babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics

Topic Closed  Topic Closed


Post New Topic  
Topic Closed  Topic Closed
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » national news   » Ottawa city politician accused of hate crime

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Ottawa city politician accused of hate crime
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 21 June 2003 12:31 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Is this accusation that Ottawa city councillor, Jan Harder violated Canada's hate laws valid?

City councillor being investigated on hate crimes charge


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 21 June 2003 12:40 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
No, because every racist statement is not a crime, and should not be one. Without geting into the whole "absolute freedom of speech" debate, it seems clear to me that only VERY dangerous speech, such as speech advocating genocide, should be made a crime.
From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 21 June 2003 12:44 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by jeff house:
No, because every racist statement is not a crime, and should not be one. Without geting into the whole "absolute freedom of speech" debate, it seems clear to me that only VERY dangerous speech, such as speech advocating genocide, should be made a crime.
But Jeff you know that is not what the hate law says. The law is pretty clear and while a section does deal with advocating genocide another section dealds simply with "wilfully and knowingly promoting hatred against an identifiable group...".

I seem to recall that you supported the laying of hate charges gainst the neo-Nazis who were demonstrating against the Roma and their signs were not advocating genocide. So in this case why the change of heart?


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 21 June 2003 01:03 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I would presume it's because neo-Nazis are a group who are known to believe in an ideology that ultimately demands harsh treatment of anybody not considered "superior", wherher this takes the form of deportations or mass killings.

So a racist statement by a neo-Nazi carries behind it the clear threat of violence, whereas a non-extremist's racist statement does not necessarily carry a threat; merely the element of stupidity.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 21 June 2003 01:07 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by DrConway:
I would presume it's because neo-Nazis are a group who are known to believe in an ideology that ultimately demands harsh treatment of anybody not considered "superior", wherher this takes the form of deportations or mass killings.

So a racist statement by a neo-Nazi carries behind it the clear threat of violence, whereas a non-extremist's racist statement does not necessarily carry a threat; merely the element of stupidity.


Hey Doc , I agree, Im only asking Jeff if he is steadfast on when these charges should be laid.

Lawyers also must interpret law and as i said its clear that the heritage front dinks did not advocate genocide despite what they may think. The law cannot be applied to what you think only what you do.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
cadre
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3780

posted 21 June 2003 01:10 PM      Profile for cadre        Edit/Delete Post
Would making statements willfully and knowingly promoting hatred against Nazis violate Canadian hate laws?
From: Stalingrad in mourning | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 21 June 2003 01:15 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by cadre:
Would making statements willfully and knowingly promoting hatred against Nazis violate Canadian hate laws?

NO, they are not an identifiable group identified by
race, creed, colour or nationality.

From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
cadre
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3780

posted 21 June 2003 01:34 PM      Profile for cadre        Edit/Delete Post
I understand creed as a set of fundamental beliefs, not necessarily religious.
From: Stalingrad in mourning | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
beluga2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3838

posted 21 June 2003 01:45 PM      Profile for beluga2     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
"creed" (N) 1. a brief statement of religious belief; confession of faithp; 2. a specific statement of this kind, accepted as authoritative by a church; 3. a statement of belief, principles, or opinions on any subject

According to Webster's, you're right, Cadre.

[ 21 June 2003: Message edited by: beluga2 ]


From: vancouvergrad, BCSSR | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 21 June 2003 02:15 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by beluga2:
"creed" (N) 1. a brief statement of religious belief; confession of faithp; 2. a specific statement of this kind, accepted as authoritative by a church; 3. a statement of belief, principles, or opinions on any subject

According to Webster's, you're right, Cadre.

[ 21 June 2003: Message edited by: beluga2 ]


For the purposes of canada's hate laws it has been defined by the Supreme Court as RELIGIOUS beliefs.

From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
cadre
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3780

posted 21 June 2003 02:41 PM      Profile for cadre        Edit/Delete Post
Then Jews are a protected group and Nazis aren’t because all Jews share the same religious beliefs? Would Nazis be protected if they establish shrines to Hitler and worship his image?
From: Stalingrad in mourning | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 21 June 2003 02:51 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by cadre:
Then Jews are a protected group and Nazis aren’t because all Jews share the same religious beliefs? Would Nazis be protected if they establish shrines to Hitler and worship his image?

Why are you so intent on trying to protect Nazis.

Nazism is by its very nature anti-religious, murderous and evil. Your ongoing attempt here is tiresome at best and may raise some questions as to your motivation. Choose another group if you want to make this argument. Nazis are not deserving of the protection of the hate laws. The laws were created to protect their victims from their evil. Get it????


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Trisha
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 387

posted 21 June 2003 03:06 PM      Profile for Trisha     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
"Staff Sgt. Ackland said police policy is to identify the race of a person only if it serves a purpose such as describing a suspect they are looking for in relation to a particular crime. They do not keep statistics on the race of people who commit crimes, she said."

I don't see the politician's statement as a hate statement but more along the lines of identification as shown in the quote above. I see no comparison to racial bigotry at all. The truth of the matter is that the problem in this one instance does involve a group of people that are distinguishable by their colour. It's next to impossible to be able to avoid this kind of identification 100% of the time.

Meshei, you have once again taken an unrelated event to accuse people of things related to your cause. This is a cheap shot, in my opinion.


From: Thunder Bay, Ontario | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 21 June 2003 03:10 PM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Mishei, I don't think anyone here wants to protect Nazis, I certainly hope not. But I don't think "Jews", for example, are just protected as a religion. An atheist Jew who is targeted by a Nazi skinhead because of his or her name or for "looking Jewish", whatever that means, would also be granted such protection.

I do think we need hate crimes legislation but agree with Jeff that it should be used very judiciously, against violent hate groups, even if they aren't technically advocating genocide. Roma refugees have good reason to fear Neo-Nazi skinheads, who have tortured and murdered many Roma in Europe.

I don't think hate crimes legislation should just apply against stupid, ignorant comments. I think those are better addressed through anti-racist education.


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
cadre
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3780

posted 21 June 2003 03:11 PM      Profile for cadre        Edit/Delete Post
Mishei, it's sad to see you're so filled by hate.
From: Stalingrad in mourning | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 21 June 2003 03:19 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Meshei, you have once again taken an unrelated event to accuse people of things related to your cause. This is a cheap shot, in my opinion.


I am not accusing anyone of anything. I posted an interesting article to engender discussion. Cadre then took the legal argument and using nazis as his example wondered why they were not protected by this law. I gave him an answer. He persists. I wonder about his persistance in using the nazi analogy..yes it bothers me...yes I hate nazis, dont you?

Lagatta, it is not that I disagree with Jeff, I was only asking him to be consistant. In this case the Councilor made a racist remark, I don't beelieve in the long run she will be charged but not because her statement didnt have the ingredient of advocating genocide.

Jeff in the earlier Roma thread agreed (it seemed to me)that the charges were warranted but they too did not advocate genocide. So I was just trying to get an understanding.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 21 June 2003 03:19 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by cadre:
Mishei, it's sad to see you're so filled by hate.
Yes I repeat

I hate nazis. Don't you??

[ 21 June 2003: Message edited by: Mishei ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Sara Mayo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3714

posted 21 June 2003 04:14 PM      Profile for Sara Mayo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
"Creed" is not mentionned in the Hate Propaganda Law.

Here are the relevant sections:

quote:
In this section, "identifiable group" means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion or ethnic origin

quote:
(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Defences
(3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)
(a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;
(b) if, in good faith, he expressed or attempted to establish by argument an opinion on a religious subject;
(c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or
(d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.

[ 21 June 2003: Message edited by: Sara Mayo ]


From: "Highways are monuments to inequality" - Enrique Penalosa | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
NDB
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1234

posted 21 June 2003 04:22 PM      Profile for NDB     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Isn't it difficult and premature to make an assessment of whether this councillor's comment incites hate? She said:
quote:
"The problem arises when a large group of -- I'm going to say it -- non-whites comes into our community looking to cause trouble."
So what if a bunch of "whites" go out and beat up a bunch of "non-whites" tomorrow? Or what if the opposite happens? Does hate crime legislation prevent prosecuting minorities who commit ideologically or religious driven crimes against the "majority"? (Who I presume are considered to be white christians.)

From: Ottawa | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 21 June 2003 04:23 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Sara Mayo:
"Creed" is not mentionned in the Hate Propaganda Law.

Here are the relevant sections:

[ 21 June 2003: Message edited by: Sara Mayo ]



Thanks Sarah. Then that should effectively put an end to anyone wondering why nazis arent covered by this law.

From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 21 June 2003 04:45 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I don't think I am being inconsistent. First of all, I generally support genuine hate-crime legislation. To me, that means advocacy of genocide and similar calls to destroy a people or ethnically cleanse it of some group.

In the Roma case, Nazis were calling the Roma "insects", as I recall, and demanding they be expelled from Canada. My remarks about that case, though, were more about the failure of the Ontario Court of Appeal. I thought its reasoning was terribly faulty, and based on a technicality so microscopic that I don't believe it even
exists.

