: "So, how does it feel to be the citizen of a rogue state?" I mean, the guy could have been making a joke. And we’re supposed to care?

Now, let’s go back to Byers’ sub-hed: “Nation needs to cast off neo-conservatism and lead on human rights and the environment.” And look back at the things I’ve clipped from the column; human rights in China, Kyoto Protocol, NATO. These are not exclusively neo-con issues. Human rights in China, a lot of people are concerned about those and Harper’s approach isn’t "neo-con." He’s been confrontational, and that’s not been to the liking of Beijing puppets like Maurice Strong and Jean Chretien, but so what? The merit of the Kyoto Protocol is a scientific debate–the misuse of shoddy science to push a political agenda in my opinion. And NATO in Afghanistan? The UN Security Council approved the mission in Afghanistan and Canada’s then-Liberal government threw its support behind it. So it’s neo-con thing? Byers, cut the bullsh-t. The "neo-con" label is a ruse being used by the Liberal supporters to try to tie everything to the difficult situation in Iraq. We all know that. Told you I was being lazy.

So I’ll do a little background work.

FYI 1 The Liu Institute says it gets its name from Dr. Jieh Jow Liou (so why it’s not called the Liou Institute, is umm a mystery). It was established with money from Dr. Liou and from The Liu Foundation. Here’s a UBC bio (scroll down) of Taiwanese businessman Jieh Jow Liou. The Liu Foundation was set up by
Chinese-American media mogul Arthur Liu of Multicultural Radio Broadcasting Inc.
The foundation is run by his wife Yvonne out of New York. Lui you may recall was in the news being pummeled by Democrat supporters for pulling the plug on Air America back in 2004. MRBI owns Sinocast Radio in Canada. Looks like in 2000 Liu was supporting Liberal causes (the institute) in Canada and Republican causes in the US, so I’m guessing he’s a business type who likes the winning side.

FYI 2 Another member of the founding Liu Institute board along with Strong back in 2000 was former University of Toronto president John Evans, chair,Torstar Corporation, owner of the Toronto Star.