I like that the article doesn't say who voted yes on the measures.

But it does spin it like many more countries voted yes than did. Excellent news article you found there. What an absolute load of shit. It also ignores the fact that these were part of the UN condemnation of the embargo of Cuba.

But why include that? Good to know the Sun is a rag still.

Is that fact important?

Not only does he openly admire the communist regime in China

but he also seems to be quite content with voting ‘no’ on eight separate measures that sought to hold Cuba accountable for widespread human rights violations.

Of course for him to have done otherwise would have lessened the legacy of Fidel Castro who, Trudeau once publicly called a remarkable leader who was beloved by the Cuban people. Maybe the ones in power loved Fidel. But, if the UN has finally noticed the blatant human rights violations in Cuba and have decided to do something about it, there's likely gonna be alot of Cubans who unlike Trudeau aren't so enamored with the Castro's leadership.

But, maybe this is what really rankles. Today the PM had the gall to go out of his way to claim in a video from the G20 meeting that "Canada will "always stand up strongly and clearly for human rights."

Wouldn't you consider it more than a little hypocritical to laud Castro and Xi while they continue to commit human rights abuses but, then publicly go after the Saudi's and Russians?

And it's the Sun that's misrepresenting here.

Yes. The only countries that voted Yes were the USA, Israel, and the Ukraine. That's it.

So did Trump when he applauded xi making himself president for life, but you're sure as shit silent on that one aren't you?

Measures that they were attempting to use to sideline the condemnation of the USA embargo. Kind of like when a bill is introduced and a bunch of random shit gets tacked on to try and destroy it. It's a classic for American Politicians.

You know that part of the horrible conditions in Cuba is specifically because of the USA's embargo right?


You mean like it is to publically laud the saudi's, russians, and xi and then condemn castro when you lead the country that's been the chief cause of economic destruction for several decades? Tell me, why isn't there an embargo on Saudi Arabia if the plights of people are so important to the USA? Trump has the gall to criticize anyone on human rights violations while he bends over for some of the worst destroyers of it in our time.

So let me get this straight. When it comes to lauding Communist dictators it's okay because Trump did it. Okay fair enough but then please explain why Trudeau vetoed having Cuba give their people some basic human rights not once but eight times?

BTW if Trump's your excuse it's a pretty lame one because Trump is not our Prime Minister and Trump doesn't go around claiming he represents all Canadians. So using him to try and validate Trudeau's hypocrisy is nothing but a red herring.

As for the crappy economic conditions in Cuba being the US's fault, allow me to point out that numerous countries that were embargoed by the US have become vibrant economies.

Just not Cuba but hey, that can likely be attributed to them picking the wrong side in the cold war and then along with their Soviet Union benefactors threatening the US and us by extension with nuclear destruction back in 62. Threatening the complete nuclear destruction of your neighbours by a couple of communist dictators tends to piss democratic leaders off to no end and they aren't likely to help you grow your economy and international presence.

So, when you think about it, the Cubans current condition has less to do with the US than the Castro's policies and alliances. All they had to do was give their people some basic human rights and open up a free market economy. But hey, it's still the US's fault. If Vietnam and China could do it why couldn't the Castro's.

Cuba quite obviously still doesn't understand that to get people to give you things, you have to do something in return because nothing in life is free. If they had listened to a myriad of other countries during the last 60 years there would have been no need for the twits in the UN to have to initiated a motion to have them give their people some basic rights and we wouldn't be talking about how big a hypocrite our PM really is.

And, you still haven't explained why which or how many countries voted for the UN proposal is a factor in Trudeau not doing the right thing? Unless of course you, like Trudeau think that basic freedoms and human rights aren't necessary when it's a friend of the family running the show.

He didn't veto anything. He voted against the amendments, again, that were being tacked onto the resolution to condemn the Embargo of Cuba. Something that has been voted on for almost 30 years, and gets almost 100% voting against the U.S. They were added on in an attempt to stop being from voting to condemn the embargo, that's why almost no one voted to have them included. It wasn't a vote of whether or not they supported whats in the amendment, but whether it should be included in the embargo resolution vote. If you can't separate that then that's your problem.

I'm not validating his voting decision, I'm pointing out the classic right wingers blinders to it's own sides actions, even when they are the same or worse as who they're shitting on. I don't think Trudeau should have voted against the amendments, I think he should have abstained like the rest of NATO did. Serves the same function without the political fallout.

Really? Lets look at a list.

Iran. Has oil.
North Korea. Destitute
Syria. Not exactly an economic hotbed.
Sudan. Definitely a thriving economy in Sudan right?
Cuba.
Venezuela. Started this year.
Then why did the embargo start in 58? It had nothing to do with the Cuban Missile Crisis. It had to do with the current regime, who was deposed. It was expanded when they nationalized the american own refineries.

