Who should resign in Canada over the Waffen SS standing ovation?

[Upper Canada Tory]

The fog has cleared. Hunka can see the Waffen-SS clearly now and is still proud of his time with them.

Were you in his situation at that time?

I don't mean to equate the two, but you could also take a neutral position and not judge Hunka rather than feel the need to be morally superior.

The 'were you in his situation?' argument in here is so baseless and ahistorical that I'm shocked at the level of ignorance.

Most people in WWII-era Ukraine, people who were in his situation, fought on the side of the Soviet Union, against the Nazis.

Collectively, the Ukrainians who joined the OUN, UIA and SS-Galicia were at most, 300,000 people. On the other hand, 3 million Ukrainians joined the Soviet Army to defeat the Nazis. Ukrainians actually were one of the nations that, overall, contributed the most to defeating Hitler in WWII. Those who sided with the Nazis were a fringe minority among Ukrainians, despite Ukrainians having suffered the Soviet Union's horrible atrocities as well, which of course, I recognize.

I will judge Hunka, personally - my family are Jews from Ukraine and some of my ancestors were killed in the atrocities that took place during the Holocaust. In total, over 1 million Jews were killed in that country thanks to the Nazis and those who fought in their army. Regardless of his individual motivations for fighting in the Waffen-SS, that is the cause and ideology he was fighting for.

Especially coming from you and people of your ideological persuasion, where you often refer to people such as the Freedom Convoy protesters 'fascists and terrorists', Israel an 'apartheid government', Modi a 'Hindu supremacist' but a literal Waffen-SS member? 'He was fighting in defence of Ukraine' and 'Were you in his situation?' LOL! The cognitive dissonance. Everyone is a fascist and a supremacist except a literal Waffen-SS guy.

I was initially shocked to see that, not only did our ignorant House Speaker invite a Nazi to be honoured in the legislative chamber without proper vetting, but that all our Members of Parliament were so ignorant they did not think twice when applauding, as Rota announced, 'a Ukrainian WWII veteran who fought against Russia for Ukrainian independence' (as if it is not obvious who he fought for from that introduction), but now that I've observed how many ignorant people we have in Canada, it is sadly less surprising.

My apologies for getting overly passionate in this post, I rarely ever talk like this - but this is an issue close to my heart for obvious reasons.

1.You left out that the Ukrainains fighting with the Soviet Union were conscripts, and not volunteers.

2.If we're going to get into this, I'm Jewish as well as I've mentioned here many times, and relatives of my grandfather were killed in the Holocaust. When I defend this guy for making a choice in a no win situation, I don't do it lightly.

3.No, I don't think that everybody is a fascist or a supremicist except for this guy. That is disingenuous. It's called making a judgement in specific situations rather than making blanket judgements in a binary or absolutist fashion. Referring to the terrorist occupiers of Ottawa as the 'Freedom Convoy' is a joke. Nobody forced them to into that choice and the only 'rights' they cared about were their own enormous sense of entitlement. Those people are their supporters are by far the most ignorant Canadians.

1. They could have easily defected to the anti-Soviet side. People like Hunka are usually the ones who avoided conscription from the Soviets. Most of Ukraine was occupied by the Nazis for 2 years or so, so there was no reason why most couldn't have defected if they wanted to. Most of them chose to stay on the Soviet side.

2. I'm not a fan of the 'Freedom Convoy', however think calling them terrorists is a huge exaggeration.

3. I apologize for accusing you of calling everyone a fascist, that was an exaggeration, but what is frustrating is when those who call out more minor things as 'fascism' but ignore far more serious offences.

This guy was still proud of his actions in a 2011 blog post, many decades later, as many have mentioned. He can't just ignore that, even if his individual motivations were related to Ukrainian nationalism, the greater cause he was fighting for was extremely harmful.

[Benjamin Frank]

The fog has cleared. Hunka can see the Waffen-SS clearly now and is still proud of his time with them.

Were you in his situation at that time?

I don't mean to equate the two, but you could also take a neutral position and not judge Hunka rather than feel the need to be morally superior.

The 'were you in his situation?' argument in here is so baseless and ahistorical that I'm shocked at the level of ignorance.

Most people in WWII-era Ukraine, people who were in his situation, fought on the side of the Soviet Union, against the Nazis.

Collectively, the Ukrainians who joined the OUN, UIA and SS-Galicia were at most, 300,000 people. On the other hand, 3 million Ukrainians joined the Soviet Army to defeat the Nazis. Ukrainians actually were one of the nations that, overall, contributed the most to defeating Hitler in WWII. Those who sided with the Nazis were a fringe minority among Ukrainians, despite Ukrainians having suffered the Soviet Union's horrible atrocities as well, which of course, I recognize.

I will judge Hunka, personally - my family are Jews from Ukraine and some of my ancestors were killed in the atrocities that took place during the Holocaust. In total, over 1 million Jews were killed in that country thanks to the Nazis and those who fought in their army. Regardless of his individual motivations for fighting in the Waffen-SS, that is the cause and ideology he was fighting for.

Especially coming from you and people of your ideological persuasion, where you often refer to people such as the Freedom Convoy protesters 'fascists and terrorists', Israel an 'apartheid government', Modi a 'Hindu supremacist' but a literal Waffen-SS member? 'He was fighting in defence of Ukraine' and 'Were you in his situation?' LOL! The cognitive dissonance. Everyone is a fascist and a supremacist except a literal Waffen-SS guy.

I was initially shocked to see that, not only did our ignorant House Speaker invite a Nazi to be honoured in the legislative chamber without proper vetting, but that all our Members of Parliament were so ignorant they did not think twice when applauding, as Rota announced, 'a Ukrainian WWII veteran who fought against Russia for Ukrainian independence' (as if it is not obvious who he fought for from that introduction), but now that I've observed how many ignorant people we have in Canada, it is sadly less surprising.

My apologies for getting overly passionate in this post, I rarely ever talk like this - but this is an issue close to my heart for obvious reasons.

1.You left out that the Ukrainains fighting with the Soviet Union were conscripts, and not volunteers.

2.If we're going to get into this, I'm Jewish as well as I've mentioned here many times, and relatives of my grandfather were killed in the Holocaust. When I defend this guy for making a choice in a no win situation, I don't do it lightly.

3.No, I don't think that everybody is a fascist or a supremicist except for this guy. That is disingenuous. It's called making a judgement in specific situations rather than making blanket judgements in a binary or absolutist fashion. Referring to the terrorist occupiers of Ottawa as the 'Freedom Convoy' is a joke. Nobody forced them to into that choice and the only 'rights' they cared about were their own enormous sense of entitlement. Those people are their supporters are by far the most ignorant Canadians.

1. They could have easily defected to the anti-Soviet side. People like Hunka are usually the ones who avoided conscription from the Soviets. Most of Ukraine was occupied by the Nazis for 2 years or so, so there was no reason why most couldn't have defected if they wanted to. Most of them chose to stay on the Soviet side.

2. I'm not a fan of the 'Freedom Convoy', however think calling them terrorists is a huge exaggeration.

3. I apologize for accusing you of calling everyone a fascist, that was an exaggeration, but what is frustrating is when those who call out more minor things as 'fascism' but ignore far more serious offences.

This guy was still proud of his actions in a 2011 blog post, many decades later, as many have mentioned. He can't just ignore that, even if his individual motivations were related to Ukrainian nationalism, the greater cause he was fighting for was extremely harmful.

1.Given the recent history of Ukrainians with Stalin (and the Red Army) I think that defection would have been a lot more difficult than you suggest here.

2.I think many people in Ottawa, especially in the city center, would disagree with you on that.

I can see the point of you saying that I must have cognitive dissonance on this, but I dislike both simple binaries (even if I am wrong on this) and extremists on any issue. Even on an issue where I might be considered to have an extreme position like legalization (and regulation) of all drugs, I certainly would not support an occupation by drug users of provincial capitals demanding legalization of drugs.

[Upper Canada Tory]

Canadians should be wary of drawing comparisons to Russia, considering they are currently under intense international scrutiny for harboring separatist terrorist groups and celebrating fascism. One can only conclude that megalomaniacs Justin Trudeau and Charles III wish to restore their previous borders in India. Beware of sanctions!

Speaking of which, to tie together several recent news stories, why do diaspora communities in Canada in particular seem so prone to violent radical nationalism? The Ukrainian diaspora in Canada has long been notorious for having a lot of veterans of the Galician SS Division and OUN-B, the Kalistan movement is based in Canada, the Tamil and Armenian diasporas are known for being vocal and radical, and clashes often happen between pro-and anti-CCP Chinese whenever the Chinese government does something controversial. Of course none of this justifies Russian disinformation and slander or India assassinating Sikh activists, but why?

If I had to give an actual serious answer, I would say that a society with openness and cultural pluralism provides a good haven for dissidents from all over but in its extreme form creates ethnic enclaves where they can operate pretty much unmolested. But you may also be overstating the issue and there are plenty of examples of this, like Meir Kahane, elsewhere.

