Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Slava

But I guess that is my point. No one vetted this guy. Someone (ostensibly Rota) said "hey, let's bring in this Ukrainian war hero for this and it's a slam dunk for us to look great" and that was it. And honestly, like most other standing ovations, some people stood up and in a minute everyone was standing up applauding the guy.

Thats worse. You've gotto imagine Russia would stop at nothing to get at Zelenskyy and we let some Rando unvetted in the room with him??

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Locke

Thats worse. You've gotto imagine Russia would stop at nothing to get at Zelenskyy and we let some Rando unvetted in the room with him??

Maybe I'm too cynical, but that's my thought. Obviously they have security and all that, but I'm just not sure how much of a deep dive they're performing. Evidently though, not a lot!

[CaptainCrunch]

I was pissed off that all of the bozo's in the house were standing up and applauding this person. Does anyone know if all parties get prior notice of recognition, and how far in advance they get it. Or is it surprise stand up and take a bow.

Also while we talk about the lack of vetting for guests of parliment. There are pictures of Hunka waiting to meet Trudeau and Zelenskyy in a private reception, and Hunka meeting MP's "backstage". If find it hard to believe that there isn't serious vetting for someone getting back stage so to speak and shaking hands with MP's and meeting the leader of the country.

I keep going back to Rota's speech when he said he fought the Russian's in WW2 in Ukraine and he literally stuttered and his eye brows went up. He seemed to be surprised. And had that oh shyte look on his face.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I was pissed off that all of the bozo's in the house were standing up and applauding this person. Does anyone know if all parties get prior notice of recognition, and how far in advance they get it. Or is it surprise stand up and take a bow.

Also while we talk about the lack of vetting for guests of parliment. There are pictures of Hunka waiting to meet Trudeau and Zelenskyy in a private reception, and Hunka meeting MP's "backstage". If find it hard to believe that there isn't serious vetting for someone getting back stage so to speak and shaking hands with MP's and meeting the leader of the country.

I keep going back to Rota's speech when he said he fought the Russian's in WW2 in Ukraine and he literally stuttered and his eye brows went up. He seemed to be surprised. And had that oh shyte look on his face.

Before this all blew up, I remember hearing this line. Now I wasnt watching or anything so I didnt see any facial expressions but:

"He fought against the Russians in WWII on the Eastern Front."

Well...that means he was, at the very least, fighting for an Axis power and in that instance the only one really around in that theater were the Nazis.

This isnt rocket science. This is Jr. High History splashed with a dash of basic deductive reasoning.

You can say he was 'fighting for the liberation of Ukraine' but seriously? Thats BS. In the 1940s that wasnt even realistically a thing. That wasnt even on the table. There were more pressing matters afoot.

So as I said, when I read this I immediately thought: "Well that doesnt make any sense."

And then this crapstorm ensued. But my immediate reaction was "this is going to be problematic."

How nobody who gets paid to do this kind of thing for a living didnt immediately spot the problem is what I find hard to believe.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I was pissed off that all of the bozo's in the house were standing up and applauding this person. Does anyone know if all parties get prior notice of recognition, and how far in advance they get it. Or is it surprise stand up and take a bow.

Also while we talk about the lack of vetting for guests of parliment. There are pictures of Hunka waiting to meet Trudeau and Zelenskyy in a private reception, and Hunka meeting MP's "backstage". If find it hard to believe that there isn't serious vetting for someone getting back stage so to speak and shaking hands with MP's and meeting the leader of the country.

I keep going back to Rota's speech when he said he fought the Russian's in WW2 in Ukraine and he literally stuttered and his eye brows went up. He seemed to be surprised. And had that oh shyte look on his face.

Well I attended one of these things several years ago and shook hands with a sitting PM. It was really cool, but I seriously doubt that there was any vetting of me. That doesn't mean that there was no security, but I'm just not sure that everyone there had a background check. To be fair though, I'm pretty mundane and certainly didn't fight for the Nazis, so I guess I have no idea.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Slava

Well I attended one of these things several years ago and shook hands with a sitting PM. It was really cool, but I seriously doubt that there was any vetting of me. That doesn't mean that there was no security, but I'm just not sure that everyone there had a background check. To be fair though, I'm pretty mundane and certainly didn't fight for the Nazis, so I guess I have no idea.

Can you prove that??

But you also probably werent 'The Guest of Honor' and certainly werent in the Parliament building.