Vietnam and China did what? China is still one of the worst human rights abusers on the planet. And I agree, Cuba needs to change how they treat their people, but that reasoning doesn't fly when they condemn Cuba a week after siding with a government that just brutally murdered a journalist for criticizing them. That's not how this works. Also, America doesn't get to decide if Cuba should or should not have a free market. Americans would flip their shit if anyone tried to do that to them, so why do they get to do it to another country?
You really have a fundamental lack of knowledge on what the resolution is or the amendments that were attempted to be tacked on don't you? You also apparently don't have a clue what the voting record on them means.

I don't know why this is so hard to grasp. The amendments were voted against because the point of their introduction was to try and stop the near universal condemnation of the embargo by the UN. The vote against them is not a vote to reflect the validity of their claim, I think if the U.S. were to introduce a motion separate of the embargo issue with these same statements, there would be a very different outcome. And if not, I would be right there with you condemning Trudeau for voting how he did. This was not a vote to support or not to support human rights in cuba, but a vote to support or not to support it being tacked on to the yearly criticizing of the embargo. That's what was voted against.

It would be like this. Extreme example, not entirely reflective of the current situation. If legislation was introduced that legalized murder, but in it, there was a section that reinforced freedom of speech. Voting against that bill is not a vote against freedom of speech, it's a vote against legalizing murder. In this case, voting against it is not a vote against human rights, but a vote against side-lining the embargo resolution.

He didn't veto anything. He voted against the amendments, again, that were being tacked onto the resolution to condemn the Embargo of Cuba. Something that has been voted on for almost 30 years, and gets almost 100% voting against the U.S. They were added on in an attempt to stop being from voting to condemn the embargo, that's why almost no one voted to have them included. It wasn't a vote of whether or not they supported whats in the amendment, but whether it should be included in the embargo resolution vote. If you can't separate that then that's your problem.

I'm not validating his voting decision, I'm pointing out the classic right wingers blinders to it's own sides actions, even when they are the same or worse as who they're shitting on. I don't think Trudeau should have voted against the amendments, I think he should have abstained like the rest of NATO did. Serves the same function without the political fallout.

Really? Lets look at a list.

Iran. Has oil.
North Korea. Destitute
Syria. Not exactly an economic hotbed.
Sudan. Definitely a thriving economy in Sudan right?
Cuba.
Venezuela. Started this year.
Then why did the embargo start in 58? It had nothing to do with the Cuban Missile Crisis. It had to do with the current regime, who was deposed. It was expanded when they nationalized the american own refineries.

Vietnam and China did what? China is still one of the worst human rights abusers on the planet. And I agree, Cuba needs to change how they treat their people, but that reasoning doesn't fly when they condemn Cuba a week after siding with a government that just brutally murdered a journalist for criticizing them. That's not how this works. Also, America doesn't get to decide if Cuba should or should not have a free market. Americans would flip their shit if anyone tried to do that to them, so why do they get to do it to another country?
You really have a fundamental lack of knowledge on what the resolution is or the amendments that were attempted to be tacked on don't you? You also apparently don't have a clue what the voting record on them means.

I don't know why this is so hard to grasp. The amendments were voted against because the point of their introduction was to try and stop the near universal condemnation of the embargo by the UN. The vote against them is not a vote to reflect the validity of their claim, I think if the U.S. were to introduce a motion separate of the embargo issue with these same statements, there would be a very different outcome. And if not, I would be right there with you condemning Trudeau for voting how he did. This was not a vote to support or not to support human rights in cuba, but a vote to support or not to support it being tacked on to the yearly criticizing of the embargo. That's what was voted against.

It would be like this. Extreme example, not entirely reflective of the current situation. If legislation was introduced that legalized murder, but in it, there was a section that reinforced freedom of speech. Voting against that bill is not a vote against freedom of speech, it's a vote against legalizing murder. In this case, voting against it is not a vote against human rights, but a vote against side-lining the embargo resolution.

Just as a reminder the embargo should be called the "Trump/right-wing extremist" embargo. Obama was going to get rid of the original embargo because it's obsolete and irrelevant, and has been since the mid-1990's at least. And he did it with the vocal support of a lot of the old Cold War conservatives who kind of figured out on their own that an embargo against a pissant country like Cuba is the height of hypocrisy when the United States considers even worse players to be their best of pals.

As for the original article it seems much more like it was written by someone at the SUN doing their designated task of nailing Trudeau whenever and however they can, no matter how irrelevant or out of context or just plain stupid it is (e.g. Lorrie Goldstein taking a cheap shot at Justin for the unmanly display of crying at his own father's funeral). As such the tempest in this particular teapot is even more pointless than usual.

Mr. Obama on Friday also made what aides said were likely his final major modifications to loosen United States sanctions on Cuba before leaving office, including lifting the $100 limit on bringing Cuban rum and cigars into the United States.

I doubt that Trudeau's followers read the SUN at all so right now they're probably not upset about any of this in the slightest.

Maybe Cuba should just let them build a Trump condo in Havana. After that bit of strategic ass-kissing of the Great Man the embargo would probably end so quickly it would make Tailgunner Joe spin in his grave.