I would also suggest Canada's lack of a national identity for people to assimilate into as a big part of this. This has been an issue for like, all of Canada's history: arguably the Quebec problem is a result of this, but Canada was also notable for having really big enlistment gaps between European immigrants and British-ancestry and particularly British born Canadians during the World Wars. As a result, arrivals and even long standing ethnic groups in Canada are less likely to stop caring about group-specific issues.

Great answer. Yes, you’re correct. Canada seems a pretty chill place to live but it lacks a strong or even minimal national identity. Which makes people even after generations still “feel” connected to their country of origin.

As a Canadian, I think I can say that is not at all accurate. Of course there are exceptions, but the far bigger factor is the size of Canada which is the reason for the lack of national identity and most Canadians feel most connected to their province or region, and that is absolutely true of diaspora Canadians as well.

It's not a surprise given it's size and proximity to Ottawa that the province where most people think they have a national identity or speak for Canada is Ontario. Part of the provincial identity of Ontario is believing that its identity is the national identity, which has bred some resentment in the rest of Canada.

Given how similar Canadian provinces are to their adjacent U.S states (except for Quebec), if you are going to argue that Canada doesn't have a national identity, then you'd also be arguing that Americans don't really have a national identity (although I certainly don't dispute that the American myths are shoved done every American's throats to try to force some national identity.)

I think Canadians actually do have an overall singular national identity, but that's a debate that's not for this thread.   

[Upper Canada Tory]

The fog has cleared. Hunka can see the Waffen-SS clearly now and is still proud of his time with them.

Were you in his situation at that time?

I don't mean to equate the two, but you could also take a neutral position and not judge Hunka rather than feel the need to be morally superior.

The 'were you in his situation?' argument in here is so baseless and ahistorical that I'm shocked at the level of ignorance.

Most people in WWII-era Ukraine, people who were in his situation, fought on the side of the Soviet Union, against the Nazis.

Collectively, the Ukrainians who joined the OUN, UIA and SS-Galicia were at most, 300,000 people. On the other hand, 3 million Ukrainians joined the Soviet Army to defeat the Nazis. Ukrainians actually were one of the nations that, overall, contributed the most to defeating Hitler in WWII. Those who sided with the Nazis were a fringe minority among Ukrainians, despite Ukrainians having suffered the Soviet Union's horrible atrocities as well, which of course, I recognize.

I will judge Hunka, personally - my family are Jews from Ukraine and some of my ancestors were killed in the atrocities that took place during the Holocaust. In total, over 1 million Jews were killed in that country thanks to the Nazis and those who fought in their army. Regardless of his individual motivations for fighting in the Waffen-SS, that is the cause and ideology he was fighting for.

Especially coming from you and people of your ideological persuasion, where you often refer to people such as the Freedom Convoy protesters 'fascists and terrorists', Israel an 'apartheid government', Modi a 'Hindu supremacist' but a literal Waffen-SS member? 'He was fighting in defence of Ukraine' and 'Were you in his situation?' LOL! The cognitive dissonance. Everyone is a fascist and a supremacist except a literal Waffen-SS guy.

I was initially shocked to see that, not only did our ignorant House Speaker invite a Nazi to be honoured in the legislative chamber without proper vetting, but that all our Members of Parliament were so ignorant they did not think twice when applauding, as Rota announced, 'a Ukrainian WWII veteran who fought against Russia for Ukrainian independence' (as if it is not obvious who he fought for from that introduction), but now that I've observed how many ignorant people we have in Canada, it is sadly less surprising.

My apologies for getting overly passionate in this post, I rarely ever talk like this - but this is an issue close to my heart for obvious reasons.

1.You left out that the Ukrainains fighting with the Soviet Union were conscripts, and not volunteers.

2.If we're going to get into this, I'm Jewish as well as I've mentioned here many times, and relatives of my grandfather were killed in the Holocaust. When I defend this guy for making a choice in a no win situation, I don't do it lightly.

3.No, I don't think that everybody is a fascist or a supremicist except for this guy. That is disingenuous. It's called making a judgement in specific situations rather than making blanket judgements in a binary or absolutist fashion. Referring to the terrorist occupiers of Ottawa as the 'Freedom Convoy' is a joke. Nobody forced them to into that choice and the only 'rights' they cared about were their own enormous sense of entitlement. Those people are their supporters are by far the most ignorant Canadians.

1. They could have easily defected to the anti-Soviet side. People like Hunka are usually the ones who avoided conscription from the Soviets. Most of Ukraine was occupied by the Nazis for 2 years or so, so there was no reason why most couldn't have defected if they wanted to. Most of them chose to stay on the Soviet side.

2. I'm not a fan of the 'Freedom Convoy', however think calling them terrorists is a huge exaggeration.

3. I apologize for accusing you of calling everyone a fascist, that was an exaggeration, but what is frustrating is when those who call out more minor things as 'fascism' but ignore far more serious offences.

This guy was still proud of his actions in a 2011 blog post, many decades later, as many have mentioned. He can't just ignore that, even if his individual motivations were related to Ukrainian nationalism, the greater cause he was fighting for was extremely harmful.

1.Given the recent history of Ukrainians with Stalin (and the Red Army) I think that defection would have been a lot more difficult than you suggest here.

2.I think many people in Ottawa, especially in the city center, would disagree with you on that.

I can see the point of you saying that I must have cognitive dissonance on this, but I dislike both simple binaries (even if I am wrong on this) and extremists on any issue. Even on an issue where I might be considered to have an extreme position like legalization (and regulation) of all drugs, I certainly would not support an occupation by drug users of provincial capitals demanding legalization of drugs.

Do you think that everyone who participated in the convoy was bad? Or only people who blocked roads/honked horns/blocked the border/did illegal stuff?

[Benjamin Frank]

Canadians should be wary of drawing comparisons to Russia, considering they are currently under intense international scrutiny for harboring separatist terrorist groups and celebrating fascism. One can only conclude that megalomaniacs Justin Trudeau and Charles III wish to restore their previous borders in India. Beware of sanctions!

Speaking of which, to tie together several recent news stories, why do diaspora communities in Canada in particular seem so prone to violent radical nationalism? The Ukrainian diaspora in Canada has long been notorious for having a lot of veterans of the Galician SS Division and OUN-B, the Kalistan movement is based in Canada, the Tamil and Armenian diasporas are known for being vocal and radical, and clashes often happen between pro-and anti-CCP Chinese whenever the Chinese government does something controversial. Of course none of this justifies Russian disinformation and slander or India assassinating Sikh activists, but why?

I dispute your premise. There are a large number of Canadians from these communities. Canada took in many Ukrainians who fought in the Galician SS Division but they'd all be 98 years old by now like Gramps. That was a decision made nearly 80 years ago.

There are many Sikhs in Canada but the Kalistan movement is worldwide as those 'referendums' show and there have been large turnouts for two of the three anyway that weren't in Canada.

I don't know if there are clashes in the U.S among pro and anti CCP Chinese, but there are Chinese 'police stations' in the United States as well to monitor anti Chinese government activity among the diaspora (and presumably every other American.)

However, also in the U.S are the Cubans in Miami many of whom certainly seem to be primarily concerned with Cuba
https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/cuban-americans-rally-miami-support-dissidents-who-plan-protests-cuba-2021-11-14/

although there hasn't been any violence there reported in the fight against Cuban Communism in decades.

And finally, while it seems that not every member of a diaspora is told to 'forget their old country' (except for the Chinese diaspora campaigning against the CCP), it's always been sort of flipped in that anybody who tells Jewish people outside of Israel to 'forget their old country' is accused of being anti semitic.

[Upper Canada Tory]

Canadians should be wary of drawing comparisons to Russia, considering they are currently under intense international scrutiny for harboring separatist terrorist groups and celebrating fascism. One can only conclude that megalomaniacs Justin Trudeau and Charles III wish to restore their previous borders in India. Beware of sanctions!

Speaking of which, to tie together several recent news stories, why do diaspora communities in Canada in particular seem so prone to violent radical nationalism? The Ukrainian diaspora in Canada has long been notorious for having a lot of veterans of the Galician SS Division and OUN-B, the Kalistan movement is based in Canada, the Tamil and Armenian diasporas are known for being vocal and radical, and clashes often happen between pro-and anti-CCP Chinese whenever the Chinese government does something controversial. Of course none of this justifies Russian disinformation and slander or India assassinating Sikh activists, but why?

I don't think they are, these are just the loudest voices. There are only 2000 former SS/OUN Ukrainian soldiers in Canada, out of an ethnic Ukrainian population of 1.5 million. Basically, we have had some radicals enter through the immigration system over the years of various origins, because any country with a high immigration rate would end up having a small minority of radicals (eg, some Sikh radicals exist in the UK, Ukrainian Nazi monuments exist in the US as well). In the case of the Ukrainians specifically, the history is a bit more nefarious (we took them in after WWII despite the opposition of many Jewish groups in the country). With that said, all of the radicals you hear about in the news are a small minority. In fact, the guy who helped expose Yaroslav Hunka's Nazi past was also a Ukrainian-Canadian professor.

[Benjamin Frank]

The fog has cleared. Hunka can see the Waffen-SS clearly now and is still proud of his time with them.