--------------
Mishei also quotes the second of the two Criminal Code hate-crime sections:
mishei said this:

quote:
Another section deals simply with "wilfully and knowingly promoting hatred against an identifiable group"

I find this section more applicable, but also less justifiable. In the final analysis, I accept it as appropriate in the Criminal Code, but only when the words "willfully and knowingly promoting" are each given full force.

So, when this counsellour says:

"The problem arises when a large group of -- I'm going to say it -- non-whites comes into our community looking to cause trouble."

I don't think she is WILLFULLY promoting hatred. Also, the law exempts from its ambit statements

"if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true;"


I think the comments were directed to a specific public issue; so however asinine the statements were, I don't think they are crimes.

[ 21 June 2003: Message edited by: jeff house ]


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
cadre
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3780

posted 21 June 2003 04:47 PM      Profile for cadre        Edit/Delete Post
Thanks, Sara. Mishei's definition of "race, creed, colour or nationality" had me wondering how groups like Roma or Jews would be included.
quote:
I hate nazis. Don't you??

While I loathe Nazism, I don’t hate any group of people. I've never knowingly met a Nazi, nor sought to meet one.

Nelson Mandela had as much justification as anyone to hate. He achieved much more by trying to understand his enemy.


From: Stalingrad in mourning | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Kindred
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3285

posted 21 June 2003 04:52 PM      Profile for Kindred     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Nazism is by its very nature anti-religious, murderous and evil
Being anti-religious is not a crime, its called atheism - all nazis or neo nazis or white supremists are not murders - define "evil" please.

I myself might define "evil" as any group that seeks to suppress the rights of others to believe what they wish to believe. Religious wars can be defined as "evil" due to their "evil" violence against those who dont share their specific religious beliefs.

Saying you hate all Nazis is like someone else saying the hate all Jews - you are singling out a group to "hate". You may not agree with their beliefs but that doesnt give you or anyone else the right to say its ok for me to "hate" but not ok for them to "hate".

I also think you threw that out to challenge moderators seeing as it has been stated here that it is not OK to post hate messages.

Define "hate" - I might define it as a generalization against a group of people based on their ethnic, religious, or any other belief system or chosen life style that doesnt agree with your own, and an attempt to force said groups, or others to subscribe to your beliefs and take action against said groups thereby restricting their freedoms to practise their chosen life styles, beliefs, traditions, etc.

Which brings us back to your original postings that the anti-arab cartoon should not be seen as "offensive" or "racist".

You have to realize Meshei that hate is a door that swings both ways. For instance am to understand that in your round about nonsensial way you are now saying you hate people who arent religious?

The Mayor of Regina not too long ago took the bull by the horns as did the Chief of Police in a public statement that the high crime statistics for Regina do not reflect the real situation, and most of the city is a very safe place to live and walk at night, etc. That when broken down demographically you see a different picture of the city altogether. The high crime rate is focused in the native community - and that THIS is an area the city MUST be addressing. Throwing policing and money into non-native programs and areas was NOT making economical sense and should be concentrated where the problems were, within the Native community.

Radism? Or common sense? And long overdue. He was presenting FACTS - and not ducking reality in order to be politically correct. something had to be done but first someone had to say it --


From: British Columbia | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Kindred
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3285

posted 21 June 2003 05:00 PM      Profile for Kindred     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oh forgot to mention the new Chief of Police was part aboriginal and married to a Native woman as well, and proud of his heritage. A very honest, tell-it-like-it-is pro-active guy. Identifying problems is not always racism, not when someone is looking for a way to fix them. (other than genocide or suppression).
From: British Columbia | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 21 June 2003 05:01 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Which brings us back to your original postings that the anti-arab cartoon should not be seen as "offensive" or "racist".


When did you enter this discussion? Let me see if I can be clear for you since everyone else here seems to get it. I NEVER CLAIMED THAT THE CARTOON WAS OK. I HAVE ALWAYS STIPULATED IT WAS RACIST. PLEASE SHOW ME WHERE I HAVE CONCLUDED OTHERWISE.

nOW IS THAT CLEAR ENOUGH FOR YOU.

quote:
You have to realize Meshei that hate is a door that swings both ways. For instance am to understand that in your round about nonsensial way you are now saying you hate people who arent religious?

No. Thids is just plain stupid.

quote:
Saying you hate all Nazis is like someone else saying the hate all Jews
What planet do you come from. Nazi ideology calls for tyhe genocide of groups of human beings. In fact only 65 years ago they almost succeeded. Jews are a religious group who do not call for the murder of people. (Why do I feel like Im trying to explain this to a 10 year old??)

You may not like the fact that I choose the emotion of hatred when it comes to Nazis, I can live with that. But your suggestion in your post in absurd...just absurd!!!!

[ 21 June 2003: Message edited by: Mishei ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
NDB
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1234

posted 21 June 2003 05:10 PM      Profile for NDB     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Mishei, please settle down. If you want to yell at someone you can do it in private you know.

Kindred, the discussion of the Globe cartoon is elsewhere and raising it here threatens to totally divert this thread. Your point about the Saskatoon thing seems relevant, thanks.


From: Ottawa | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Kindred
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3285

posted 21 June 2003 05:13 PM      Profile for Kindred     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
BY MESHEI: The cartoon is a stupid political statement. It does not fall under Canada's hate laws because it does not point at a specific race or creed. Yes people can read into whatever they want but if gypsies arent Roma then this cartoon can be anyone. The law demands specificity.
Secondly, how exactly does this promote hatred against an identifiable group? To mthe best of my knowledge, terrorists are not an identifiable group under Canadian law


quote:
I'm disappointed in you, Mishei

quote:
Me too. Disappointed and greatly surprised. And I mean that sincerely. If nothing else I hoped for consistency. But apparently not even. It seems racism is in the eye of the beholder and all the fine talk about Canada's multiculturalism and tolerance from some corners is just that: talk.

quote:
BY MESHEI: I have had some experience with the hate laws and as I told Wing, you asked for an opinion, I gave it. I stick by it

Only later on did you change your tune - would you have done that if not challenged by virtually EVERY poster on that thread who saw the inconsistency in your alleged beliefs?

You didnt answer my query as to why you feel it is okay for one group to hate and not another - or any other points in my thread. I am merely asking for you to explain the logic behind what you say Meshei. WHY do you feel hate is justified by one group of people and not another -

In addition to the original thread of discussion here

quote:
Under the Ontario Child and Family Services Act of 1984, any child under age 16 found loitering in a public place without adult supervision, between the hours of midnight and 6 a.m., can be escorted home by police or have their parents pick them up.

The rarely enforced law also states that parents or guardians of children out during these times are punishable by a $1,000 fine or up to one year in jail.


How does this become translated into "racial profiling"?

From: British Columbia | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Secret Agent Style
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2077

posted 21 June 2003 05:16 PM      Profile for Secret Agent Style        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
While I loathe Nazism, I don’t hate any group of people. I've never knowingly met a Nazi, nor sought to meet one.


I haven't sought to meet any either, but I've had several encounters with them anyway -- almost all negative, some violent.
quote:

Nelson Mandela had as much justification as anyone to hate. He achieved much more by trying to understand his enemy.


You might want to read up on South African history. Mandela and the ANC weren't exactly pacifists. Understanding your enemy doesn't mean you have to have to be lenient and turn the other cheek.
quote:

Saying you hate all Nazis is like someone else saying the hate all Jews

Wow. This is moral relativism at its worst extreme. I suppose it's not okay to say you hate all serial killers or child molesters either, because they're all just people, man.

Back to the main issue of this thread; I think it would be a waste of time and resources to charge this politician with a hate crime for his comments, especially when there are enough genuine hate crimes to deal with.

[ 21 June 2003: Message edited by: Andy Social ]


From: classified | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Kindred
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3285

posted 21 June 2003 05:34 PM      Profile for Kindred     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I am not trying to revise the cartoon thread, I am merely pointing out that statement of hate is as vile as any other - IMO
From: British Columbia | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
cadre
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3780

posted 21 June 2003 05:39 PM      Profile for cadre        Edit/Delete Post
Andy Social, Mandela and the ANC were not pacifists, but considering the provocation were very restrained. Activist struggle should be based on justice, not blind hate. Once Mandela rose to power he sought to reconcile South Africa, not to retaliate against whites.
From: Stalingrad in mourning | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
NDB
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1234

posted 21 June 2003 05:44 PM      Profile for NDB     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Kindred:
I am not trying to revise the cartoon thread, I am merely pointing out that statement of hate is as vile as any other - IMO

K, alright.
Right back at ya!

From: Ottawa | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Secret Agent Style
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2077

posted 21 June 2003 05:58 PM      Profile for Secret Agent Style        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Andy Social, Mandela and the ANC were not pacifists, but considering the provocation were very restrained.