When all of the Federal Government and a visiting Head of State are all in the same room? Maybe they should take security just a wee bit more seriously.

[Elkyiv]

Originally Posted by Locke

Before this all blew up, I remember hearing this line. Now I wasnt watching or anything so I didnt see any facial expressions but:

"He fought against the Russians in WWII on the Eastern Front."

Well...that means he was, at the very least, fighting for an Axis power and in that instance the only one really around in that theater were the Nazis.

This isnt rocket science. This is Jr. High History splashed with a dash of basic deductive reasoning.

You can say he was 'fighting for the liberation of Ukraine' but seriously? Thats BS. In the 1940s that wasnt even realistically a thing. That wasnt even on the table. There were more pressing matters afoot.

So as I said, when I read this I immediately thought: "Well that doesnt make any sense."

And then this crapstorm ensued. But my immediate reaction was "this is going to be problematic."

How nobody who gets paid to do this kind of thing for a living didnt immediately spot the problem is what I find hard to believe.

https://globalnews.ca/news/9989969/k...war-criminals/

[CliffFletcher]

This is Canada’s parliament we’re talking about here, not the West Wing. Canadian politicians don’t have robust staffs of researchers and lawyers. Most have an admin assistant, a constituency office manager, and a 23 year old intern.

Canadians would probably be surprised to learn just how ad hoc most of this stuff is. The ‘vetting’ is typically nothing more than an RCMP security staffer doing a criminal background check, same as a parent undergoes to volunteer at a school. And which would have come up clean for this guy.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

This is Canada’s parliament we’re talking about here, not the West Wing. Canadian politicians don’t have robust staffs of researchers and lawyers. Most have an admin assistant, a constituency office manager, and a 23 year old intern.

Canadians would probably be surprised to learn just how ad hoc most of this stuff is. The ‘vetting’ is typically nothing more than an RCMP security staffer doing a criminal background check, same as a parent undergoes to volunteer at a school. And which would have come up clean for this guy.

Yeah, I don't know why people seem to think guests have to undergo some kind of deep character study to get into the Parliament building. Obviously they would screen people for weapons and whatnot, but once you've established they have nothing dangerous, what risk is a 98 year old going to present?

[timun]

Originally Posted by Locke

You can say he was 'fighting for the liberation of Ukraine' but seriously? Thats BS. In the 1940s that wasnt even realistically a thing. That wasnt even on the table. There were more pressing matters afoot.

"The liberation of Ukraine" is nominally why a lot of Ukrainians fought with and against the Nazis in WW2. That it may not have been "realistically on the table" was secondary to people who had lived through the Holodomor.

The Ukrainian partisans put their lot in with the Nazis because many of the leaders of the independence movements were nationalists who hated Poles, Romanians, Hungarians, and of course Russians, for their own reasons. People like Stepan Bandera did want an independent Ukraine... but one which was homogeneously Ukrainian.

It's not unlike the Finns, really. They fought a defensive war against the Soviets, then fought alongside the Nazis when the Nazis launched Operation Barbarossa, then switched sides again and fought against the Nazis. They had their own reasons for doing what they did. However, the big difference is the Finns didn't participate in the Nazis' other genocidal activities, never handing over Jews and people from other ethnic groups to the Nazis. The Ukrainian nationalists, generally, did.


History is complicated. It's hard to put it all in simple, straightforward terms. E.g. the US propped up Lon Nol in Cambodia in the early '70s, pulled out of Vietnam and let the NVA roll in and take over the south, Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge came to power in Cambodia, and although his regime and the North Vietnamese were both communists the Vietnamese invaded Cambodia in '78 and overthrew the Khmer Rouge. But the US, at the diplomatic world stage, still supported Pol Pot for years afterward, even though he was a madman who starved millions of his own people.

Should Canadian parliament give standing ovations to people like Hunka? No. Should they celebrate our former Soviet allies from the end of WW2? Well... no.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by timun

It's not unlike the Finns, really. They fought a defensive war against the Soviets, then fought alongside the Nazis when the Nazis launched Operation Barbarossa, then switched sides again and fought against the Nazis. They had their own reasons for doing what they did. However, the big difference is the Finns didn't participate in the Nazis' other genocidal activities, never handing over Jews and people from other ethnic groups to the Nazis. The Ukrainian nationalists, generally, did.

The Finns were also scrupulous only to recover territory that the Soviets had taken from them in the Winter War. They did not advance into Russia proper (even though the Germans implored them to), let alone join up to fight for the Nazis in other countries the way SS Waffen units like Galicia did.