Were you in his situation at that time?

I don't mean to equate the two, but you could also take a neutral position and not judge Hunka rather than feel the need to be morally superior.

The 'were you in his situation?' argument in here is so baseless and ahistorical that I'm shocked at the level of ignorance.

Most people in WWII-era Ukraine, people who were in his situation, fought on the side of the Soviet Union, against the Nazis.

Collectively, the Ukrainians who joined the OUN, UIA and SS-Galicia were at most, 300,000 people. On the other hand, 3 million Ukrainians joined the Soviet Army to defeat the Nazis. Ukrainians actually were one of the nations that, overall, contributed the most to defeating Hitler in WWII. Those who sided with the Nazis were a fringe minority among Ukrainians, despite Ukrainians having suffered the Soviet Union's horrible atrocities as well, which of course, I recognize.

I will judge Hunka, personally - my family are Jews from Ukraine and some of my ancestors were killed in the atrocities that took place during the Holocaust. In total, over 1 million Jews were killed in that country thanks to the Nazis and those who fought in their army. Regardless of his individual motivations for fighting in the Waffen-SS, that is the cause and ideology he was fighting for.

Especially coming from you and people of your ideological persuasion, where you often refer to people such as the Freedom Convoy protesters 'fascists and terrorists', Israel an 'apartheid government', Modi a 'Hindu supremacist' but a literal Waffen-SS member? 'He was fighting in defence of Ukraine' and 'Were you in his situation?' LOL! The cognitive dissonance. Everyone is a fascist and a supremacist except a literal Waffen-SS guy.

I was initially shocked to see that, not only did our ignorant House Speaker invite a Nazi to be honoured in the legislative chamber without proper vetting, but that all our Members of Parliament were so ignorant they did not think twice when applauding, as Rota announced, 'a Ukrainian WWII veteran who fought against Russia for Ukrainian independence' (as if it is not obvious who he fought for from that introduction), but now that I've observed how many ignorant people we have in Canada, it is sadly less surprising.

My apologies for getting overly passionate in this post, I rarely ever talk like this - but this is an issue close to my heart for obvious reasons.

1.You left out that the Ukrainains fighting with the Soviet Union were conscripts, and not volunteers.

2.If we're going to get into this, I'm Jewish as well as I've mentioned here many times, and relatives of my grandfather were killed in the Holocaust. When I defend this guy for making a choice in a no win situation, I don't do it lightly.

3.No, I don't think that everybody is a fascist or a supremicist except for this guy. That is disingenuous. It's called making a judgement in specific situations rather than making blanket judgements in a binary or absolutist fashion. Referring to the terrorist occupiers of Ottawa as the 'Freedom Convoy' is a joke. Nobody forced them to into that choice and the only 'rights' they cared about were their own enormous sense of entitlement. Those people are their supporters are by far the most ignorant Canadians.

1. They could have easily defected to the anti-Soviet side. People like Hunka are usually the ones who avoided conscription from the Soviets. Most of Ukraine was occupied by the Nazis for 2 years or so, so there was no reason why most couldn't have defected if they wanted to. Most of them chose to stay on the Soviet side.

2. I'm not a fan of the 'Freedom Convoy', however think calling them terrorists is a huge exaggeration.

3. I apologize for accusing you of calling everyone a fascist, that was an exaggeration, but what is frustrating is when those who call out more minor things as 'fascism' but ignore far more serious offences.

This guy was still proud of his actions in a 2011 blog post, many decades later, as many have mentioned. He can't just ignore that, even if his individual motivations were related to Ukrainian nationalism, the greater cause he was fighting for was extremely harmful.

1.Given the recent history of Ukrainians with Stalin (and the Red Army) I think that defection would have been a lot more difficult than you suggest here.

2.I think many people in Ottawa, especially in the city center, would disagree with you on that.

I can see the point of you saying that I must have cognitive dissonance on this, but I dislike both simple binaries (even if I am wrong on this) and extremists on any issue. Even on an issue where I might be considered to have an extreme position like legalization (and regulation) of all drugs, I certainly would not support an occupation by drug users of provincial capitals demanding legalization of drugs.

Do you think that everyone who participated in the convoy was bad? Or only people who blocked roads/honked horns/blocked the border/did illegal stuff?

They were allowed to leave by the various police, but the only people who have the right to block a road (or a highway anyway) are protesters who obtain a permit and they are only allowed to do so for certain periods of time.  So technically, they all did illegal stuff. If people who were there didn't block roads, honk horns, harrass local residents... they supported those who did in both intangible ways (providing moral support) and tangible ways like blocking police.

I'm not sure why you're asking. There is no nuance here, nobody was forced to choose a side and participate.

In regards to this, there are people who were part of the Idle No More blockades of railways (which is also illegal) or environmentalists in other places who claim that the police treat them differently than how these people were treated. But, I don't see that.

The police took a stands off/wait them out position in regards to the blockades of railways as well as part of this idea of 'reducing tension' (or whatever the term is.) If that idea ever worked, it has obviously been exploted by protestors and doesn't work anymore.

I don't refer to those who blockaded railrways as 'terrorists' because they didn't (literally) terrorize people in a city, but I have no sympathy for their protest methods either and was frustrated that the police didn't arrest them.

According to some pundits, most Canadians had contradictory positions regarding these two protests. I like to think that isn't the case, but I don't know. But, I know I had no sympathy for either. I suppose it might have made a difference that I thought the indigenous Canadians who were blocking the railways were being used by environmentalists (and the environmentalists were being used by those indigenous protestors) and that I thought they were both environmental extremists, and I was especially unhappy that the environmentalists falsely claimed that the indigenous protestors spoke for all indigenous Canadians, which they most certainly did not.

Finally, in regards to the terms. Environmentalists who spike trees are referred to officially as 'environmental terrorists.' I think it is entirely consistent to referring to those who occupied Ottawa as 'terrorists' and that that is not in any way extreme, but is a correct use of the definition of the word 'terrorist.'

Oxford definition: a person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.

I don't know why they should be referred to as anything other than 'terrorist.'

[Upper Canada Tory]

The fog has cleared. Hunka can see the Waffen-SS clearly now and is still proud of his time with them.

Were you in his situation at that time?

I don't mean to equate the two, but you could also take a neutral position and not judge Hunka rather than feel the need to be morally superior.

The 'were you in his situation?' argument in here is so baseless and ahistorical that I'm shocked at the level of ignorance.

Most people in WWII-era Ukraine, people who were in his situation, fought on the side of the Soviet Union, against the Nazis.

Collectively, the Ukrainians who joined the OUN, UIA and SS-Galicia were at most, 300,000 people. On the other hand, 3 million Ukrainians joined the Soviet Army to defeat the Nazis. Ukrainians actually were one of the nations that, overall, contributed the most to defeating Hitler in WWII. Those who sided with the Nazis were a fringe minority among Ukrainians, despite Ukrainians having suffered the Soviet Union's horrible atrocities as well, which of course, I recognize.

I will judge Hunka, personally - my family are Jews from Ukraine and some of my ancestors were killed in the atrocities that took place during the Holocaust. In total, over 1 million Jews were killed in that country thanks to the Nazis and those who fought in their army. Regardless of his individual motivations for fighting in the Waffen-SS, that is the cause and ideology he was fighting for.

Especially coming from you and people of your ideological persuasion, where you often refer to people such as the Freedom Convoy protesters 'fascists and terrorists', Israel an 'apartheid government', Modi a 'Hindu supremacist' but a literal Waffen-SS member? 'He was fighting in defence of Ukraine' and 'Were you in his situation?' LOL! The cognitive dissonance. Everyone is a fascist and a supremacist except a literal Waffen-SS guy.

I was initially shocked to see that, not only did our ignorant House Speaker invite a Nazi to be honoured in the legislative chamber without proper vetting, but that all our Members of Parliament were so ignorant they did not think twice when applauding, as Rota announced, 'a Ukrainian WWII veteran who fought against Russia for Ukrainian independence' (as if it is not obvious who he fought for from that introduction), but now that I've observed how many ignorant people we have in Canada, it is sadly less surprising.

My apologies for getting overly passionate in this post, I rarely ever talk like this - but this is an issue close to my heart for obvious reasons.

1.You left out that the Ukrainains fighting with the Soviet Union were conscripts, and not volunteers.

2.If we're going to get into this, I'm Jewish as well as I've mentioned here many times, and relatives of my grandfather were killed in the Holocaust. When I defend this guy for making a choice in a no win situation, I don't do it lightly.

3.No, I don't think that everybody is a fascist or a supremicist except for this guy. That is disingenuous. It's called making a judgement in specific situations rather than making blanket judgements in a binary or absolutist fashion. Referring to the terrorist occupiers of Ottawa as the 'Freedom Convoy' is a joke. Nobody forced them to into that choice and the only 'rights' they cared about were their own enormous sense of entitlement. Those people are their supporters are by far the most ignorant Canadians.