That might have had something to do with the fact that the racist whites controlled the police, military and weapons. It would have been suicidal to have an all-out offensive.
quote:

Activist struggle should be based on justice, not blind hate.


Not all hate is blind; some people deserve to be hated. And hating evil/immoral people is not incongruous with fighting for justice.
quote:

Once Mandela rose to power he sought to reconcile South Africa, not to retaliate against whites.


He didn't hate whites; he hated racist oppressors. As far as I know, some of the worst offenders were punished for their actions, so it wasn't a forgive and forget situation . It's a whole different story when you're the one in power. He wanted to maintain order and prevent civil war.

[ 21 June 2003: Message edited by: Andy Social ]


From: classified | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 21 June 2003 06:10 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Only later on did you change your tune - would you have done that if not challenged by virtually EVERY poster on that thread who saw the inconsistency in your alleged beliefs?

I never "changed any tune" I but added to it. And my God if ypou dnot know me by now...do you really think I am so influenced by posters here that I will change an honstly held belief. I can be swayed when reviweing a matter but if i did not feel the cartoon was racist I would have said so. That has been my appraoch here from the very beginning. That you wish to see me in only your negative light is, quite frankly, your problem.

And thanks AndySocial for your clear and honest appraisal of nazis and why they can, with desereved credit be hated.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 21 June 2003 06:16 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I understand that people are feeling special kinds of heat on this thread that I shouldn't aggravate by raising the more general question here.

But I am honestly sorry to find myself disagreeing so much in some places on this thread with AndySocial.

So I will soon start a thread on the Ideas forum about Hatred. Maybe some of that discussion could be diverted there.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308

posted 22 June 2003 02:41 AM      Profile for Rufus Polson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think the law lets you say pretty much whatever you want about Nazis, or any other group constituted primarily for the purpose of promoting hate (such as the KKK, f'rinstance). Why? Because of part d:

(d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.

Generally, if you say something intolerant about Neonazis, you can pretty believably say that you were trying to point out, for the purpose of removal, their propensity for producing feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group. Heck, that probably really will be your core motivation. So knock yourself out, promote hate against Nazis, racists and other hatemongers--it's perfectly OK under the hate law, and one suspects this is precisely why part (d) is in the law--otherwise, it would be potentially against the law to challenge hatemongering, which would be ludicrous and counterproductive.
Hypothetically, I suppose, if you went around saying that Neonazi skinheads should all be killed because they're wimps who didn't include enough groups on their death list, the Neonazis *could* actually get you for promoting hate against them. I suspect that would be a relatively infrequent case, however.

Cheers!


From: Caithnard College | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Secret Agent Style
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2077

posted 22 June 2003 06:21 AM      Profile for Secret Agent Style        Edit/Delete Post
Back to the topic of bad encounters with neo-Nazis, I had one tonight. I was having a good time all night, and then my friend stopped for pizza. I sat on the front step of a store, minding my own business. Then a girl that I had a brief relationship with a few years ago walked by. At first she seemed friendly and did the normal chit chat, but then she started calling me a sharpie (Skinhead Against Racial Prejudice) and a kike (even though the Jewish in my family tree is minimal) to the guy she was with.

Then I looked up at the guy and noticed that he was wearing a T-shirt of a Nazi band called Sedition. I asked his name and where he was from, and next thing I know his boot is in my face and blood is pouring out of my nose. Keep in mind I was still sitting at the time.

Then when my friend and I start taking care of him, he starts hiding behind the girl and a bouncer in front of a bar. And then he begged my friend to leave him alone. And to top it all off, they ripped the hell out the shirts that my friend and I just bought that afternoon, plus another shirt that I had on underneath.

Another thing is that the girl started shouting "88" (HH = Heil Hitler) and "6 million more."

I don't want to say much more in case the coward tries to get the cops after us, but if anyone still wants to tell me that hating Nazis is just as bad as hating Jews, blacks or another minority, you might not want to be too close to me when you say it, unless you want to shell out $50 or more to pay for our shirts that got destroyed.

[ 22 June 2003: Message edited by: Andy Social ]


From: classified | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 22 June 2003 08:54 AM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
That's horrible, Andy! I take it the bonehead didn't break your nose or cause you any other serious physical harm.

I thought neo-nazi skinheads were on the wane - we sure don't see as many in Montreal as we used to - but they stabbed a young black man in a Montreal bar last summer, after taunting him with Heil Hitlers. They would have killed him if the bouncer hadn't intervened.


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 22 June 2003 11:11 AM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Andy, Im sorry to hear about this attack. Im not sure why yoiu haven't called the police. I urge you to do so..these vile creatures (sorry I happen to hate neo-nazis and antisemites) must know the full force of the law.
From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
kiowa
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3597

posted 22 June 2003 11:50 AM      Profile for kiowa     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
We've been down this road before on this board. All speech should be protected. The test of our commitment to the principle of free speech is at the margins, the extremes.

What Jingles stated here about me the other day is--or should be--protected. My remedy, should I choose to seek one--is through the courts, not through the US or Canadian government.

I'm looking forward to a law in the other direction. One that makes it impossible for propieters of sites like this to arbitrarily ban people. What happened to Moredreads? To "Marx"? They were here before I was activated and went overseas. Now it seems they've been "disappeared".

We do require a legal ruling on that matter. People's online identity or "handle" will become more and more valuable as time goes by. The owners of this site should have to apply to the courts to have someone like Moredreads banned. In the mean time, it is trivially easy to avoid spammers and trolls: offer a block list. Anyone who does not want to hear from kiowa or Marx simply adds those posters to their list. Sure, it can result in wierd thread drift, but better that than the totalitarian control moderators weild today.


From: Pax Americana | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 22 June 2003 12:35 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
We do require a legal ruling on that matter. People's online identity or "handle" will become more and more valuable as time goes by. The owners of this site should have to apply to the courts to have someone like Moredreads banned. In the mean time, it is trivially easy to avoid spammers and trolls: offer a block list. Anyone who does not want to hear from kiowa or Marx simply adds those posters to their list. Sure, it can result in wierd thread drift, but better that than the totalitarian control moderators weild today.


And this you feel will protect free speech. Why would anyone put up such a board if the Courts were able to define the rules and control it in such a way. It would turn quickly into the wild west and would lose many honest and passionate people who will not stand for bigotry. This idea is totally unworkable.

From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 22 June 2003 03:21 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I'm looking forward to a law in the other direction. One that makes it impossible for propieters of sites like this to arbitrarily ban people. What happened to Moredreads? To "Marx"? They were here before I was activated and went overseas. Now it seems they've been "disappeared".

We do require a legal ruling on that matter.


There is actually a law in place. It says, in effect, that the owners of any medium control it.
Let us say I own a TV station: I do not have to
allow you to broadcast on it! Similarly, if I own a newspaper, I need not give you a position as a columnist.

Myself, I think the owners of Babble are incredibly open in the access they give to just about anyone. They even try to set up rules to allow the maximum of informed debate, whereas the mass media simply make decisions without there being any known criteria.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308

posted 22 June 2003 04:02 PM      Profile for Rufus Polson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by kiowa:
We've been down this road before on this board. All speech should be protected. The test of our commitment to the principle of free speech is at the margins, the extremes.

What Jingles stated here about me the other day is--or should be--protected. My remedy, should I choose to seek one--is through the courts, not through the US or Canadian government.


I've been watching the whole disagreement between kiowa and others with some bemusement, and I really haven't felt like getting involved. I'd like to note that I *still* don't see myself as being involved in the general dispute, but I just have to comment on this.

Kiowa, your stance seems contradictory here. Either speech is free and people can say what they wish unencumbered, or there are limits, set by government through law, which can be worked out through the courts. I don't really see any difference here between libel laws, conspiracy laws, laws about inciting treason, and hate laws. Why should saying something nasty about me personally (libel) be less protected than saying something not only nasty, but inciting hate and violence against, a whole group such as blacks? If one is going to oppose hate laws on the grounds that the government is getting involved and/or that they abrogate freedom of speech, how are libel laws any different? Libel laws didn't somehow come into existence without government involvement; actually, they are the descendants of laws enacted specifically for the purpose of crushing sedition among the lower classes. And the courts are an arm of government, especially for the purpose of the kinds of oppression "big government" critics purport to be afraid of--ask any poor black person.
So how can hate speech laws be bad, but libel laws OK? The only thing I can think of is an appeal to tradition--we're used to libel laws, so they must be all right. In fact, I think in terms of social effects, the reverse is true: Hate laws, at least so far, have been used sparingly and well. Libel chill on the other hand is widely used by the rich and powerful, including large corporations, to head off criticism.


From: Caithnard College | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Secret Agent Style
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2077

posted 22 June 2003 04:08 PM      Profile for Secret Agent Style        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I take it the bonehead didn't break your nose or cause you any other serious physical harm.

Luckily my nose and teeth are fine. It would have been a lot worse if the guy had better aim and more force behind his kick. I have a few minor aches, but the main damage is to my clothes.
quote:

Im not sure why yoiu haven't called the police.


