5 ms·

>Actual Nazis getting standing ovations! Unbelievable. Indeed; but in their defence, members of parliament did not know, at the time, that this guy was a Nazi.

phone8675309 3y ago
Oh well that makes it okay/s. It's really comforting that Members of Parliament are that intellectually bankrupt.
- 1over137 3y ago
  Do you expect each MP to individually vet the guests that other MPs have invited to the house? The fault here lies in the pathetic vetting done by the MP that invited him (the Speaker no less). And he'll likely resign or be fired shortly.
  - starburst 3y ago
    They did introduce him as fighting against the Russian in WWII... It's easy to put all the blame on a single scapegoat, this is the results of a lot of incompetent people. Shameful moment.
    - mantas 3y ago
      And that division did fight against Russians. It's a shame westerners love to paint everything with a broad brush and don't look into details during WW2 in territories between Nazis and Soviets.
      - mardifoufs 3y ago
        Who else fought against Russians in WW2? Did they think the guy is Finnish? Do you actually believe the parliament of a first world country with all the staff and process that it has did not know about it? Why did Trudeau call it Russian propaganda when confronted about it, even if we assume that he magically didn't know anything about the guest?
        mantas 3y ago
        Poland? Resistance in Baltic states and Ukraine?
        mardifoufs 3y ago
        I guess, but resistance in Ukraine and the Baltic states was mostly post war.
        mantas 3y ago
        The post-war resistance had close ties to local nazi-aligned units though. Both to get guns/ammo and pool together the interested people.
  - boeingUH60 3y ago
    I don't even think he should resign or be fired...a public apology of "I didn't know, and I'm sorry for that" should suffice. The problem is perpetually outraged people on the internet who can never forgive a mistake...they're a barbaric mob going around looking for who to let their anger on...if only they had better things to do. Do people think public officials are all-knowing and incapable of making mistakes?
    - 1over137 3y ago
      If it were any random MP, perhaps. But he's the Speaker, and that role requires he has moral authority and the confidence of the House. Will be interesting to see if the House decides to vote him out.
      - 1over137 3y ago
        ...and, he's out.
    - cmrdporcupine 3y ago
      Indeed the tribal mob politics has gotten completely out of hand here. The only upside here is all the parties in parliament applauded the guy, so there's limited possibility for it becoming a "F*ck Trudeau" crowd issue. Their own tribe were right there, applauding the same guy.
    - jbay808 3y ago
      No, but if a Canadian engineer put their stamp on work that was this sloppy, an apology wouldn't suffice. They'd be suspended at least, or likely even lose their license permanently. Even if the work was prepared by their subordinates and just handed to them to sign off on it. Why should the Speaker of the House be held to a lower standard of diligence, especially when their actions have international geopolitical consequences?
  - phone8675309 3y ago
    > Do you expect each MP to individually vet the guests that other MPs have invited to the house? They have cell phones, don't they? Maybe do a quick search before you give a standing ovation to a Nazi war criminal, _especially_ if you hear "fought against the Russians in WWII". If that doesn't set off more red flags than Red Square during an October Revolution Parade then maybe the MP is just too stupid to be in Parliament.
version_five 3y ago
Of note, Canada's deputy prime minister has a masters degree from Harvard in slavic studies and wrote a book about Russia. They knew what army the guy fought for, it's unlikely that she or anyone else who knew about history could really not have known if they'd thought about it at all.
- 1over137 3y ago
  Who is the 'they' you refer to? You are incorrectly assuming that there is some big consultation about every guest invited into the House. There is not. Indeed Freeland would have noticed this if she was involved with the vetting, but she's the deputy PM, she's not doing minutia like checking guest backgrounds.
  - cmrdporcupine 3y ago
    Probably true, but as deputy PM and as a person also intimately acquainted with this issue she should have been very involved. She is of Canadian-Ukrainian background, lived there for some years post-Soviet, fluent in both Russian and Ukrainian, and has extensive networks there. It's unclear to me in general why she hasn't been more prominent on this file in general (Ukrainian-Canadian relations during the war). Except that there have been controversies about some of her family's Ukrainian nationalist past, and maybe they're keeping her out of the limelight on this for that reason. Or Trudeau sees her as a threat, and is doing to her what Chretien did to Paul Martin (keep them close but under wraps), I dunno. In any case, she should have been involved, and would have known better. You hope. There was a time a couple years ago when she was the clear "natural" successor to Trudeau. Since then her star seems to have faded, and he doesn't seem to know when to get off the stage, either.
    - 1over137 3y ago
      >In any case, she should have been involved... The deputy prime minister should be involved in vetting other people's guests to the House of Commons? Personally? You don't think she has more important things to do? Vetting of guests should be done, and should be done much better than it was, but it's a job for (competent) staffers, not cabinet personally.
mydriasis 3y ago
I don't care about parliament, it's iterated below that it's a simple slip up. I agree with the poster who said a simple apology would suffice on their end. It's the man himself. That's what really matters. Too many of these monsters got away in the ratlines and recruitment programs after the war. He should be drug and tried like the rest who were responsible for the atrocities of the time.
t0suj4 3y ago
There is an implication that they clap for whomever they think they are supposed to clap for in your statement. I have doubts that is a good thing.

phone8675309 3y ago

Oh well that makes it okay/s. It's really comforting that Members of Parliament are that intellectually bankrupt.