1. They could have easily defected to the anti-Soviet side. People like Hunka are usually the ones who avoided conscription from the Soviets. Most of Ukraine was occupied by the Nazis for 2 years or so, so there was no reason why most couldn't have defected if they wanted to. Most of them chose to stay on the Soviet side.

2. I'm not a fan of the 'Freedom Convoy', however think calling them terrorists is a huge exaggeration.

3. I apologize for accusing you of calling everyone a fascist, that was an exaggeration, but what is frustrating is when those who call out more minor things as 'fascism' but ignore far more serious offences.

This guy was still proud of his actions in a 2011 blog post, many decades later, as many have mentioned. He can't just ignore that, even if his individual motivations were related to Ukrainian nationalism, the greater cause he was fighting for was extremely harmful.

1.Given the recent history of Ukrainians with Stalin (and the Red Army) I think that defection would have been a lot more difficult than you suggest here.

2.I think many people in Ottawa, especially in the city center, would disagree with you on that.

I can see the point of you saying that I must have cognitive dissonance on this, but I dislike both simple binaries (even if I am wrong on this) and extremists on any issue. Even on an issue where I might be considered to have an extreme position like legalization (and regulation) of all drugs, I certainly would not support an occupation by drug users of provincial capitals demanding legalization of drugs.

Do you think that everyone who participated in the convoy was bad? Or only people who blocked roads/honked horns/blocked the border/did illegal stuff?

They were allowed to leave by the various police, but the only people who have the right to block a road (or a highway anyway) are protesters who obtain a permit and they are only allowed to do so for certain periods of time.  So technically, they all did illegal stuff. If people who were there didn't block roads, honk horns, harrass local residents... they supported those who did in both intangible ways (providing moral support) and tangible ways like blocking police.

I'm not sure why you're asking. There is no nuance here, nobody was forced to choose a side and participate.

In regards to this, there are people who were part of the Idle No More blockades of railways (which is also illegal) or environmentalists in other places who claim that the police treat them differently than how these people were treated. But, I don't see that.

The police took a stands off/wait them out position in regards to the blockades of railways as well as part of this idea of 'reducing tension' (or whatever the term is.) If that idea ever worked, it has obviously been exploted by protestors and doesn't work anymore.

I don't refer to those who blockaded railrways as 'terrorists' because they didn't (literally) terrorize people in a city, but I have no sympathy for their protest methods either and was frustrated that the police didn't arrest them.

According to some pundits, most Canadians had contradictory positions regarding these two protests. I like to think that isn't the case, but I don't know. But, I know I had no sympathy for either. I suppose it might have made a difference that I thought the indigenous Canadians who were blocking the railways were being used by environmentalists (and the environmentalists were being used by those indigenous protestors) and that I thought they were both environmental extremists, and I was especially unhappy that the environmentalists falsely claimed that the indigenous protestors spoke for all indigenous Canadians, which they most certainly did not.

Finally, in regards to the terms. Environmentalists who spike trees are referred to officially as 'environmental terrorists.' I think it is entirely consistent to referring to those who occupied Ottawa as 'terrorists' and that that is not in any way extreme, but is a correct use of the definition of the word 'terrorist.'

Oxford definition: a person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.

I don't know why they should be referred to as anything other than 'terrorist.'

I find it very strange that you think there is more moral clarity in an out-of-hand/illegal protest in Ottawa than fighting in the Waffen-SS in World War II.

Providing moral support to misbehaving protesters = complicity.

Voluntarily joining Waffen-SS, being proud of it 70 years later = nuanced.

Ok.

[Benjamin Frank]

The fog has cleared. Hunka can see the Waffen-SS clearly now and is still proud of his time with them.

Were you in his situation at that time?

I don't mean to equate the two, but you could also take a neutral position and not judge Hunka rather than feel the need to be morally superior.

The 'were you in his situation?' argument in here is so baseless and ahistorical that I'm shocked at the level of ignorance.

Most people in WWII-era Ukraine, people who were in his situation, fought on the side of the Soviet Union, against the Nazis.

Collectively, the Ukrainians who joined the OUN, UIA and SS-Galicia were at most, 300,000 people. On the other hand, 3 million Ukrainians joined the Soviet Army to defeat the Nazis. Ukrainians actually were one of the nations that, overall, contributed the most to defeating Hitler in WWII. Those who sided with the Nazis were a fringe minority among Ukrainians, despite Ukrainians having suffered the Soviet Union's horrible atrocities as well, which of course, I recognize.

I will judge Hunka, personally - my family are Jews from Ukraine and some of my ancestors were killed in the atrocities that took place during the Holocaust. In total, over 1 million Jews were killed in that country thanks to the Nazis and those who fought in their army. Regardless of his individual motivations for fighting in the Waffen-SS, that is the cause and ideology he was fighting for.

Especially coming from you and people of your ideological persuasion, where you often refer to people such as the Freedom Convoy protesters 'fascists and terrorists', Israel an 'apartheid government', Modi a 'Hindu supremacist' but a literal Waffen-SS member? 'He was fighting in defence of Ukraine' and 'Were you in his situation?' LOL! The cognitive dissonance. Everyone is a fascist and a supremacist except a literal Waffen-SS guy.

I was initially shocked to see that, not only did our ignorant House Speaker invite a Nazi to be honoured in the legislative chamber without proper vetting, but that all our Members of Parliament were so ignorant they did not think twice when applauding, as Rota announced, 'a Ukrainian WWII veteran who fought against Russia for Ukrainian independence' (as if it is not obvious who he fought for from that introduction), but now that I've observed how many ignorant people we have in Canada, it is sadly less surprising.

My apologies for getting overly passionate in this post, I rarely ever talk like this - but this is an issue close to my heart for obvious reasons.

1.You left out that the Ukrainains fighting with the Soviet Union were conscripts, and not volunteers.

2.If we're going to get into this, I'm Jewish as well as I've mentioned here many times, and relatives of my grandfather were killed in the Holocaust. When I defend this guy for making a choice in a no win situation, I don't do it lightly.

3.No, I don't think that everybody is a fascist or a supremicist except for this guy. That is disingenuous. It's called making a judgement in specific situations rather than making blanket judgements in a binary or absolutist fashion. Referring to the terrorist occupiers of Ottawa as the 'Freedom Convoy' is a joke. Nobody forced them to into that choice and the only 'rights' they cared about were their own enormous sense of entitlement. Those people are their supporters are by far the most ignorant Canadians.

1. They could have easily defected to the anti-Soviet side. People like Hunka are usually the ones who avoided conscription from the Soviets. Most of Ukraine was occupied by the Nazis for 2 years or so, so there was no reason why most couldn't have defected if they wanted to. Most of them chose to stay on the Soviet side.

2. I'm not a fan of the 'Freedom Convoy', however think calling them terrorists is a huge exaggeration.

3. I apologize for accusing you of calling everyone a fascist, that was an exaggeration, but what is frustrating is when those who call out more minor things as 'fascism' but ignore far more serious offences.

This guy was still proud of his actions in a 2011 blog post, many decades later, as many have mentioned. He can't just ignore that, even if his individual motivations were related to Ukrainian nationalism, the greater cause he was fighting for was extremely harmful.

1.Given the recent history of Ukrainians with Stalin (and the Red Army) I think that defection would have been a lot more difficult than you suggest here.

2.I think many people in Ottawa, especially in the city center, would disagree with you on that.

I can see the point of you saying that I must have cognitive dissonance on this, but I dislike both simple binaries (even if I am wrong on this) and extremists on any issue. Even on an issue where I might be considered to have an extreme position like legalization (and regulation) of all drugs, I certainly would not support an occupation by drug users of provincial capitals demanding legalization of drugs.

Do you think that everyone who participated in the convoy was bad? Or only people who blocked roads/honked horns/blocked the border/did illegal stuff?

They were allowed to leave by the various police, but the only people who have the right to block a road (or a highway anyway) are protesters who obtain a permit and they are only allowed to do so for certain periods of time.  So technically, they all did illegal stuff. If people who were there didn't block roads, honk horns, harrass local residents... they supported those who did in both intangible ways (providing moral support) and tangible ways like blocking police.

I'm not sure why you're asking. There is no nuance here, nobody was forced to choose a side and participate.

In regards to this, there are people who were part of the Idle No More blockades of railways (which is also illegal) or environmentalists in other places who claim that the police treat them differently than how these people were treated. But, I don't see that.

The police took a stands off/wait them out position in regards to the blockades of railways as well as part of this idea of 'reducing tension' (or whatever the term is.) If that idea ever worked, it has obviously been exploted by protestors and doesn't work anymore.

I don't refer to those who blockaded railrways as 'terrorists' because they didn't (literally) terrorize people in a city, but I have no sympathy for their protest methods either and was frustrated that the police didn't arrest them.

According to some pundits, most Canadians had contradictory positions regarding these two protests. I like to think that isn't the case, but I don't know. But, I know I had no sympathy for either. I suppose it might have made a difference that I thought the indigenous Canadians who were blocking the railways were being used by environmentalists (and the environmentalists were being used by those indigenous protestors) and that I thought they were both environmental extremists, and I was especially unhappy that the environmentalists falsely claimed that the indigenous protestors spoke for all indigenous Canadians, which they most certainly did not.