If he broke my nose or teeth, I'm pretty sure that I, or my friend, would have gone to the police. We wouldn't have had to walk far to find one. I generally try to avoid police if possible.

Frankly, I was concerned that the police might make my friend and I look like the bad guys. I didn't want to depend on witnesses who might be drunk, tired and/or high, might not have seen the whole situation unfold, and might not have wanted to cooperate with police.


From: classified | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Kindred
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3285

posted 22 June 2003 04:18 PM      Profile for Kindred     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Andy I am sorry to hear what happened to you however you might consider that the attack was motivated by a punk wanting to impress a girl. The fact that he was wearing a tshirt with a logo of a "nazi" band doesnt mean he belongs to any one organization or is associated with anyone or anything other than the general school of "ass hole-ism" that a lot of people seem to belong to these days.

In the good ole days it would be like assuming a shit kicking by a black guy wearing a Black Power tshirt meant he was part of the Black Panthers -

It may be that this lovely couple are indeed members of some vile organization but it comes back to "visual reference" or "visual identification" based on an out standing feature or article of clothing, hair cut, ethnic origin that then lends itself to an assumption against a entire GROUP of people and not just one individual.

Someone already addressed the fact that just because you have one bad encounter with a person, say a Japanese person or a Jewish person it is irrational to say they belong to an Asian gang and all Asians are bad. Or all Jews are bad.

I am not saying Nazis, skin heads, etc arent bad, in our interpretation of the word and the feeling, or that any rational functional person would IMO support their beliefs but --

This leads to another post here

quote:
So knock yourself out, promote hate against Nazis, racists and other hatemongers--it's perfectly OK under the hate law, and one suspects this is precisely why part (d) is in the law--otherwise, it would be potentially against the law to challenge hatemongering, which would be ludicrous and counterproductive

The belief that you should fight hate with hate, violence with violence - isnt this a little like the Bush mentality? The law does NOT allow anyone to promote hate and violence against any person, race, or organization. It does not dictate that Nazis are bad, do whatever you like to them - there is NO list of who is good and bad.

I suggest rather than "suspect" what the law says that you read it for yourself. By promoting hatred you become a hate monger and subject to due process of the laws against such things. And that doesnt solve a thing ..


From: British Columbia | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Secret Agent Style
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2077

posted 22 June 2003 05:09 PM      Profile for Secret Agent Style        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Kindred:
The fact that he was wearing a tshirt with a logo of a "nazi" band doesnt mean he belongs to any one organization or is associated with anyone or anything other than the general school of "ass hole-ism" that a lot of people seem to belong to these days.


Whether or not they are part of an actual racist organization is irrelevant. It was damn obvious that they are neo-Nazis, due to the girl's comments and the guy's T-shirt. Sedition is an out and out neo-Nazi band whose products are only available from white power websites and white power concerts. Only racists would wear shirts of that band. This wasn't just an example of mere "asshole-sim" for the sake of it.
quote:

... but it comes back to "visual reference" or "visual identification" based on an out standing feature or article of clothing, hair cut...

I guess you missed the part about the "kike" and "6 million more" comments that were directed my way.
quote:

I am not saying Nazis, skin heads, etc arent bad..

Considering that my friend and I are both skinheads, I'll have to correct your assumption that all skinheads are bad. One of the reasons that I didn't go to the police was the fear that the police might not understand that, and treat us like gang members or something.

From: classified | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Kindred
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3285

posted 22 June 2003 05:49 PM      Profile for Kindred     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Considering that my friend and I are both skinheads, I'll have to correct your assumption that all skinheads are bad
No more so than in the belief that my blonde hair and blue eyes make me a Nazi.

You just said EXCATLY what I have been saying, basing hatred on an incident, on a perception of an individual or group cannot be justified. You encountered hatred for a group of people, irrational, ignorant, deplorable and hatred is wrong - no matter how or where it is directed, it is wrong. It serves no purpose, the ONLY way to fight it is through the laws that exist.

In order to fight hatred we have to remain free of it ourselves, simply because it is illogical and ineffective.

Other people seeing you and your friend will assume you are neo nazis - white supremacists (sp?)because skin heads have become identified with that sentiment. There origins in Britian were based on that idealology .

We cannot attempt to justfy hatred and at the same time protest it, there is no credibility in that.


From: British Columbia | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Kindred
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3285

posted 22 June 2003 05:56 PM      Profile for Kindred     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You are in effect saying we should have the same kind of "law" that existed in Germany when it was okay, when officials looked the other way when hate crimes and pogroms were visited upon the Jewish people. No democratic country can condone hatred and/or violence against one group of people - even Neo Nazis.
From: British Columbia | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Aviator
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3299

posted 22 June 2003 06:14 PM      Profile for Aviator     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I am a latecomer to this debate, nevertheless, I harken back to the beginning.

quote:
another section deals simply with "wilfully and knowingly promoting hatred against an identifiable group...".

So what does this actually mean? If a person indicates that they don't like blank group does this qualify as "wilfully and knowingly promoting hatred"? If someone stands up in a pub and says we should kick out all the immigrants, but those present realize he's both drunk and stupid, do we call the RCMP? (Now, a person who carries out this harangue in the park, cold sober, and on a daily basis is a different matter). But where the proverbial shades of grey rise to the surface, where do you actually draw the line?

In light of the above, just because something is codified into law makes it neither right nor just. The Nazis proved this.

[ 22 June 2003: Message edited by: Aviator ]

[ 22 June 2003: Message edited by: Aviator ]


From: British Columbia | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Secret Agent Style
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2077

posted 22 June 2003 06:22 PM      Profile for Secret Agent Style        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Kindred:
There origins in Britian were based on that idealology .


You're wrong about that. Their origins are based on around working class English culture, Jamaican music and style, the British hard mod subculture, American soul music, soccer and a few other things. The fascists didn't hijack the image until years later.
quote:

No democratic country can condone hatred and/or violence against one group of people - even Neo Nazis.


I guess you missed a little thing called World War II.

From: classified | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Kindred
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3285

posted 22 June 2003 10:46 PM      Profile for Kindred     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I guess you missed a little thing like WWII? My dad was in the army - NO I didnt MISS it, but apparently you missed studying it in any depth.

People went to war against Germany because of the autrocities being committed and because they were invading other countries. The Germans hated the Jews, we fought them for that reason, not because we hated the Germans or the Nazis. We couldnt accept their actions or their beliefs. You clearly are not able to understand the difference between hatred and standing up for what is right.

If you want to fight hatred with hatred and violence then you can count on getting a few more shit kickings in your life. If thats you choice on how to handle things, go ahead.

As I said its that kind of response that causes the loss of credibility. I feel sorry for people like you who dont understand these difference being being effective or being one more hate mongerer when the world already has too many.


From: British Columbia | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 22 June 2003 10:51 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The Germans hated the Jews, we fought them for that reason
The allies did not go to war for this reason. Germany was threatening world economic stability and eventually the entire capitalist structure.

The Allies could care less about the Jews and proved it over and over again. History is tragically clear on this point.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Aviator
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3299

posted 23 June 2003 01:08 AM      Profile for Aviator     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The allies did not go to war for this reason. Germany was threatening world economic stability and eventually the entire capitalist structure.

Hold fire here! I have read quite a bit on alternative theories of WWII and have run into this idea before. I believe this is revisionist thinking and not much more.


From: British Columbia | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Lard Tunderin' Jeezus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1275

posted 23 June 2003 01:20 AM      Profile for Lard Tunderin' Jeezus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Agreed.

This is simply more of the 'nazis as socialists' drivel that is ever so popular amongst the neo-right.

For the new right, theirs is an ideology pure and unquestionable - and they are unable to face the fact that Hitler rose to power on the right, as unorthodox (and illogical) as his economics may have been.


From: ... | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 23 June 2003 02:03 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mishei:
The allies did not go to war for this reason. Germany was threatening world economic stability and eventually the entire capitalist structure.

The Allies could care less about the Jews and proved it over and over again. History is tragically clear on this point.


Given my rather jaundiced opinion on the lackadaisical American response to seriously doing anything about attacking Germany until 1944, I would have to say that a milestone has been set - I actually agree with some of the basics of your reasoning.

I need not restate that it is clear that in some circles in the US, it was considered acceptable to sit back and let the Nazis and the Soviets battle it out for supremacy, even if it meant letting the Soviets take far more casualties than strictly necessary to beat back the invader.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 23 June 2003 03:34 AM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The allies did not go to war for this reason. Germany was threatening world economic stability and eventually the entire capitalist structure.

The Allies could care less about the Jews and proved it over and over again. History is tragically clear on this point.


Holey Moley, I almost agree with Mishei!

Yes, the Allies didn't care about the Jews. They turned boatloads of refugees away from their shores before the war. They didn't bomb the rail lines to the death camps even though they knew what was happening.