[timun]

Ehh... a lot of the fighting the 1st Galician Division did was in Galicia, which the Poles and (independent) Ukrainians had fought over in the wake of the Russian Revolution. The Ukrainians wanted it back because the Polish administration was repressive.

Like I said: not straightforward.

[Red Slinger]

My parents were children in Russia during WWII and had to flee the Nazi's when they were marching towards Moscow. I have family members lost to the Holocaust. With that said, I have some empathy towards a teenager living under a despotic Soviet regime and choosing to fight with the enemy of his oppressors, likely without fully understanding who or what he was fighting for. I don't know if that's the case with this man, or if he was well aware and supported what the Nazi's were doing.

As is often the case with the Trudeau-lead Liberal government, this was a blunder, not malicious. To make it more than an embarrassing flub is likely for the purpose of politicizing it.

[Nyah]

Originally Posted by Red Slinger

As is often the case with the Trudeau-lead Liberal government, this was a blunder, not malicious. To make it more than an embarrassing flub is likely for the purpose of politicizing it.

I have to disagree. It became a massive political issue when the head of a country currently under invasion because of false pretenses (Ukraine = Nazi Haven) was seen, knowingly or not, applauding a literal Nazi in the legislature. That's bigger than a 'flub', IMO. The optics play right into Putin's hand and as un-malicious as this 'blunder' was, it likely does real harm.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Nyah

I have to disagree. It became a massive political issue when the head of a country currently under invasion because of false pretenses (Ukraine = Nazi Haven) was seen, knowingly or not, applauding a literal Nazi in the legislature. That's bigger than a 'flub', IMO. The optics play right into Putin's hand and as un-malicious as this 'blunder' was, it likely does real harm.

They invaded 1.5 years ago and have been waging war, killing civilians, and sending their own population off to die the entire time based on false pretences. Nobody has done a good job explaining what yet another “false pretence” is going to impact in reality.

Like, nobody who wasn’t already swayed by what this invasion is based on and “justified” with is going to be swayed by this. People who haven’t accepted the bull#### to this point aren’t going to suddenly turn the blinders on and completely ignore that Zelenskyy didn’t know the guy was a Nazi.

[Nyah]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

They invaded 1.5 years ago and have been waging war, killing civilians, and sending their own population off to die the entire time based on false pretences. Nobody has done a good job explaining what yet another “false pretence” is going to impact in reality.

I'm aware. The point still stands that this is much more than a blunder, and ongoing discussion isn't just for political reasons. There's a reason this story made international news (and continues to).

[Red Slinger]

Originally Posted by Nyah

I'm aware. The point still stands that this is much more than a blunder, and ongoing discussion isn't just for political reasons. There's a reason this story made international news (and continues to).

What actual impact do you think this will have on the war? Of course it will be fodder for Putin's propaganda but will anyone be swayed that isn't already?

[Monahammer]

These things don't have to be mutually exclusive, it can be a massive political blunder while also being inappropriately leveraged to try and demonstrate malicious intent by political actors.

Malicious? No. But I think it's very hard to argue that this isn't a ridiculous instance of total incompetence.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Nyah

I'm aware. The point still stands that this is much more than a blunder, and ongoing discussion isn't just for political reasons. There's a reason this story made international news (and continues to).

This isn’t any less vague, though, so the point doesn’t stand. The point needs an actual foundation to stand. The entire argument that this is more than a blunder or an embarrassment seems to be based on references to these intangible, abstract things without anybody being able to actually express how it actually does harm in reality (outside of harming our reputation by making us look stupid).

It’s in the news, so what? Are the only things that make international news things that do harm? No. Are national embarrassments enough to make the international news? Yes.

Ukraine has some real connections to neo-Nazi groups, including some directly involved in fighting this war. This is no secret, it is also not so easily explained away by context, yet we still have a general understanding that this war is unjust and the pretences for this invasion false. But, we’re supposed to believe that this situation, easily explained away by the context, does real harm. The obvious question is: what harm? and how?

If that can’t be answered with anything but a vague “people are talking about it” or “it’s a bad look” then what?

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by Nyah

I'm aware. The point still stands that this is much more than a blunder, and ongoing discussion isn't just for political reasons. There's a reason this story made international news (and continues to).

It’s a perfect distraction?

If by more than a blunder you mean “a big ####ing blunder”, sure.