Finally, in regards to the terms. Environmentalists who spike trees are referred to officially as 'environmental terrorists.' I think it is entirely consistent to referring to those who occupied Ottawa as 'terrorists' and that that is not in any way extreme, but is a correct use of the definition of the word 'terrorist.'

Oxford definition: a person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.

I don't know why they should be referred to as anything other than 'terrorist.'

I find it very strange that you think there is more moral clarity in an out-of-hand/illegal protest in Ottawa than fighting in the Waffen-SS in World War II.

Providing moral support to misbehaving protesters = complicity.

Voluntarily joining Waffen-SS, being proud of it 70 years later = nuanced.

Ok.

And I find it very strange that you refer terrorist occupiers as 'misbehaving protesters.'

I note you refer to those who you claim were there but did not blow horns, release exhaust fumes... as those providing 'moral support' (I also pointed out there being there was illegal in itself and that they blocked the police) so, they did more than provide 'moral support.' So, that can only mean that you referred to those who clearly engaged in terrorist activities as 'misbehaving protesters.'

It's possible you misspoke and meant to refer to those who you claim only provided 'moral support.'

[Upper Canada Tory]

The fog has cleared. Hunka can see the Waffen-SS clearly now and is still proud of his time with them.

Were you in his situation at that time?

I don't mean to equate the two, but you could also take a neutral position and not judge Hunka rather than feel the need to be morally superior.

The 'were you in his situation?' argument in here is so baseless and ahistorical that I'm shocked at the level of ignorance.

Most people in WWII-era Ukraine, people who were in his situation, fought on the side of the Soviet Union, against the Nazis.

Collectively, the Ukrainians who joined the OUN, UIA and SS-Galicia were at most, 300,000 people. On the other hand, 3 million Ukrainians joined the Soviet Army to defeat the Nazis. Ukrainians actually were one of the nations that, overall, contributed the most to defeating Hitler in WWII. Those who sided with the Nazis were a fringe minority among Ukrainians, despite Ukrainians having suffered the Soviet Union's horrible atrocities as well, which of course, I recognize.

I will judge Hunka, personally - my family are Jews from Ukraine and some of my ancestors were killed in the atrocities that took place during the Holocaust. In total, over 1 million Jews were killed in that country thanks to the Nazis and those who fought in their army. Regardless of his individual motivations for fighting in the Waffen-SS, that is the cause and ideology he was fighting for.

Especially coming from you and people of your ideological persuasion, where you often refer to people such as the Freedom Convoy protesters 'fascists and terrorists', Israel an 'apartheid government', Modi a 'Hindu supremacist' but a literal Waffen-SS member? 'He was fighting in defence of Ukraine' and 'Were you in his situation?' LOL! The cognitive dissonance. Everyone is a fascist and a supremacist except a literal Waffen-SS guy.

I was initially shocked to see that, not only did our ignorant House Speaker invite a Nazi to be honoured in the legislative chamber without proper vetting, but that all our Members of Parliament were so ignorant they did not think twice when applauding, as Rota announced, 'a Ukrainian WWII veteran who fought against Russia for Ukrainian independence' (as if it is not obvious who he fought for from that introduction), but now that I've observed how many ignorant people we have in Canada, it is sadly less surprising.

My apologies for getting overly passionate in this post, I rarely ever talk like this - but this is an issue close to my heart for obvious reasons.

1.You left out that the Ukrainains fighting with the Soviet Union were conscripts, and not volunteers.

2.If we're going to get into this, I'm Jewish as well as I've mentioned here many times, and relatives of my grandfather were killed in the Holocaust. When I defend this guy for making a choice in a no win situation, I don't do it lightly.

3.No, I don't think that everybody is a fascist or a supremicist except for this guy. That is disingenuous. It's called making a judgement in specific situations rather than making blanket judgements in a binary or absolutist fashion. Referring to the terrorist occupiers of Ottawa as the 'Freedom Convoy' is a joke. Nobody forced them to into that choice and the only 'rights' they cared about were their own enormous sense of entitlement. Those people are their supporters are by far the most ignorant Canadians.

1. They could have easily defected to the anti-Soviet side. People like Hunka are usually the ones who avoided conscription from the Soviets. Most of Ukraine was occupied by the Nazis for 2 years or so, so there was no reason why most couldn't have defected if they wanted to. Most of them chose to stay on the Soviet side.

2. I'm not a fan of the 'Freedom Convoy', however think calling them terrorists is a huge exaggeration.

3. I apologize for accusing you of calling everyone a fascist, that was an exaggeration, but what is frustrating is when those who call out more minor things as 'fascism' but ignore far more serious offences.

This guy was still proud of his actions in a 2011 blog post, many decades later, as many have mentioned. He can't just ignore that, even if his individual motivations were related to Ukrainian nationalism, the greater cause he was fighting for was extremely harmful.

1.Given the recent history of Ukrainians with Stalin (and the Red Army) I think that defection would have been a lot more difficult than you suggest here.

2.I think many people in Ottawa, especially in the city center, would disagree with you on that.

I can see the point of you saying that I must have cognitive dissonance on this, but I dislike both simple binaries (even if I am wrong on this) and extremists on any issue. Even on an issue where I might be considered to have an extreme position like legalization (and regulation) of all drugs, I certainly would not support an occupation by drug users of provincial capitals demanding legalization of drugs.

Do you think that everyone who participated in the convoy was bad? Or only people who blocked roads/honked horns/blocked the border/did illegal stuff?

They were allowed to leave by the various police, but the only people who have the right to block a road (or a highway anyway) are protesters who obtain a permit and they are only allowed to do so for certain periods of time.  So technically, they all did illegal stuff. If people who were there didn't block roads, honk horns, harrass local residents... they supported those who did in both intangible ways (providing moral support) and tangible ways like blocking police.

I'm not sure why you're asking. There is no nuance here, nobody was forced to choose a side and participate.

In regards to this, there are people who were part of the Idle No More blockades of railways (which is also illegal) or environmentalists in other places who claim that the police treat them differently than how these people were treated. But, I don't see that.

The police took a stands off/wait them out position in regards to the blockades of railways as well as part of this idea of 'reducing tension' (or whatever the term is.) If that idea ever worked, it has obviously been exploted by protestors and doesn't work anymore.

I don't refer to those who blockaded railrways as 'terrorists' because they didn't (literally) terrorize people in a city, but I have no sympathy for their protest methods either and was frustrated that the police didn't arrest them.

According to some pundits, most Canadians had contradictory positions regarding these two protests. I like to think that isn't the case, but I don't know. But, I know I had no sympathy for either. I suppose it might have made a difference that I thought the indigenous Canadians who were blocking the railways were being used by environmentalists (and the environmentalists were being used by those indigenous protestors) and that I thought they were both environmental extremists, and I was especially unhappy that the environmentalists falsely claimed that the indigenous protestors spoke for all indigenous Canadians, which they most certainly did not.

Finally, in regards to the terms. Environmentalists who spike trees are referred to officially as 'environmental terrorists.' I think it is entirely consistent to referring to those who occupied Ottawa as 'terrorists' and that that is not in any way extreme, but is a correct use of the definition of the word 'terrorist.'

Oxford definition: a person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.

I don't know why they should be referred to as anything other than 'terrorist.'

I find it very strange that you think there is more moral clarity in an out-of-hand/illegal protest in Ottawa than fighting in the Waffen-SS in World War II.

Providing moral support to misbehaving protesters = complicity.

Voluntarily joining Waffen-SS, being proud of it 70 years later = nuanced.

Ok.

And I find it very strange that you refer terrorist occupiers as 'misbehaving protesters.'

Terrorism means you intentionally harmed civilians. The people in Ottawa didn't directly harm civilians, they just made life difficult for people by blocking roads/honking horns. Yes that's unacceptable, but it's not terrorism.

[Benjamin Frank]

The fog has cleared. Hunka can see the Waffen-SS clearly now and is still proud of his time with them.

Were you in his situation at that time?

I don't mean to equate the two, but you could also take a neutral position and not judge Hunka rather than feel the need to be morally superior.

The 'were you in his situation?' argument in here is so baseless and ahistorical that I'm shocked at the level of ignorance.

Most people in WWII-era Ukraine, people who were in his situation, fought on the side of the Soviet Union, against the Nazis.

Collectively, the Ukrainians who joined the OUN, UIA and SS-Galicia were at most, 300,000 people. On the other hand, 3 million Ukrainians joined the Soviet Army to defeat the Nazis. Ukrainians actually were one of the nations that, overall, contributed the most to defeating Hitler in WWII. Those who sided with the Nazis were a fringe minority among Ukrainians, despite Ukrainians having suffered the Soviet Union's horrible atrocities as well, which of course, I recognize.

I will judge Hunka, personally - my family are Jews from Ukraine and some of my ancestors were killed in the atrocities that took place during the Holocaust. In total, over 1 million Jews were killed in that country thanks to the Nazis and those who fought in their army. Regardless of his individual motivations for fighting in the Waffen-SS, that is the cause and ideology he was fighting for.