"The world capitalist structure"? I'm not so sure. I.G. Farber and Dow Chemical collaborated during the war, and General Motors also traded with the Nazis. George Bush's granddad worked with them, and profited by the collusion, as well.


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 23 June 2003 09:38 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mishei:
The allies did not go to war for this reason. Germany was threatening world economic stability and eventually the entire capitalist structure.

The Allies could care less about the Jews and proved it over and over again. History is tragically clear on this point.


Thank-you, Mishei, I agree with you entirely there. It's like people who want to believe that slavery was abolished in Europe and North America soley because of sympathy for the plight of the slaves. A friend of mine refutes this every chance she gets. The political will to do away with slavery came about because it was becoming a less and less economically viable system of production.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Meowful
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4177

posted 23 June 2003 11:30 AM      Profile for Meowful   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Germany was not a threat to the world economy, contrarily, they were in the business of shipping steel all over the world and contributed immensely to the economic growth around the world during the early 1900's up to the depression.

The German people rallied around Hitler because, in the beginning, he offered them jobs and economic stabiltiy (being a Nazi WAS NOT part of his platform in the beginning). Many Germans thought he was going to bring their country out of the depression and back to being a world economic power...

Unfortunetly this was not Hitler's real agenda and when the German people found out it was already too late to get rid of him.
Not all German people hated Jews, nor were all German people Nazis. Many, many Germans were killed because of their affiliation with Jews, (think of the family that hid Anne Frank). Many, many German people risked (and consequently lost) their lives to save their Jewish friends.

My great-grandfather went to school with Adolf Hitler, in Austria. My family immigrated to Canada shortly before the first world war...

*This post was not intended to downplay the atrocities that were committeed against the Jewish people, but to remind everyone that Germany, as a country, is not to blame. Their leader was...


From: British Columbia | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 23 June 2003 11:36 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
No. Germany, as a country, WAS to blame. And I say that having had grandparents who lived in Germany at the time and fought on the German side of World War II.

It's true that there were many people in Germany who were poor, uneducated, starving, and didn't have the political savvy to see through the kind of propaganda that Hitler put out there. My grandparents were among them. There were also people who directly resisted Hitler's sick plan. But Germany, as a country, WAS responsible for what happened to Jewish people during the war. Maybe each individual German did not bear the same degree of responsibility (in fact, I believe there are some Germans who do not bear much responsibility at all), but Germany as an entity most certainly did commit this crime. Germany as a country codified and carried out laws whose end goal was the extermination of Jews.

[ 23 June 2003: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Meowful
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4177

posted 23 June 2003 11:40 AM      Profile for Meowful   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I just can't agree with you on that, Michelle.

That is like saying every American in the United States is standing behind Bush. If this deranged president decides to do some genocide of his own (if he hasn't already), does that mean we are going to blame all Americans? No. Just their lousy, war-mongering leader...

As a German, French, Norwegan, Heinz 57, Canadian, I do not like to paint all people from a certain country with the same brush.


From: British Columbia | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 23 June 2003 11:42 AM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Good point, Meowful. I will quibble by pointing out that the family that hid the originally German Frank family was Dutch, of course. The Nazis killed many thousands of "Aryan" Germans, and the destruction of the socialist and workers' movement was the first act in this spiral of mass murder and terror.

There is always a certain level of "collaboration" with any totalitarian power. There were people, not only in Germany but also in France and elsewhere who took over the jobs and houses of people liquidated by the Nazis. This happened under Stalin as well. I agree that singling out the German people for demonisation is sloppy history.


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 23 June 2003 11:43 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
No it is NOT like saying every American in the US is responsible for the political decisions made there. But the US, as an entity, as a political entity, IS responsible for what is happening down there.

I made that clear in my post by saying that while Germany as a country is responsible for the Holocaust, there may be many individual Germans who either do not share the blame at all, or share much less of the blame, particularly those who were too ignorant or downtrodden to resist, or those who did actively resist.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Meowful
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4177

posted 23 June 2003 11:54 AM      Profile for Meowful   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Germans today are still living with the shame of what Hitler and the Nazis have done. It is about time that we "let 'em off the hook". After all, American noses are not "rubbed in" Hiroshima and Nagasaki every day of every American's life. Germans are still held accountable and still feel responsible for, the atrocities before and during WWII. It's on TV, at the movies, it's everywhere...
Are young American children taught the horror of what the Enola Gay did? Is it repeated day after day? Do they go through life feeling ashamed. No. Neither should Germans. Can we please stop rubbing the Germans' noses in their past?

From: British Columbia | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 23 June 2003 11:56 AM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
If Germany and all Germans are responsible for the holocaust, then so are Poland and all the Poles, Hungary, Holland, France...as people in these countries willingly participated in the attempted extermination of Europe's Jewish population.

And let us not forget that Canadian and US governments did not allow boatloads of Jewish refugees to come to our shores even AFTER they knew how things were going in Europe.

Most Germans did not want World War II to start. They were very apprehensive. Hitler got himself elected in part because he promised "bread" to the people. It doesn't sound like much of a promise today, but it may give us some ideas about how different times were during the depression.


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 23 June 2003 11:56 AM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yes, the German state certainly bears ultimate responsibility for the Holocaust (and other aspects of Nazi mass-murder and enslavement policies). Willy Brandt for example, who resisted the Nazis, certainly shouldered this responsibility.

The question of individual responsibility to resist a totalitarian state is a complex one. See the wonderful old wartime film - a collaboration between Bert Brecht and Fritz Lang, in exile in the US! - "Hangmen also Die", about Czech partisans who assassinated the Nazi overlord there, and the inevitable reprisals (which were actually far worse than what was depicted in the film, including the mass killing of the citizens of Lidice).

I have a friend who was a partisan fighter in France. But of course, he was a very young man then and had no family whom his actions could subject to torture. It isn't an easy question.


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 23 June 2003 12:00 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by al-Qa'bong:
If Germany and all Germans are responsible for the holocaust,

Who said all Germans are responsible for the Holocaust?


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 23 June 2003 12:02 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
As well, the United States for all its faults still is not a fascist dictatorship. It has checks and balances and hopefully the people would speak if they felt the President oversteps his bounds. If not there is a vigorous press and alternative voices these individuals are not put to death if they dissent

[ 23 June 2003: Message edited by: Mishei ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Meowful
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4177

posted 23 June 2003 12:08 PM      Profile for Meowful   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Mishe, there were no "checks and balances" when they nuked Japan... Where were those "checks and balances" when blacks were being exterminated (yes, they exterminated blacks), or denied medical care, or schooling...

But the atrocities we speak of did not happen today. The entire world was alot different 60 some years ago.

Many atrocities were committed by many countries.

I saw "Tears of the Sun" last night. This is happening in our world today, in real time!


From: British Columbia | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 23 June 2003 12:08 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Meowful:
Can we please stop rubbing the Germans' noses in their past?

No. We cannot. Every citizen of every country should be aware at all times of the atrocities their country has committed in the past. Nobody is blaming every German for what their country did during the Holocaust, particularly those who were not born yet or old enough to be politically active at the time. I have never felt as if I or my grandparents were vilified for being of German descent or because they were in Germany during the war. It's silly to be hyper-defensive about this. The Holocaust SHOULD be part of the national consciousness in Germany, and it should never be a matter of "letting them off the hook". This isn't a matter of trying to make the next 20 generations of Germans ashamed of themselves for what happened during World War II. It's about always remembering what happened, as an acknowledgement of the terrible wrongs that were committed. Even if you believe it could never happen again, it's not even just about prevention. It's about never forgetting the atrocities of the past.

I see no reason why that should make anyone, German or not, feel defensive.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 23 June 2003 12:12 PM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yes, but the democracy that still exists in the US (despite the Patriot Act and fixed elections) makes US citizens more responsible for the agression and support for brutal torture states abroad (including initial support to Saddam Hussein). It is much more difficult to expect people to actively resist when they face a Gestapo, or KGB, knock on the door.
From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Meowful
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4177

posted 23 June 2003 12:16 PM      Profile for Meowful   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Remembering is an entirely different thing than "rubbing their noses in it."

I saw a documentary some time back... young German men and women who still feel like "they can't do enough" to atone for what their ancestors did.

At least once a year a very popular movie about the holocaust will be produced and in each one, the German people are vilified.

The world does not do this to America. Yes, I know, you may say, "but the Americans were not committing genocide." True, but that does not make what they did any less horrendous.

You don't see a movie about Hiroshima every other year...

Matter of fact, I think the only readily available information on the "Nuking of Japan" was a book that I read in high school.


From: British Columbia | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 23 June 2003 12:25 PM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
We should see more about Hiroshima, not less about the Holocaust. And throughout the Americas, not just in the US, we should see much more about the systematic extermination of Aboriginal peoples here.

The lynchings and terror against Black people in the US south were indeed mass phenomena (Josh raised this point a few months ago) - but despite endemic racism, the central state in the US did not have a policy of scientific extermination of all Black people. There were certain outright extermination policies of specific Aboriginal populations.

