'Canada' Loves Nazis?

Debby

Debby

Well-known Member
Location
East coast of Canada
I just get prouder and prouder.....not.

"Canada was one of just three nations to vote against a resolution at the United Nations last Friday to fight the "glorification of Nazism.......The resolution was brought forward by Russia at the UN General Assembly's Third Committee, which deals with human rights. It calls on nations to combat "glorification of Nazism and other practices that contribute to fuelling contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance." It also urges countries to take legislative measures to end all forms of Holocaust denial.
The United States and Ukraine joined Canada in voting against the resolution, but 115 other countries — including Israel — voted in favour. There were 55 abstentions."http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/11/26/canada-united-nations-nazism-resolution_n_6228152.html


When ones own country fails to work with the majority of the world to decry one of the most evil regimes in the world's history, what is left to respect?
 

Makes me not exactly proud to be American too. Just an example of the lengths some folks will go to protect "freedom of speech", no matter how disgusting & repugnant & totally false the speech in question may be.
 
Geezerette said:
Makes me not exactly proud to be American too. Just an example of the lengths some folks will go to protect "freedom of speech", no matter how disgusting & repugnant & totally false the speech in question may be.
Click to expand...


See... that's the thing about "freedom of Speech"..... it's Freedom of speech... Not just speech you agree with... Not just speech that is sanctioned and approved by one segment of society.. it's about everyones right to speak. Even Nazi's I guess... AND that's exactly the thing that makes ME proud to live in a free county.. Sorry you are not.
 
Actually in Canada, we have laws against hate speech which the Nazi rhetoric (hate Jews, minorities deserve to die, the Holocaust never happened, etc.)would butt up against. To me, morally, it's wrong to protect anything that could be designed to inflame and cause harm to any group, not to mention that it seems to me this abstention gives the finger to that law and coming from the very body that is supposed to be the ultimate guardian of that law, makes it even more reprehensible.

"Canada’s human rights hate speech laws are a constitutionally valid limit on freedom of expression, the Supreme Court has unanimously ruled in a landmark judgment......In upholding a definition of hatred first crafted by the Supreme Court in 1991, the current justices ruled that the hate speech section of Saskatchewan’s Human Rights Code addresses a pressing and substantial issue, and is proportional to its objective of “tackling causes of discriminatory activity to reduce the harmful effects and social costs of discrimination.”
http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/02/27/supreme-court-upholds-canadas-hate-speech-laws-in-case-involving-anti-gay-crusader/

Because our law looks to protect the individual or groups from discriminatory speech that leads to harm, the fact that our government has chosen to ignore that and substantially protect the rhetoric of 'Nazi' groups, is an affront to the very law that our Supreme Court has upheld. The only reason they did this is because the new government of the Ukraine is made up of neo-Nazi's and Nazi sympathizers. In fact we just promised them $11 million in support.

A teacher in Alberta named James Keegstra was teaching anti-Semitism in his classes. Would you protect that kind of teaching in your schools?
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/when-is-it-hate-speech-7-significant-canadian-cases-1.1036731

This link: http://www.globalresearch.ca/ukraines-neo-nazis-demand-respect/5408092 gives another pretty clear idea of the thinking of the people in that government. Note the attitude about 'Semites/Jews' that is mentioned here and there in the article.

I would rather my government had spent $11 million and Canada's reputation on the ebola crisis in S. Africa, or feeding orphans or any other GOOD cause, but not giving it to beasts who worship the actions of Adolf Hitler.
 
A piece of nonsense.

When Russia presents a resolution on human rights the world should regard it with a jaundiced eye.

It often takes more courage to disagree with the mob.

Well done Canada.
 
The U.S. took in known Nazis right after the war to help with our science and intelligence programs. Gave them freedom of person which is more important than speech for most...
 
Laurie said:
A piece of nonsense.

When Russia presents a resolution on human rights the world should regard it with a jaundiced eye.

It often takes more courage to disagree with the mob.

Well done Canada.
Click to expand...


Just a question Laurie, how much research have you actually done on Putin, Russia, their economy.....or are you just accepting what you hear on the BBC?

And are you in favour of governments ignoring the laws of their own land in favour of knee jerk emotionalism or a desire to suck up to other nations? Because that's what it sounds like.