Especially coming from you and people of your ideological persuasion, where you often refer to people such as the Freedom Convoy protesters 'fascists and terrorists', Israel an 'apartheid government', Modi a 'Hindu supremacist' but a literal Waffen-SS member? 'He was fighting in defence of Ukraine' and 'Were you in his situation?' LOL! The cognitive dissonance. Everyone is a fascist and a supremacist except a literal Waffen-SS guy.

I was initially shocked to see that, not only did our ignorant House Speaker invite a Nazi to be honoured in the legislative chamber without proper vetting, but that all our Members of Parliament were so ignorant they did not think twice when applauding, as Rota announced, 'a Ukrainian WWII veteran who fought against Russia for Ukrainian independence' (as if it is not obvious who he fought for from that introduction), but now that I've observed how many ignorant people we have in Canada, it is sadly less surprising.

My apologies for getting overly passionate in this post, I rarely ever talk like this - but this is an issue close to my heart for obvious reasons.

1.You left out that the Ukrainains fighting with the Soviet Union were conscripts, and not volunteers.

2.If we're going to get into this, I'm Jewish as well as I've mentioned here many times, and relatives of my grandfather were killed in the Holocaust. When I defend this guy for making a choice in a no win situation, I don't do it lightly.

3.No, I don't think that everybody is a fascist or a supremicist except for this guy. That is disingenuous. It's called making a judgement in specific situations rather than making blanket judgements in a binary or absolutist fashion. Referring to the terrorist occupiers of Ottawa as the 'Freedom Convoy' is a joke. Nobody forced them to into that choice and the only 'rights' they cared about were their own enormous sense of entitlement. Those people are their supporters are by far the most ignorant Canadians.

1. They could have easily defected to the anti-Soviet side. People like Hunka are usually the ones who avoided conscription from the Soviets. Most of Ukraine was occupied by the Nazis for 2 years or so, so there was no reason why most couldn't have defected if they wanted to. Most of them chose to stay on the Soviet side.

2. I'm not a fan of the 'Freedom Convoy', however think calling them terrorists is a huge exaggeration.

3. I apologize for accusing you of calling everyone a fascist, that was an exaggeration, but what is frustrating is when those who call out more minor things as 'fascism' but ignore far more serious offences.

This guy was still proud of his actions in a 2011 blog post, many decades later, as many have mentioned. He can't just ignore that, even if his individual motivations were related to Ukrainian nationalism, the greater cause he was fighting for was extremely harmful.

1.Given the recent history of Ukrainians with Stalin (and the Red Army) I think that defection would have been a lot more difficult than you suggest here.

2.I think many people in Ottawa, especially in the city center, would disagree with you on that.

I can see the point of you saying that I must have cognitive dissonance on this, but I dislike both simple binaries (even if I am wrong on this) and extremists on any issue. Even on an issue where I might be considered to have an extreme position like legalization (and regulation) of all drugs, I certainly would not support an occupation by drug users of provincial capitals demanding legalization of drugs.

Do you think that everyone who participated in the convoy was bad? Or only people who blocked roads/honked horns/blocked the border/did illegal stuff?

They were allowed to leave by the various police, but the only people who have the right to block a road (or a highway anyway) are protesters who obtain a permit and they are only allowed to do so for certain periods of time.  So technically, they all did illegal stuff. If people who were there didn't block roads, honk horns, harrass local residents... they supported those who did in both intangible ways (providing moral support) and tangible ways like blocking police.

I'm not sure why you're asking. There is no nuance here, nobody was forced to choose a side and participate.

In regards to this, there are people who were part of the Idle No More blockades of railways (which is also illegal) or environmentalists in other places who claim that the police treat them differently than how these people were treated. But, I don't see that.

The police took a stands off/wait them out position in regards to the blockades of railways as well as part of this idea of 'reducing tension' (or whatever the term is.) If that idea ever worked, it has obviously been exploted by protestors and doesn't work anymore.

I don't refer to those who blockaded railrways as 'terrorists' because they didn't (literally) terrorize people in a city, but I have no sympathy for their protest methods either and was frustrated that the police didn't arrest them.

According to some pundits, most Canadians had contradictory positions regarding these two protests. I like to think that isn't the case, but I don't know. But, I know I had no sympathy for either. I suppose it might have made a difference that I thought the indigenous Canadians who were blocking the railways were being used by environmentalists (and the environmentalists were being used by those indigenous protestors) and that I thought they were both environmental extremists, and I was especially unhappy that the environmentalists falsely claimed that the indigenous protestors spoke for all indigenous Canadians, which they most certainly did not.

Finally, in regards to the terms. Environmentalists who spike trees are referred to officially as 'environmental terrorists.' I think it is entirely consistent to referring to those who occupied Ottawa as 'terrorists' and that that is not in any way extreme, but is a correct use of the definition of the word 'terrorist.'

Oxford definition: a person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.

I don't know why they should be referred to as anything other than 'terrorist.'

I find it very strange that you think there is more moral clarity in an out-of-hand/illegal protest in Ottawa than fighting in the Waffen-SS in World War II.

Providing moral support to misbehaving protesters = complicity.

Voluntarily joining Waffen-SS, being proud of it 70 years later = nuanced.

Ok.

And I find it very strange that you refer terrorist occupiers as 'misbehaving protesters.'

Terrorism means you intentionally harmed civilians. The people in Ottawa didn't directly harm civilians, they just made life difficult for people by blocking roads/honking horns. Yes that's unacceptable, but it's not terrorism.

They did intentionally harm civilians both by honking horns and by releasing exhaust 24/7. That is terrorism.

Terrorist: Oxford definition: a person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.

If you are trying to force some equivalency here, what no win situation were the terrorist occupiers facing? Having to wear masks in indoor public settings and get vaccinated?

I know these terrorist occupiers referred to this as analagous to the Holocaust, but I know you also regard that as idiotic and offensive.

However, in regards to your point. Yes, I would want to hear the case of any specific individual who was there. If a person made the case that they were there only out of sympathy (and I know the numbers swelled on the weekends) and did not honk horns or release exhaust or otherwise block people in Ottawa, I agree it is unfair to refer to them as a 'terrorist.'

But, that is still not analagous to the case here.

[Aurelius2]

Holy f**k, this thread.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The SS killed quite a number of people who had previously lived in loud, polluted, congested cities, such as Warsaw, Kiev/Kyiv, Lublin, Lwow/Lviv, and others in different parts of Europe. Going from living in a loud, polluted, congested city to getting killed in the Holocaust is generally considered to have been a turn for the worse in the stories of these people's lives.

[Benjamin Frank]

The SS killed quite a number of people who had previously lived in loud, polluted, congested cities, such as Warsaw, Kiev/Kyiv, Lublin, Lwow/Lviv, and others in different parts of Europe. Going from living in a loud, polluted, congested city to getting killed in the Holocaust is generally considered to have been a turn for the worse in the stories of these people's lives.

Leaving aside what Gramps may or may not have done (or probably did) would you agree with me that the seeming defence here of the Ottawa terrorist occupiers provides evidence that people are primiarly self interested or selfish?

If you take my argument that gramps was in a lose-lose situation, it doesn't seem to take much to find that, contrary to some of the claims here about how Ukrainians needed to sacrifice their concerns for the greater good (again, assuming my position is correct), the reality is that tens millions of people, especially in the United States, weren't even willing to 'sacrifice' a little to wear masks in indoor public setting or get vaccinated.

This may provide further context for why I don't especially care for what can be considered easy condemnation of others. I think that most of it is insincere grandstanding or virtue signalling made easily in the abstract.

And, no I'm not attempting to equate the Holocaust to Covid, in any way, just that Covid showed that in reality, depsite what people like to claim or believe about themselves, that tens of millions of people aren't actually willing to 'sacrifice' even a little of their 'rights' for the needs of others.

And this of course even included trying to produce or promote all sorts of nonsense propaganda that falsely claimed masks or vaccines weren't effective.

While I certainly acknowledge that I may be/probably am wrong with this specific person, my observation is that virtue siganalling/grandstanding is often used by people to feel better about themselves making it easier for them to act selfishly.

[Vosem]

The SS killed quite a number of people who had previously lived in loud, polluted, congested cities, such as Warsaw, Kiev/Kyiv, Lublin, Lwow/Lviv, and others in different parts of Europe. Going from living in a loud, polluted, congested city to getting killed in the Holocaust is generally considered to have been a turn for the worse in the stories of these people's lives.

Leaving aside what Gramps may or may not have done (or probably did) would you agree with me that the seeming defence here of the Ottawa terrorist occupiers provides evidence that people are primiarly self interested or selfish?

No, you see, those people were protesting for a basically good cause, whereas Hunka in fact put his life on the line for an evil cause.

If you take my argument that gramps was in a lose-lose situation, it doesn't seem to take much to find that, contrary to some of the claims here about how Ukrainians needed to sacrifice their concerns for the greater good (again, assuming my position is correct), the reality is that tens millions of people, especially in the United States, weren't even willing to 'sacrifice' a little to wear masks in indoor public setting or get vaccinated.