1over137 3y ago
Do you expect each MP to individually vet the guests that other MPs have invited to the house? The fault here lies in the pathetic vetting done by the MP that invited him (the Speaker no less). And he'll likely resign or be fired shortly.
- starburst 3y ago
  They did introduce him as fighting against the Russian in WWII... It's easy to put all the blame on a single scapegoat, this is the results of a lot of incompetent people. Shameful moment.
  - mantas 3y ago
    And that division did fight against Russians. It's a shame westerners love to paint everything with a broad brush and don't look into details during WW2 in territories between Nazis and Soviets.
    - mardifoufs 3y ago
      Who else fought against Russians in WW2? Did they think the guy is Finnish? Do you actually believe the parliament of a first world country with all the staff and process that it has did not know about it? Why did Trudeau call it Russian propaganda when confronted about it, even if we assume that he magically didn't know anything about the guest?
      - mantas 3y ago
        Poland? Resistance in Baltic states and Ukraine?
        mardifoufs 3y ago
        I guess, but resistance in Ukraine and the Baltic states was mostly post war.
        mantas 3y ago
        The post-war resistance had close ties to local nazi-aligned units though. Both to get guns/ammo and pool together the interested people.
- boeingUH60 3y ago
  I don't even think he should resign or be fired...a public apology of "I didn't know, and I'm sorry for that" should suffice. The problem is perpetually outraged people on the internet who can never forgive a mistake...they're a barbaric mob going around looking for who to let their anger on...if only they had better things to do. Do people think public officials are all-knowing and incapable of making mistakes?
  - 1over137 3y ago
    If it were any random MP, perhaps. But he's the Speaker, and that role requires he has moral authority and the confidence of the House. Will be interesting to see if the House decides to vote him out.
    - 1over137 3y ago
      ...and, he's out.
  - cmrdporcupine 3y ago
    Indeed the tribal mob politics has gotten completely out of hand here. The only upside here is all the parties in parliament applauded the guy, so there's limited possibility for it becoming a "F*ck Trudeau" crowd issue. Their own tribe were right there, applauding the same guy.
  - jbay808 3y ago
    No, but if a Canadian engineer put their stamp on work that was this sloppy, an apology wouldn't suffice. They'd be suspended at least, or likely even lose their license permanently. Even if the work was prepared by their subordinates and just handed to them to sign off on it. Why should the Speaker of the House be held to a lower standard of diligence, especially when their actions have international geopolitical consequences?
- phone8675309 3y ago
  > Do you expect each MP to individually vet the guests that other MPs have invited to the house? They have cell phones, don't they? Maybe do a quick search before you give a standing ovation to a Nazi war criminal, _especially_ if you hear "fought against the Russians in WWII". If that doesn't set off more red flags than Red Square during an October Revolution Parade then maybe the MP is just too stupid to be in Parliament.

version_five 3y ago

Of note, Canada's deputy prime minister has a masters degree from Harvard in slavic studies and wrote a book about Russia. They knew what army the guy fought for, it's unlikely that she or anyone else who knew about history could really not have known if they'd thought about it at all.

1over137 3y ago
Who is the 'they' you refer to? You are incorrectly assuming that there is some big consultation about every guest invited into the House. There is not. Indeed Freeland would have noticed this if she was involved with the vetting, but she's the deputy PM, she's not doing minutia like checking guest backgrounds.
- cmrdporcupine 3y ago
  Probably true, but as deputy PM and as a person also intimately acquainted with this issue she should have been very involved. She is of Canadian-Ukrainian background, lived there for some years post-Soviet, fluent in both Russian and Ukrainian, and has extensive networks there. It's unclear to me in general why she hasn't been more prominent on this file in general (Ukrainian-Canadian relations during the war). Except that there have been controversies about some of her family's Ukrainian nationalist past, and maybe they're keeping her out of the limelight on this for that reason. Or Trudeau sees her as a threat, and is doing to her what Chretien did to Paul Martin (keep them close but under wraps), I dunno. In any case, she should have been involved, and would have known better. You hope. There was a time a couple years ago when she was the clear "natural" successor to Trudeau. Since then her star seems to have faded, and he doesn't seem to know when to get off the stage, either.
  - 1over137 3y ago
    >In any case, she should have been involved... The deputy prime minister should be involved in vetting other people's guests to the House of Commons? Personally? You don't think she has more important things to do? Vetting of guests should be done, and should be done much better than it was, but it's a job for (competent) staffers, not cabinet personally.

mydriasis 3y ago

I don't care about parliament, it's iterated below that it's a simple slip up. I agree with the poster who said a simple apology would suffice on their end. It's the man himself. That's what really matters. Too many of these monsters got away in the ratlines and recruitment programs after the war. He should be drug and tried like the rest who were responsible for the atrocities of the time.

t0suj4 3y ago

There is an implication that they clap for whomever they think they are supposed to clap for in your statement. I have doubts that is a good thing.