(Sorry for the double post- must be ice on our antennae so my computer access seems to have slowed down. Didn't know it had already posted)
 
Ralphy1 said:
The U.S. took in known Nazis right after the war to help with our science and intelligence programs. Gave them freedom of person which is more important than speech for most...
Click to expand...


Not sure if they were members of the Nazi party.. but they certainly were German Scientists.. many of them Jewish. Can we hold all Citizens responsible for the actions of the government? Oh wait... we always seem to... at least on message boards.

Yes debby.. we have hate speech laws also... as defined by USlegal.com

Hate speech is a communication that carries no meaning other than the expression of hatred for some group, especially in circumstances in which the communication is likely to provoke violence. It is an incitement to hatred primarily against a group of persons defined in terms of race, ethnicity, national origin, gender, religion, sexual orientation, and the like. Hate speech can be any form of expression regarded as offensive to racial, ethnic and religious groups and other discrete minorities or to women.
Click to expand...
 
Ralphy1 said:
The U.S. took in known Nazis right after the war to help with our science and intelligence programs. Gave them freedom of person which is more important than speech for most...
Click to expand...


What do you mean by 'freedom of person'? Is that the same as saving the lives (for a price, i.e. their devastating research knowledge) of people who did terrible things and allowing them to escape the consequences of their actions?

As to your remark QS, I don't think the the average citizen is culpable for what their government does and particularly when that government is behaving reprehensibly and the citizenry is often ignorant of the why's of their actions. It's my observations that governments have agenda's that too often the people don't have a clue about and they put a 'warm, fuzzy' face on it so the people think all is good.

We don't get opportunities to vote on anything save who occupies the Big Chair. But when it comes to other important issues, we're often considered to ignorant to be involved. Case in point, when Brian Mulroney sold off al of the gold that belonged to the people of Canada back in the 80's. It wasn't his to sell, but he did, because he was the government. And he did it for his own benefit. Friendship with good buddy Ronnie Reagan and a seat on the board of Barrick Gold.

Another case in point, when the Conservatives (current) changed the environmental laws that protected our northern lakes and rivers to allow mining to go in and do whatever they wanted without having to protect those bodies of water and this done, despite a Constitutional requirement that they consult with First Nations of the region. We the people were never allowed to vote on these things despite their significance.
 
Debby said:
What do you mean by 'freedom of person'? Is that the same as saving the lives (for a price, i.e. their devastating research knowledge) and allowing them to escape the consequences of their actions?
Click to expand...

Again... the Scientists who came in to the US during WWII were predominantly Jews fleeing Nazi Germany.. NOT Nazis. Yes SOME worked on the Atomic bomb, but the majority entered the scientific community in all areas and revolutionized US science, and inventions..

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2014/august/german-jewish-inventors-081114.html

U.S. patents increased by 31 percent in fields common among Jewish scientists who fled Nazi Germany for America, according to Stanford economist Petra Moser. Their innovative influence rippled outward for generations, as the émigrés attracted new researchers who then trained other up-and-comers.
 
Yes, we hung those who were of no use to us and brought in those who were. Operation Paper Clip brought to the U.S. those who could help us with the Russian intelligence network, but who were responsible for the torture and murder of their own citizens who were thought to be acting against the Reich...
 
Debby said:
What do you mean by 'freedom of person'? Is that the same as saving the lives (for a price, i.e. their devastating research knowledge) of people who did terrible things and allowing them to escape the consequences of their actions?

As to your remark QS, I don't think the the average citizen is culpable for what their government does and particularly when that government is behaving reprehensibly and the citizenry is often ignorant of the why's of their actions. It's my observations that governments have agenda's that too often the people don't have a clue about and they put a 'warm, fuzzy' face on it so the people think all is good.

We don't get opportunities to vote on anything save who occupies the Big Chair. But when it comes to other important issues, we're often considered to ignorant to be involved. Case in point, when Brian Mulroney sold off al of the gold that belonged to the people of Canada back in the 80's. It wasn't his to sell, but he did, because he was the government. And he did it for his own benefit. Friendship with good buddy Ronnie Reagan and a seat on the board of Barrick Gold.

Another case in point, when the Conservatives (current) changed the environmental laws that protected our northern lakes and rivers to allow mining to go in and do whatever they wanted without having to protect those bodies of water and this done, despite a Constitutional requirement that they consult with First Nations of the region. We the people were never allowed to vote on these things despite their significance.
Click to expand...

That would be the same with the majority of Germans. They couldn't control the actions of Hitler.
 
Yes, and then there was the Rat Line that some catholic authorities used to get people like Eichman and Mengle to South America...
 
Martin Luther King said in his famous speech, "I have a dream that one day even the State of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice". I think that's a dream that we should all focus on for the globe because we have become a global village and when governments refuse to decry the rhetoric of Naziism, the possibility of that dream coming to fruition is further minimized.

That's why I find my governments stance on this so terribly offensive (not to mention that it flies in the ties of our own Surpreme Court decisions). These kinds of changes start with each individual (bottom up) and need the governments to stand behind them (top down) and with luck we meet in the middle to achieve the goal of peace. Call me an idealist, but that's how I feel.
 
You know QS, I just looked up Operation Paperclip (Ralph's comment) and came up with the following:

"Truman's order expressly excluded anyone found "to have been a member of the Nazi Party, and more than a nominal participant in its activities, or an active supporter of Nazi militarism". However, those restrictions would have rendered ineligible most of the leading scientists the JIOA had identified for recruitment, among them rocket scientistsWernher von Braun, Kurt H. Debus andArthur Rudolph, and the physician Hubertus Strughold, each earlier classified as a "menace to the security of the Allied Forces............To circumvent President Truman's anti-Nazi order and the Allied Potsdam and Yalta agreements, the JIOA worked independently to create false employment and political biographies for the scientists. The JIOA also expunged from the public record the scientists' Nazi Party memberships and régime affiliations. Once "bleached" of their Nazism, the scientists were granted security clearances by the U.S. government to work in the United States....."

which leads me to doubt that any of those scientists were Jews that America was trying to save or whatever.

(The JIOA was the Joint Intelligence Objective Agency)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Paperclip
 
Debby said:
You know QS, I just looked up Operation Paperclip (Ralph's comment) and came up with the following:

"Truman's order expressly excluded anyone found "to have been a member of the Nazi Party, and more than a nominal participant in its activities, or an active supporter of Nazi militarism". However, those restrictions would have rendered ineligible most of the leading scientists the JIOA had identified for recruitment, among them rocket scientistsWernher von Braun, Kurt H. Debus andArthur Rudolph, and the physician Hubertus Strughold, each earlier classified as a "menace to the security of the Allied Forces............To circumvent President Truman's anti-Nazi order and the Allied Potsdam and Yalta agreements, the JIOA worked independently to create false employment and political biographies for the scientists. The JIOA also expunged from the public record the scientists' Nazi Party memberships and régime affiliations. Once "bleached" of their Nazism, the scientists were granted security clearances by the U.S. government to work in the United States....."

which leads me to doubt that any of those scientists were Jews that America was trying to save or whatever.

(The JIOA was the Joint Intelligence Objective Agency)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Paperclip
Click to expand...

Ok.. So I guess the article from Stanford was lying then.. I suppose Einstein was a murderous Nazi too?
 
QuickSilver said:
See... that's the thing about "freedom of Speech"..... it's Freedom of speech... Not just speech you agree with... Not just speech that is sanctioned and approved by one segment of society.. it's about everyones right to speak. Even Nazi's I guess... AND that's exactly the thing that makes ME proud to live in a free county.. Sorry you are not.
Click to expand...

I agree, freedom of speech is used by many people in America. Not too long ago there were Satanists handing out pamphlets, etc. and people were in an uproar. But if those of other religions can do the same thing, then the Satanists have the right to share their beliefs with others too. I'm proud to live in a free country, and hope it stays that way.
 
SeaBreeze said:
I agree, freedom of speech is used by many people in America. Not too long ago there were Satanists handing out pamphlets, etc. and people were in an uproar. But if those of other religions can do the same thing, then the Satanists have the right to share their beliefs with others too. I'm proud to live in a free country, and hope it stays that way.
Click to expand...

That was exactly my point. You can't give SOME freedom of speech and not everyone. That is what a free country is based on. We may not agree.. and the spoutings of some may be odeous.. but that comes with freedom.
 