The thing is that the choice he made, at that late date, was incredibly unusual; he chose the Nazis at a point in the war at which the people in Ukrainian society most predisposed to seeing the Nazis as a "lesser evil" -- the OUN -- had already abandoned them. This was not a difficult choice; it was a straightforward one for most people. It would not be fair to say that Ukrainians needed to sacrifice their concerns for the greater good (note that nobody, or virtually nobody, says this about the Finns); but it is fair to say that he decided to fight for evil at a time when most people understood what that meant.

Most people struggle to contradict their society's values, so I tend to look much more harshly at people who make uniquely evil choices than people who make common evil choices. An ethnic German who lived in Germany in 1943, in a society permeated by Nazi propaganda, might well join the Waffen-SS out of pure conformity. This is still very bad, but it is not as bad as a Ukrainian living in Ukraine in 1943, in a society whose fringes had already rejected Nazism.

In general, there is no duty to sacrifice yourself for the good of society as a whole (unless you've voluntarily taken some oath to do so, as in the military). Not getting a vaccine was a stupid decision, but I don't think it was the kind of stupid decision which the government needed to punish by forcibly making people lose their jobs for it.

I think, while most indicators at the beginning of the pandemic were that masks "should" be effective, studies conducted during the pandemic itself largely failed to find effectiveness. Also, I think the Ottawa convoy was about vaccine mandates specifically, and memorials to the Ottawa convoy are often about free-speech concerns, and concerns about growing authoritarianism in North America, than they even are about vaccine mandates; I think basically all evidence suggests the COVID-19 vaccines are effective and good, and that in fact the worst crime associated with them is that the FDA didn't approve them faster, but in spite of this I find the Ottawa convoy basically sympathetic.

This may provide further context for why I don't especially care for what can be considered easy condemnation of others. I think that most of it is insincere grandstanding or virtue signalling made easily in the abstract.

I agree. Good people are good, bad people are bad. (I suspect we disagree on who the good people and the bad people are, but this paragraph is literally saying nothing except 'good people are good, bad people are bad'.)

And, no I'm not attempting to equate the Holocaust to Covid, in any way, just that Covid showed that in reality, depsite what people like to claim or believe about themselves, that tens of millions of people aren't actually willing to 'sacrifice' even a little of their 'rights' for the needs of others.

And this of course even included trying to produce or promote all sorts of nonsense propaganda that falsely claimed masks or vaccines weren't effective.

N95 masks are definitely effective, but I don't think good evidence was ever found that the cloth or paper masks people were usually wearing actually helped reduce the spread of COVID-19, although pre-pandemic studies suggested they reduced the spread of influenza.

People should be jealous of their rights, and should not be willing to sacrifice them except in the most clear-cut of circumstances. The resistance to doing so when there was not uniformity about the risk is good, and really it should not be something that the government can demand of people outside of wartime, or quarantines for those known to be infected. I think the forced closure of businesses or places of worship should never be on the table no matter the magnitude of the crisis, really.

[Benjamin Frank]

The SS killed quite a number of people who had previously lived in loud, polluted, congested cities, such as Warsaw, Kiev/Kyiv, Lublin, Lwow/Lviv, and others in different parts of Europe. Going from living in a loud, polluted, congested city to getting killed in the Holocaust is generally considered to have been a turn for the worse in the stories of these people's lives.

Leaving aside what Gramps may or may not have done (or probably did) would you agree with me that the seeming defence here of the Ottawa terrorist occupiers provides evidence that people are primiarly self interested or selfish?

No, you see, those people were protesting for a basically good cause, whereas Hunka in fact put his life on the line for an evil cause.

If you take my argument that gramps was in a lose-lose situation, it doesn't seem to take much to find that, contrary to some of the claims here about how Ukrainians needed to sacrifice their concerns for the greater good (again, assuming my position is correct), the reality is that tens millions of people, especially in the United States, weren't even willing to 'sacrifice' a little to wear masks in indoor public setting or get vaccinated.

The thing is that the choice he made, at that late date, was incredibly unusual; he chose the Nazis at a point in the war at which the people in Ukrainian society most predisposed to seeing the Nazis as a "lesser evil" -- the OUN -- had already abandoned them. This was not a difficult choice; it was a straightforward one for most people. It would not be fair to say that Ukrainians needed to sacrifice their concerns for the greater good (note that nobody, or virtually nobody, says this about the Finns); but it is fair to say that he decided to fight for evil at a time when most people understood what that meant.

Most people struggle to contradict their society's values, so I tend to look much more harshly at people who make uniquely evil choices than people who make common evil choices. An ethnic German who lived in Germany in 1943, in a society permeated by Nazi propaganda, might well join the Waffen-SS out of pure conformity. This is still very bad, but it is not as bad as a Ukrainian living in Ukraine in 1943, in a society whose fringes had already rejected Nazism.

In general, there is no duty to sacrifice yourself for the good of society as a whole (unless you've voluntarily taken some oath to do so, as in the military). Not getting a vaccine was a stupid decision, but I don't think it was the kind of stupid decision which the government needed to punish by forcibly making people lose their jobs for it.

I think, while most indicators at the beginning of the pandemic were that masks "should" be effective, studies conducted during the pandemic itself largely failed to find effectiveness. Also, I think the Ottawa convoy was about vaccine mandates specifically, and memorials to the Ottawa convoy are often about free-speech concerns, and concerns about growing authoritarianism in North America, than they even are about vaccine mandates; I think basically all evidence suggests the COVID-19 vaccines are effective and good, and that in fact the worst crime associated with them is that the FDA didn't approve them faster, but in spite of this I find the Ottawa convoy basically sympathetic.

This may provide further context for why I don't especially care for what can be considered easy condemnation of others. I think that most of it is insincere grandstanding or virtue signalling made easily in the abstract.

I agree. Good people are good, bad people are bad. (I suspect we disagree on who the good people and the bad people are, but this paragraph is literally saying nothing except 'good people are good, bad people are bad'.)

And, no I'm not attempting to equate the Holocaust to Covid, in any way, just that Covid showed that in reality, depsite what people like to claim or believe about themselves, that tens of millions of people aren't actually willing to 'sacrifice' even a little of their 'rights' for the needs of others.

And this of course even included trying to produce or promote all sorts of nonsense propaganda that falsely claimed masks or vaccines weren't effective.

N95 masks are definitely effective, but I don't think good evidence was ever found that the cloth or paper masks people were usually wearing actually helped reduce the spread of COVID-19, although pre-pandemic studies suggested they reduced the spread of influenza.

People should be jealous of their rights, and should not be willing to sacrifice them except in the most clear-cut of circumstances. The resistance to doing so when there was not uniformity about the risk is good, and really it should not be something that the government can demand of people outside of wartime, or quarantines for those known to be infected. I think the forced closure of businesses or places of worship should never be on the table no matter the magnitude of the crisis, really.

1.No most masks were definitely shown to be effective, though some were shown to be more effective than others. What they tended to show (except for N95 and KN95 masks) is that masks prevented people from spreading Covid but not from getting Covid.

It's not a surprise though that people for whom masks were too much of an imposition put out or promoted poor/fake studies to deny the efficacy of masks (or deliberately misquoted/misinterpreted studies better quality studies which was extremely common with Covid and is extremely common with conspiratorial types in general.)

2.The Ottawa terrorists were selfish people defending not rights, but their enormous sense of entitlement. The choice to not wear a mask or get vaccinated impacted on the legitimate rights of others. It is simply inconceivable to dispute that some/many people died as a result of others not wearing masks or getting vaccinated.

3.The point I was making was that it's easy for 'bad people' (which is far too simplistic) to think they are good by engaging in easy virtue signalling.

4.I think even you would have to concede that from the perspective of the Ukrainians that it was not unanimous that Hitler was a greater evil than Stalin. Which then leaves open the possibility that, to them, they would also have thought that Hunka made a different 'choice' but not one they would have condemned. (Again, if all he did was kill Soviet Soldiers, which I agree now is very unlikely.)

I also point out again, however, that was the view at Yalta, as much as it was condemned by Jewish and other groups at the time.

This is fine, ultimately we all have to make our own choices including judging the choices that others make. I'm just again pointing out that how a person likes to think they'd behave in a difficult situation can be completely different from how they actually would behave. Again, people often lie to themselves.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

What is happening.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

What is happening.

Read the entire thread from start to finish, it's a great read.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

Holy f**k, this thread.

I was told apology came naturally to Canadians…

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Holy f**k, this thread.

I was told apology came naturally to Canadians…

Frank has taken the art of an apology farther than most of us are capable of, with a mea culpa apology. He's taking two weeks off the forum (with the singular exception of his song thread). He has not even responded to a PM from me asking about specifics of what he was letting himself do. A silence I'm taking as a 'No'.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

Canadians should be wary of drawing comparisons to Russia, considering they are currently under intense international scrutiny for harboring separatist terrorist groups and celebrating fascism. One can only conclude that megalomaniacs Justin Trudeau and Charles III wish to restore their previous borders in India. Beware of sanctions!