I know quite a few progressive people in Germany and Austria. Some are folks my age, some a generation younger. Their feelings of responsibility have not paralysed them or made them destroyed by guilt and self-doubt, but fuelled a commitment to fighting racism.


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Aviator
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3299

posted 23 June 2003 01:23 PM      Profile for Aviator     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The Allies could care less about the Jews and proved it over and over again. History is tragically clear on this point.

I dont believe there was legislation on Immigration quotas until after WWII. For economic reasons no country can open its doors for whole scale immigration for refugees. It would be economic suicide to do so.

If you talk to the veterans who fought in WWII they didnt do it for economic reasons, they did it to stop the slaughter of ALL the victims.

The Jews were not the only victims in WWII. People tend to lose track of the fact that they were one race singled out for genocide. There were others. The gypsies, the disabled and sick in Germany, homosexuals. orphans that didnt fit the Aryan mold. And resistence fighters in France, Norway, Germany, Poland - they and their families were killed in wholescale "round ups".

There were a million and a half children killed, and a million people who werent Jewish.

Jews represented the greater number but they were NOT the only victims.

You do our veterans a HUGE disservice and pay them a HUGE insult to say their motivations to fight this war were economic and not based on the invasion of and slaughter of innocent people.

You must also remember that Hitler controlled the media and the German people only heard what Hitler wanted them to hear. The media at the time reported that Germany had been invaded by their neighbours, and a lot of German people believed what they heard and read. Sound familiar?


From: British Columbia | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 23 June 2003 02:46 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Aviator I dont disagree but do recall Elie Wiesel's words when he intoned that "while not all victims were Jews all Jews were victims".

I have only the highest regard for our soldiers who fought bravely during WW2. Indeed my uncle was one. However, little was known of the hell Jews were going through at the time and for Canadians drafted or enlisted to fight the nazis, the Jewish issue just did not figure prominantly. This does not diminish their bravery it is just a fact.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 23 June 2003 03:15 PM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Canadians fought because Britain honoured their treaty obligations and declared war on Germany. no other reason. A few Canadians volunteered to fight fascism in Spain, but not a huge number. When war was declared, some individual Canadian soldiers may have been driven by a sense of humanity to oppose fascism, but most were unaware of the holocaust until the very end of the war. King and Country was probably the over-riding sentiment.

Canada can perhaps best be described as moderately to seriously anti-semitic during the period leading up to the war. Segregation was commonplace - ever wondered why Toronto has 2 yacht clubs? - and pro-fascist rallies with racist undertones were popular events in Toronto during the 30s. When the holocaust became common knowledge towards the end of the war, a frequently overheard remark in the east end of Orange Toronto that my mother grew up in was "At least Hitler did something right". She was dating a Jewish kid at the time, and the hostility that this garneed in both the 'white' community and her boyfriend's neighbourhood was quite something. Jewish kids were routinely targetted for beatings and worse in Toronto at the time.


From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Kindred
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3285

posted 23 June 2003 03:21 PM      Profile for Kindred     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The veterans I know in WESTERN Canada, and my father was one of them clearly had more honourable reasons for ENLISTING if what you claim to the opinion of EASTERN Canada veterns and societies.

I dont think its a well kept secret that opinions in Western Canada do not necessarily mirror those in the East. We more or less think of ourselves as a seperate entitiy - almost like two distinct countries within a country.

I read stuff like this and I wonder why my father gave up a business, left a family and enlisted to fight a war because of the injustice occurring in Europe.

I assure you he had no loyalties to the Queen or to England.

[ 23 June 2003: Message edited by: Kindred ]


From: British Columbia | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Kindred
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3285

posted 23 June 2003 03:27 PM      Profile for Kindred     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
In those days people did what they thought was right, they didnt sit around debating motives or sub conscious motives, or whatever intellectual garbly goop you want to throw on the table. Thats an egocentric pre-occupation of a more modern society ..

There was bad stuff happening in Europe and as upstanding honourable men they went off to see what they could do about it.

In the same way they would help a neighbour or even a stranger in trouble -


From: British Columbia | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Secret Agent Style
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2077

posted 23 June 2003 03:50 PM      Profile for Secret Agent Style        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
In those days people did what they thought was right, they didnt sit around debating motives or sub conscious motives, or whatever intellectual garbly goop you want to throw on the table. Thats an egocentric pre-occupation of a more modern society

There was bad stuff happening in Europe and as upstanding honourable men they went off to see what they could do about it.



This, coming from the person who lectured me and said I'm wrong for standing up to neo-Nazis in the streets, because underneath the swastika tattoos, genocidal political beliefs, and cowardly acts of violence they might be really nice people who just need to be loved.

Are you calling yourself an egocentric person of modern society?

[ 23 June 2003: Message edited by: Andy Social ]


From: classified | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Kindred
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3285

posted 23 June 2003 04:00 PM      Profile for Kindred     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I said it was wrong to hate someone and to be out in the community spewing hate which is what you said you were doing. As I also said you clearly do not understand a word of what I have been saying about hate causing a person to lose credibility.

I never said ONE word about you standing up to anyone, why dont you read the posts again? Seems to me you were the person AFRAID of calling the cops - I never commented on what you DID - I only said hate is wrong and pointed out that the hate laws do not exempt you from due process because they do NOT condone or say hate is okay against this one particular group.

Is that now clear enough for you?


From: British Columbia | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Kindred
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3285

posted 23 June 2003 04:03 PM      Profile for Kindred     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Did Canadians start spewing hate at Germans here in Canada as a result of what was happening in Europe? Of course not, that would have been stupid. There were some ignorant people who treated Germans badly here and some of those were in the Government, but for the most part they at least understood that the way to fight what was happening in Europe wasnt to begin hate mongering here in Canada or anywhere else.
From: British Columbia | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Kindred
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3285

posted 23 June 2003 04:11 PM      Profile for Kindred     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
, because underneath the swastika tattoos, genocidal political beliefs, and cowardly acts of violence they might be really nice people who just need to be loved
out right lying with statements like this that you claim I said dont help your credibility much either. Right now, whatever your beliefs, no matter what good work you do - how many agencies do you volunteer for ? - you have zero credibility with me. Your anger, lies and hate is appalling .. as I also said before, I feel sorry for you and people like you ..

From: British Columbia | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Secret Agent Style
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2077

posted 23 June 2003 04:20 PM      Profile for Secret Agent Style        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Kindred:
I said it was wrong to hate someone and to be out in the community spewing hate which is what you said you were doing.


I never said I was "out in the community spewing hate." What, do you think I march around the city carrying a sign, saying "Honk if you hate Nazis"?
I'm getting sick of you attributing things to me that aren't true.
quote:

As I also said you clearly do not understand a word of what I have been saying about hate causing a person to lose credibility.


Credibility with who? I'm not running for office and I'm not a member of any political organization. I have all the credibility I need with the people whose opinions I care about.
quote:

the hate laws do not exempt you from due process because they do NOT condone or say hate is okay against this one particular group.


It has already been pointed out that neo-Nazis aren't protected by anti-hate laws. You can keep pretending that they are, but it won't make it true.

[ 23 June 2003: Message edited by: Andy Social ]


From: classified | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Secret Agent Style
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2077

posted 23 June 2003 04:22 PM      Profile for Secret Agent Style        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Kindred:
Did Canadians start spewing hate at Germans here in Canada as a result of what was happening in Europe? Of course not, that would have been stupid.

I guess you haven't seen too many newspaper headlines and propaganda of that time. And there is an enormous difference between hating a nationality, i.e. German, and hating Nazis or any other kind of despicable human.

From: classified | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 23 June 2003 04:25 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Kindred:
Did Canadians start spewing hate at Germans here in Canada as a result of what was happening in Europe? Of course not, that would have been stupid. There were some ignorant people who treated Germans badly here and some of those were in the Government, but for the most part they at least understood that the way to fight what was happening in Europe wasnt to begin hate mongering here in Canada or anywhere else.

You're dreaming if you think that Germans in Canada weren't discriminated against both before and after BOTH wars due to being "the enemy". Sure, maybe it was "ignorant people" but it wasn't just a few.

Why do you think New Berlin was changed to Kitchener? Our own little version of "freedom fries".


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Secret Agent Style
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2077

posted 23 June 2003 04:29 PM      Profile for Secret Agent Style        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Kindred:
how many agencies do you volunteer for ? -


Zero. I work, pay taxes, vote, donate a little of my money to good causes, help my family and friends when they need help, waste my time on message boards, go out on weekends and do other things to enjoy life.
quote:

you have zero credibility with me. Your anger, lies and hate is appalling .. as I also said before, I feel sorry for you and people like you ..


The feeling is mutual.