QuickSilver said:
Ok.. So I guess the article from Stanford was lying then.. I suppose Einstein was a murderous Nazi too?
Click to expand...


What article are you talking about?

From this article: http://research.calvin.edu/german-propaganda-archive/einstein.htm

German Propaganda Archive:

"Background: Since Einstein was Jewish, the Nazis had to argue that he was no scientific genius, but rather a typical Jew of limited abilities. This 1939 article comes from the Mitteilungen über die Judenfrage, a newsletter published by the Institut zum Studium der Judenfrage, the most prestigious of the Nazi research institutes on the “Jewish Question.” It is typical of much Nazi propaganda directed against Einstein. It makes, among other things, the interesting claims that there is nothing new about the Theory of Relativity, and even if there were, Einstein plagiarized it.The source: Fritz Redlin, “Das Judenporträt: Albert Einstein. Die ‘Sehenswürdigkeit’ von Princeton,”Mitteilungen über die Judenfrage, 3 (9 March 1939), pp. 3-4.

Another link: http://www.ppu.org.uk/learn/infodocs/people/pp-einstein2.html
goes on to point out that Einsteins property was confiscated by the Nazi's and where he had once believed an economic blockade would bring down that regime, he began to realize that it would take armed resistance and he began to press for an international peace force to prevent Nazi atrocities.


I guess it can be fairly said that no, Einstein was not a murderous Nazi.
 
SeaBreeze said:
I agree, freedom of speech is used by many people in America. Not too long ago there were Satanists handing out pamphlets, etc. and people were in an uproar. But if those of other religions can do the same thing, then the Satanists have the right to share their beliefs with others too. I'm proud to live in a free country, and hope it stays that way.
Click to expand...

If they are promoting their right to worship some non-existent entity under a full moon while dancing naked, then they have as much right as any Christian, Jew, Buddhist....but I think the minute that Satanists start to point to old ladies or old men or children or any groups of individuals as unworthy of life, et al, then their right to freely promulgate that violent hate speech becomes a non-starter.

From Wikipedia:
The racial policy of Nazi Germany was a set of policies and laws implemented by Nazi Germany, asserting the superiority of the "Aryan race", and based on a specific racist doctrine which claimed scientific legitimacy. It was combined with a eugenics programme that aimed for racial hygiene by using compulsory sterilizations and extermination of theUntermenschen (or "sub-humans"), and which eventually culminated in the Holocaust. These policies targeted peoples, in particular Jews, as well as Gypsies, homosexuals and handicapped people, ethnic Poles,[SUP][1][/SUP] Russians[SUP][2][/SUP] who were labeled as "inferior" in a racial hierarchy that placed the Herrenvolk (or "master race") of the Volksgemeinschaft (or "national community") at the top, and ranked Russians, Romani, Serbs, Poles, persons of color and Jews at the bottom
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_policy_of_Nazi_Germany



Nazi 'speech/doctrine' called for the compulsory sterilization or murder of anyone who didn't fit their ideal and neo-Nazi's have not strayed from that philosophy. Is that really the kind of 'speech' that frees a world or moves it in the direction of peace?

Would you find it acceptable that those kind of people teach it in your schools? Or here's a question that sort of relates to the issue but on a more contemporary level, how does this relate to the issue of cyber bullying? Your child is getting vicious texts from someone that are threatening his life/happiness/safety.....is this 'acceptable' because of the requirement of freedom of speech? Can you impinge on that awful persons right to say what he is saying? What if he's hanging posters around the neighbourhood to the same effect that are causing your child untold distress? Are there any moral/ethical limits to this 'free speech'?
 
QuickSilver said:
Cyber bullying is a crime and not free speech.
Click to expand...


What's the difference?

If they both incite 'others' to disregard/hate/hurt another individual or group or simply threaten/hurt/endanger the emotional well being of the victim, what is the difference?

And what about some neo-Nazi teaching your grandchildren in their school to hate? Does your free speech extend to him?
 
I'm not sure what your concern is. No... Nazi's are not going to be invited into schools to teach Social Studies. No.. it's not ok to cyber bully and cause harm. Yes... it's ok to voice your political and religious beliefs in a open forum without prosecution. Theres a difference and perhaps I'm not adroit enough voice it, But I understand it and I would think someone as intellegent as you would also.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top