Speaking of which, to tie together several recent news stories, why do diaspora communities in Canada in particular seem so prone to violent radical nationalism? The Ukrainian diaspora in Canada has long been notorious for having a lot of veterans of the Galician SS Division and OUN-B, the Kalistan movement is based in Canada, the Tamil and Armenian diasporas are known for being vocal and radical, and clashes often happen between pro-and anti-CCP Chinese whenever the Chinese government does something controversial. Of course none of this justifies Russian disinformation and slander or India assassinating Sikh activists, but why?

If I had to give an actual serious answer, I would say that a society with openness and cultural pluralism provides a good haven for dissidents from all over but in its extreme form creates ethnic enclaves where they can operate pretty much unmolested. But you may also be overstating the issue and there are plenty of examples of this, like Meir Kahane, elsewhere.

I would also suggest Canada's lack of a national identity for people to assimilate into as a big part of this. This has been an issue for like, all of Canada's history: arguably the Quebec problem is a result of this, but Canada was also notable for having really big enlistment gaps between European immigrants and British-ancestry and particularly British born Canadians during the World Wars. As a result, arrivals and even long standing ethnic groups in Canada are less likely to stop caring about group-specific issues.

Great answer. Yes, you’re correct. Canada seems a pretty chill place to live but it lacks a strong or even minimal national identity. Which makes people even after generations still “feel” connected to their country of origin.

As a Canadian, I think I can say that is not at all accurate. Of course there are exceptions, but the far bigger factor is the size of Canada which is the reason for the lack of national identity and most Canadians feel most connected to their province or region, and that is absolutely true of diaspora Canadians as well.

It's not a surprise given it's size and proximity to Ottawa that the province where most people think they have a national identity or speak for Canada is Ontario. Part of the provincial identity of Ontario is believing that its identity is the national identity, which has bred some resentment in the rest of Canada.

Given how similar Canadian provinces are to their adjacent U.S states (except for Quebec), if you are going to argue that Canada doesn't have a national identity, then you'd also be arguing that Americans don't really have a national identity (although I certainly don't dispute that the American myths are shoved done every American's throats to try to force some national identity.)

Why isn't this true for the United States as well, which is also a big country?

It's funny how you contradict yourself in the space of so few lines. Very quickly you go from "Canada has no national identity because everyone defines with the provinces!" to "Canada has a national identity because the provinces having identities becomes Canada having a national identity!" Not only does that logic not make sense, but I don't think it's even true. Besides some examples of Irish immigrants and to a lesser extent French speaking immigrants more broadly integrating into Quebecois society, I see 0 evidence to suggest that Sikh immigrants in, say, Ontario now define strongly with a provincial identity rather than a Sikh identity. Canada really does not have (excluding Quebec, which isn't really a provincial but a national identity, and to a lesser extent "Western Canada" writ large, which is arguably the same thing or at least regional) strong provincial or national identity.

Nor does the comparison to the US make sense! Even if we accept that Canadian provinces are very similar to their US cross-border comparisons (which I don't: the comparison is more notable for how Canadian provinces have more in common with their cross border comparisons than each other than the reverse), American identity exists separately from provincial or state identity (although they are of course connected), so its existence would be totally compatible with the scenario you described. If anything, this scenario mainly goes to show how little you understand national identity: thinking national identity comes from states being distinct rather than the nation being distinct misses the whole point of what national identity is.

It's okay to admit Canada just isn't that distinct. It's an extremely anodyne observation, even if it sounds controversial: its the position the Liberal Party has adopted and been trying to "fix" since, like, Pearson, and trying to understand Canadian politics of the last 60 years without understanding it is extremely hard to reconcile.

[Hatman 🍁]

My takeaway here: invade Canada.

Given what's happening in Ukraine, these kinds of posts are not funny. Go f**k yourself.

Anyway, to add to the list of who should be fired, surely there was some staffer who's fault it was originally. I mean, Rota should have been smart enough to vet this, so glad to see he resigned as well. But I hope the staffer's gone too.

This is a tremendously embarrassing reply.

Why is it embarrassing for not wanting my country invaded? What an insane thought to have.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

My takeaway here: invade Canada.

Given what's happening in Ukraine, these kinds of posts are not funny. Go f**k yourself.

Anyway, to add to the list of who should be fired, surely there was some staffer who's fault it was originally. I mean, Rota should have been smart enough to vet this, so glad to see he resigned as well. But I hope the staffer's gone too.

This is a tremendously embarrassing reply.

Why is it embarrassing for not wanting my country invaded? What an insane thought to have.

It is embarrassing to reply to a joke about invading Canada by throwing a hissy fit about how it isn't okay to make that joke because of the war in Ukraine. Not only does it demonstrate a lack of perspective (bad things have always happened, and always will: it's still okay to make jokes about invading Canada) but it is also hypersensitive and frivolous.

[All Along The Watchtower]

me, while reading this thread:

[Upper Canada Tory]

Canadians should be wary of drawing comparisons to Russia, considering they are currently under intense international scrutiny for harboring separatist terrorist groups and celebrating fascism. One can only conclude that megalomaniacs Justin Trudeau and Charles III wish to restore their previous borders in India. Beware of sanctions!

Speaking of which, to tie together several recent news stories, why do diaspora communities in Canada in particular seem so prone to violent radical nationalism? The Ukrainian diaspora in Canada has long been notorious for having a lot of veterans of the Galician SS Division and OUN-B, the Kalistan movement is based in Canada, the Tamil and Armenian diasporas are known for being vocal and radical, and clashes often happen between pro-and anti-CCP Chinese whenever the Chinese government does something controversial. Of course none of this justifies Russian disinformation and slander or India assassinating Sikh activists, but why?

If I had to give an actual serious answer, I would say that a society with openness and cultural pluralism provides a good haven for dissidents from all over but in its extreme form creates ethnic enclaves where they can operate pretty much unmolested. But you may also be overstating the issue and there are plenty of examples of this, like Meir Kahane, elsewhere.

I would also suggest Canada's lack of a national identity for people to assimilate into as a big part of this. This has been an issue for like, all of Canada's history: arguably the Quebec problem is a result of this, but Canada was also notable for having really big enlistment gaps between European immigrants and British-ancestry and particularly British born Canadians during the World Wars. As a result, arrivals and even long standing ethnic groups in Canada are less likely to stop caring about group-specific issues.

Great answer. Yes, you’re correct. Canada seems a pretty chill place to live but it lacks a strong or even minimal national identity. Which makes people even after generations still “feel” connected to their country of origin.

As a Canadian, I think I can say that is not at all accurate. Of course there are exceptions, but the far bigger factor is the size of Canada which is the reason for the lack of national identity and most Canadians feel most connected to their province or region, and that is absolutely true of diaspora Canadians as well.

It's not a surprise given it's size and proximity to Ottawa that the province where most people think they have a national identity or speak for Canada is Ontario. Part of the provincial identity of Ontario is believing that its identity is the national identity, which has bred some resentment in the rest of Canada.

Given how similar Canadian provinces are to their adjacent U.S states (except for Quebec), if you are going to argue that Canada doesn't have a national identity, then you'd also be arguing that Americans don't really have a national identity (although I certainly don't dispute that the American myths are shoved done every American's throats to try to force some national identity.)

Why isn't this true for the United States as well, which is also a big country?

It's funny how you contradict yourself in the space of so few lines. Very quickly you go from "Canada has no national identity because everyone defines with the provinces!" to "Canada has a national identity because the provinces having identities becomes Canada having a national identity!" Not only does that logic not make sense, but I don't think it's even true. Besides some examples of Irish immigrants and to a lesser extent French speaking immigrants more broadly integrating into Quebecois society, I see 0 evidence to suggest that Sikh immigrants in, say, Ontario now define strongly with a provincial identity rather than a Sikh identity. Canada really does not have (excluding Quebec, which isn't really a provincial but a national identity, and to a lesser extent "Western Canada" writ large, which is arguably the same thing or at least regional) strong provincial or national identity.

Nor does the comparison to the US make sense! Even if we accept that Canadian provinces are very similar to their US cross-border comparisons (which I don't: the comparison is more notable for how Canadian provinces have more in common with their cross border comparisons than each other than the reverse), American identity exists separately from provincial or state identity (although they are of course connected), so its existence would be totally compatible with the scenario you described. If anything, this scenario mainly goes to show how little you understand national identity: thinking national identity comes from states being distinct rather than the nation being distinct misses the whole point of what national identity is.

It's okay to admit Canada just isn't that distinct. It's an extremely anodyne observation, even if it sounds controversial: its the position the Liberal Party has adopted and been trying to "fix" since, like, Pearson, and trying to understand Canadian politics of the last 60 years without understanding it is extremely hard to reconcile.

Technically, this isn't supposed to be the subject of the thread but I wanted to respond to this anyway.

Many regions of Canada do have a provincial or regional identity (eg, Quebec, Alberta and the Maritimes), but this also doesn't exclude the existence of a Canadian identity. It's not that different from how many Americans are proud to be Texan or from the South but are also equally proud to be American. I wonder what makes you believe that America has a national identity but Canada doesn't?