[ 23 June 2003: Message edited by: Andy Social ]


From: classified | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Aviator
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3299

posted 23 June 2003 05:11 PM      Profile for Aviator     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Kindred is absolutely right when she says people did not debate as to the reasons for going to war against Germany in 1939. They definitely did not go to war to preserve economic stability and capitalism. This revisionist idea arises because we have the luxury of hindsight. We also have the tendency to apply today's values to a time when they would have had no validity.

Another way to look at this is to examine the concept that the world was a tremendously different place. Instant telecommunications, and therefore, instant ideas didn't really exist. The airplane was only 35 years old. Large numbers of people simply weren't well educated. Values were, in some ways, much more well defined.

For example, I remember one veteran telling me about seeing newreels about Hitler and pre-war Germany. Once a month, you rode into town from some place in rural Saskatchewan to watch the "talkies." He said the general feeling was that here was this kooky guy in Germany coming to power. Germany was another planet in those days. And Hitler, well who the hell is this guy anyway? Then back to the farm, and work. Hell, I was only 18. I had left school at 12. No, Hitler and what he was doing didn't mean much at at time.

When the war started, all I knew was that Germany was doing something wrong. That's the reason I went to war. (And gosh, I got to fly a Spitfire!). Veteran after veteran, of whom my dad was one, echoes similar sentiments. There was no talk of preserving the economic order.


From: British Columbia | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Aviator
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3299

posted 23 June 2003 05:18 PM      Profile for Aviator     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
It has already been pointed out that neo-Nazis aren't protected by anti-hate laws. You can keep pretending that they are, but it won't make it true.

You are splitting hairs here. They are protected from violence perpetrated by individuals. We can despise their ideas, but attack a neo-Nazi and you'll probably find yourself in cells. Trite as it may be, hate only breeds more hate. And hate eventually leads to violence.


From: British Columbia | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Secret Agent Style
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2077

posted 23 June 2003 05:37 PM      Profile for Secret Agent Style        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Aviator:

You are splitting hairs here. They are protected from violence perpetrated by individuals. We can despise their ideas, but attack a neo-Nazi and you'll probably find yourself in cells.



I'm not splitting hairs; I'm being factually correct.

Of course everyone is protected by law from things like assault, theft, murder, libel, etc., but anti-hate legislation is there to protect people from being attacked or discriminated against for specific characteristics such as ethnicity, religion, sex, sexual orientation, disablity, etc.

Neo-Nazism and other extremist beliefs don't fall under that protection, despite the fact that some of them pretend that racial supremacy is a religion.

And for the record, I want to dispel any notions there may be that I purposely go out searching for Nazis to beat up. I don't think I've ever started a fight in my entire life, other than maybe with my brothers when I was a kid. Usually the people who attack me are a lot bigger than me, and often they outnumber me.

[ 23 June 2003: Message edited by: Andy Social ]


From: classified | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 23 June 2003 06:00 PM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The veterans I know in WESTERN Canada, and my father was one of them clearly had more honourable reasons for ENLISTING if what you claim to the opinion of EASTERN Canada veterns and societies.

OK buddy. The west is best. Apparently it wasn't even part of the British Empire back then and every able-bodied man out there enlisted as soon as Hitler seized the Sudetenland ... whatever floats your boat.

Is this where I'm expected to trot out my predecessors who signed up, fought and died in both World Wars in three countries and loudly proclaim their unassailable decency, bravery and honour?


From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 23 June 2003 06:08 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I would love to hear about your family, ronb.

Kindred, that particular post about the West was nonsense. I also am a Westerner. My dad also volunteered, the day war was declared. The king and Churchill and the defence of Merrie Olde certainly meant something to him; but much more did the death of his older brother (nice farm boy from Lacombe) in WWI -- irrational, but Albertans, anyway, were like that -- honourable, y'know?

Don't try pulling out the prairie creds without thinking carefully, Kindred.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 23 June 2003 06:17 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
If someone stands up in a pub and says we should kick out all the immigrants, but those present realize he's both drunk and stupid, do we call the RCMP? (Now, a person who carries out this harangue in the park, cold sober, and on a daily basis is a different matter).

"Willfully" in law, connotes a heightened form of intentionality; therefore it excludes anyone who is drunk. The distinction you are making is the same one the law makes.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Aviator
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3299

posted 23 June 2003 06:21 PM      Profile for Aviator     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Kindred, that particular post about the West was nonsense

You totally missed the point of the post. Read it again; there was a caveat in there.


From: British Columbia | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Kindred
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3285

posted 23 June 2003 06:38 PM      Profile for Kindred     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
RonB let me remind you of what you said
quote:
a frequently overheard remark in the east end of Orange Toronto that my mother grew up in was "At least Hitler did something right". She was dating a Jewish kid at the time, and the hostility that this garneed in both the 'white' community and her boyfriend's neighbourhood was quite something. Jewish kids were routinely targetted for beatings and worse in Toronto at the time
quote:
Canadians fought because Britain honoured their treaty obligations and declared war on Germany. no other reason.
To which I replied if that was the sentiment in EASTERN Canada, it wasn't the sentiment in WESTERN Canada at that time. Not for everyone. The veterans I know and there have been many volunteered to fight this war.

You have to remember that Western Canada did not have a large Jewish population AT THAT TIME. Anti-semitism was almost unheard of. I never heard any comments about Jews, being singled out as specific group or religion, for or against them while I was growing up in the West. The store owner in our small town was Jewish, but no one cared one way or the other what he was or who went to the Catholic church or the protestant church, or whatever ! They were all just people living in small communities and getting along for the good of the community.

quote:
Is this where I'm expected to trot out my predecessors who signed up, fought and died in both World Wars in three countries and loudly proclaim their unassailable decency, bravery and honour?
You are the one who said they fought because of a Treaty with Britian and not for any sense of righting a wrong, you also implied in your post that Cdn soldiers were conscripted into the war, thereby doing a disservice to those who volunteered.

Skadl, are you saying in your post that they didnt volunteer for economic reasons? Or that the idea of protecting innocent victims of the war in Europe just might have prompted them to enlist? I believe that is what I was saying, in response to a post that Cdns fought the war for economic reasons and nothing more, that they didnt give a shit about the Jews or the autrocities and genocide then or now.

Which I said isnt true - a lot of them had "hounrable" reasons for enlisting, they didnt wait to be conscripted which was also alledged. It seems to me your post agrees with what I have been saying ..

quote:
Kindred, that particular post about the West was nonsense. I also am a Westerner. My dad also volunteered, the day war was declared. The king and Churchill and the defence of Merrie Olde certainly meant something to him; but much more did the death of his older brother (nice farm boy from Lacombe) in WWI -- irrational, but Albertans, anyway, were like that -- honourable, y'know?


From: British Columbia | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 23 June 2003 06:38 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think I read fine; thanks again, Aviator.

[ 23 June 2003: Message edited by: skdadl ]


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Kindred
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3285

posted 23 June 2003 06:46 PM      Profile for Kindred     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The veterans I know in WESTERN Canada, and my father was one of them clearly had more honourable reasons for ENLISTING if what you claim to the opinion of EASTERN Canada veterns and societies.
I dont think its a well kept secret that opinions in Western Canada do not necessarily mirror those in the East. We more or less think of ourselves as a seperate entitiy - almost like two distinct countries within a country.


Also Skadl Alberta IS in the WEST - hence your relatives living in AB would fall under the category of those not fighting for economic reasons

From: British Columbia | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 23 June 2003 06:50 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
You have to remember that Western Canada did not have a large Jewish population AT THAT TIME. Anti-semitism was almost unheard of. I never heard any comments about Jews, being singled out as specific group or religion, for or against them while I was growing up in the West.


I refer all babblers to Janine Stingel, Social Discredit: Anti-Semitism, Social Credit, and the Jewish Response (Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen's University Press 2000), an overwhelmingly well-documented history of open anti-Semitism in each of the Social Credit leagues/parties from the beginning, most especially in Alberta, of course, but also throughout the west, in Quebec, in Ontario, and in the national party.

Ernest Manning was forced to purge the Alberta SC League in 1947-48 of virulent anti-Semites, who had been running the party newspaper through the war. Why did Manning finally get the guts to clear out the anti-Semites? Many of us think it had something to do with Leduc No. 1 blowing in ...

I am six years older than you, Kindred. I grew up in Medicine Hat and Calgary right after the war. I know all about the anti-Semitism you profess never to have encountered, and that you are so sure was completely unknown to the war generation. And I say: horsefeathers!

(PS: Stingel's book is also a good historical study of the roots of the CJC, and the difficulties that org had in learning how to counter anti-Semitism in Canada.)

[ 23 June 2003: Message edited by: skdadl ]


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 23 June 2003 06:53 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Kindred, you are missing my point.

I am aware of where Alberta is.

It is just that I am trying to write honestly and carefully about Alberta. You are writing romantic fantasies.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 23 June 2003 07:33 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Economic reasons? Oh, I can think of one big fat huge economic reason called the Great Depression.

When the government has to be prodded into being the employer of last resort by participating in a war, I consider that a failure of the government to do right by the people it rules over.

But I digress. I'll save this for another day when I can expand on that topic.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Timebandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1448

posted 23 June 2003 08:44 PM      Profile for Timebandit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The veterans I know in WESTERN Canada, and my father was one of them clearly had more honourable reasons for ENLISTING if what you claim to the opinion of EASTERN Canada veterns and societies.

Actually, what was described were the government's reasons for going to war. The average volunteer went to war out of loyalty to country. This had nothing to do with the defense of the Jewish people.

Certainly, Mackenzie King was a notable anti-semite.

But back to the West...

quote:
You have to remember that Western Canada did not have a large Jewish population AT THAT TIME. Anti-semitism was almost unheard of. I never heard any comments about Jews, being singled out as specific group or religion, for or against them while I was growing up in the West. The store owner in our small town was Jewish, but no one cared one way or the other what he was or who went to the Catholic church or the protestant church, or whatever ! They were all just people living in small communities and getting along for the good of the community.

No, they didn't have large Jewish populations... Well, Winnipeg did... Do they count as Western?

But the other western provinces didn't, for the most part. From then on, your argument goes all to hell.

Now, if memory serves, you hail from Saskatchewan, right? So these veterans you're referring to would be Sask vets?

See, I'm from Saskatchewan, too. And I know better than to romanticize the motivations of veterans from here. Hell's Bell's the KKK was still actively in existence here into the 1930s -- and we all know how loving and accepting of the Jews they were. I'm thinking it unlikely that their entire membership just went poof! before war broke out in '39, or that they suddenly all had a collective change of heart. Anti-semitism was far from absent in the prairie psyche.

My grandfathers both volunteered in WWII. One was turned down, the other was in the Air Force. The extent of the ideology was that the country was at war, Germany was a threat to England and therefore Canada, and they volunteered on that basis. Not to save the Gypsies or the Jews. To suggest so is far more revisionist than any other statement made in this thread.

In fact, my grandmother, wife of the above veteran, had a really hard time getting used to the idea of my cousin dating a Jewish man. She kept referring to him as "Michealhe'sJewishyouknow". Love her to death, but not the most accepting of souls -- born and bred here in good ol' non-prejudiced Saskatchewan, and, I think, pretty representative of her generation...

[ 23 June 2003: Message edited by: Zoot Capri ]


From: Urban prairie. | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Kindred
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3285

posted 23 June 2003 10:36 PM      Profile for Kindred     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I split my time between my parents in BC and my aunt and uncle in SK - for emotional ties my "home" to me is SK. My fathers family originated in Fort Steele and didnt move far from there, as I said there was not a large Jewish population in BC, Alberta or SK

quote:
The Rumsey Alberta settlement, whose members succeeded in pioneering the land while retaining their Jewish identity, is an important chapter in the history of Jews in Alberta. With the notable exception of Israel, in few other places in the world could Jews experience the task of shaping a land and proving their place on it.

quote:
Alberta's Jewish population remained small throughout most of the twentieth century. Most Jewish newcomers stayed in Montreal or Toronto after arriving in Canada. A number of Jewish settlers began successful farm operations at Trochu, Rumsey, and Sibbald between 1904 and 1911.......by 1921 the province was still home to only 3,201 Jewish people, 70 percent of whom lived in Calgary and Edmonton.

Perhaps because of its small size, Alberta's urban Jewish community was not subjected to the same degree of overt, organised discrimination that Jews in central Canada experienced during much of this century. Alberta's professional schools, for example, did not impose enrolment quotas, as did their counterparts in Manitoba and Ontario in the 1930s.....Rural Alberta's 4,000 Jews personally experienced little antipathy from neighbours during the 1930s.



quote:
David Oppenheimer was the first mayor of Vancouver (1888-1891), as well as a major promoter of the city. Samuel Davies Schultz, appointed a Vancouver county court judge in 1914, was the first Jewish judge in Canada. Elsewhere, Philip Adelberg became a Justice of the Peace in the Peace River District. In Victoria, pioneer resident, Frederick Landsberg, was chosen best citizen in 1930 and received the Jubilee Medal in 1933.......During the war years, members of British Columbia's Jewish community with German backgrounds or German-sounding names experienced animosities. Simon Leiser's store in Victoria was destroyed after the sinking of the Lusitania with fourteen Victoria passengers aboard. Leiser had been a citizen of BC for 42 years. In Prince Rupert, Isidor Director and his partner were forced to close their store, while in Vancouver, Maurice and Etta Koenigsberg's jewellery store was vandalized. By all accounts, these were anti-German incidents, not anti-Jewish.

There were just very very few Jews who settled West of Toronto. The greatest concentrations were Toronto and Montreal. Some settled in Winnipeg .. but Western Canada didnt have a lot of large urban centers.

The history of Western Canada is very different from that of Eastern Canada as is our demographic makeup.

While there was anti-semetic sentiments in some Politicians,there is very little anti-semitism in daily life reported in Western Canada.

What there was existed among the wealthy and business barons, barring Jews from Social Clubs etc and the question that begs to be asked is where did these bigotted business men come from in the first place? Not from the farmers, the lumber workers or the rural communities - they came from the East and from the US.

Racism against Asians was horrific and is a shameful part of BC's heritage


From: British Columbia | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Kindred
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3285

posted 23 June 2003 10:40 PM      Profile for Kindred     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
FYI all the above info came from Jewish sites, so dont accuse me of finding sites that dont tell the true story -
From: British Columbia | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 23 June 2003 10:41 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It would be nice if you would include links to your sources, Kindred, instead of quoting without giving proper credit to whomever wrote it.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Kindred
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3285

posted 23 June 2003 10:44 PM      Profile for Kindred     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You are so right Michelle and I usually remember to do that ! I will try and recover the sites and put links on for them. Its actually very facinating reading and I got side tracked and bogged down and absent minded - interesting which names of Prairie towns are actually Jewish -

Sorry ..


From: British Columbia | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 23 June 2003 10:46 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
No problem.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Timebandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1448

posted 23 June 2003 11:49 PM      Profile for Timebandit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Certainly, there were a few Jewish settlements on the prairies, but they tended to be isolated and many just sort of petered out before the Depression. I know of a couple of Saskatchewan towns (names escape me for the moment, found them while researching a guy named Morris "Two Gun" Cohen) that were settled by groups of Jews.

Nevertheless, while not organized into lynch mobs, the average Saskatchewan resident at that point in history was not much different than your average Eastern Canadian in his/her sentiments about the Jews. Not one whit more sympathetic -- again, the KKK was still active at the time, and had a healthy membership. The daily, systemic prejudice that Jews dealt with in Eastern Canada was no different here.

Your statement:

quote:
While there was anti-semetic sentiments in some Politicians,there is very little anti-semitism in daily life reported in Western Canada.

What there was existed among the wealthy and business barons, barring Jews from Social Clubs etc and the question that begs to be asked is where did these bigotted business men come from in the first place? Not from the farmers, the lumber workers or the rural communities - they came from the East and from the US.


...is nothing but romanticized bullshit. The farmers and average joes were no less anti-semitic than the wealthy out here.


From: Urban prairie. | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Kindred
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3285

posted 24 June 2003 12:06 AM      Profile for Kindred     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
is nothing but romanticized bullshit. The farmers and average joes were no less anti-semitic than the wealthy out here.
So you are saying what? That the Jewish web sites are all lying about this? I would think they would know their own history, have heard stories from their grand parents, would be aware of what the reality was. When I find the links you can always email them and tell them they are full of shit - I am sure they will appreciate you providing their TRUE history for them.

From: British Columbia | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Corso Italia News Editor
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4219

posted 24 June 2003 10:16 AM      Profile for Corso Italia News Editor   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mishei:
[QB]Is this accusation that Ottawa city councillor, Jan Harder violated Canada's hate laws valid?

Everyone seems to have forgotten the original post. Jan Harder made a statement using the term "non-white". Apparently, groups of youths are coming into her ward from outside and are causing some disturbances. The issue, without regard to her justifying those inflamatory terms (see how it distracted everyone from the issue), is that the criminal behaviour in her area is creating pressure on her by her constituents. The unfortunate use of the discriminatory term shouldn't dissuade us here in Ottawa to confront the issue.

Whomever it is that is causing the neighbourhood to fear its safety should be dealt with or should we have some advocacy group protecting punks causing trouble from responsibility?

Dear God, how'd we ever get this way?

Address the issue or defend the rights of morons to exist without control? Hmmm, where's your head at?


From: Ottawa | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 24 June 2003 10:21 AM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
groups of youths are coming into her ward from outside

Yes, no one has a right to travel from one ward to another without a permit.

This permit could be given by the Head of Bantu Affairs, or perhaps by some police official.

Whites of course, may travel wherever they like, because This is Canada.

PS. Please cancel my subscription.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 24 June 2003 10:24 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Too bad the thread just got back on topic once it got long enough to close. You folks can start a new thread if you want to continue the discussion.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  
Topic Closed  Topic Closed
Open Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca