Green party leader says climate change policy worse than Nazi appeasement

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Slava

I don't agree with the religious tone to her comments, but they are not really a parallel in this case. One guy was the leader of the opposition and believed that the earth was less than 6,000 years old and the other is not even a sitting MP.

If they ran the piece would anybody care to watch?

While the other is a very influential environmental leader and uses her belief to implore supporters to embark upon a religious belief to secure her policy agenda.

If the CBC had ran their piece on Day would anyone have cared to watch? Seems to me, the guy got in trouble because he did a poor job of running a federal party, not because he was frantically trying to convert Canadians to Christianity.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by peter12

While the other is a very influential environmental leader and uses her belief to implore supporters to embark upon a religious belief to secure her policy agenda.

If the CBC had ran their piece on Day would anyone have cared to watch? Seems to me, the guy got in trouble because he did a poor job of running a federal party, not because he was frantically trying to convert Canadians to Christianity.

Well, let me be the first to say that I loved the Stockwell bashing! I honestly couldn't care less about the religious portions, but from a purely political point of view it was entertaining and kind of gave me warm fuzzy feelings.

The green party may or may not elect people in the next election, but that is a lot different than someone who is trying to put across a legitimate shot at being prime minister.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by FireFly

Are not both things an issue? Yes, the Nazi comment was bad. However, that she's the leader of a party invoking Christianity as a reason to govern in a certain way also is an issue, no? Wasn't that the whole problem with Stockwell Day?

They are both issues yes. But separate ones in my mind. Harper is wanting the apology for being compared to Hitler and the Nazis. It doesn't sound like he is wanting an apology for being called a bad Christian.

[peter12]

The point is, May said something totally inappropriate.

I wonder what Dion's reactions will be...

[Slava]

Originally Posted by peter12

Are you saying that Elizabeth May isn't serious about being Prime Minister?

I'm sure that she is....but I don't think that she can find enough votes/credible candidates to put her there.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by Burninator

They are both issues yes. But separate ones in my mind. Harper is wanting the apology for being compared to Hitler and the Nazis. It doesn't sound like he is wanting an apology for being called a bad Christian.

Well, I've heard he's actually a humanist, so that makes sense. And seperate issues, yes. However, should we create a new thread just to discuss May's other comments? I think it should be okay to talk about them here.

[Flame On]

Hmm it's funny because most seem to agree the comments were/are inappropriate. It seems like the issue is more because of a hypothetical view that if it was the Cons making an announcement like that, there'd be an even bigger out cry.
I think both sides feel there is a bias. I know CBC is supposed to have one, just as I feel when the Libs were in power they were roasted far more heavily than now (sometimes warrented of course).
I

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I guess I have a few problems with her statement.

First of all comparing environmental policy to the policy that plunged the world into one of the most destructive conflicts of all time, encouraged a sadistic leader to invade countries commit genocide, and murder hundreds of thousands of his own people is in my mind pretty indecent.

She's probably not equating the two from your point of view, she's doing it from hers. To her, the holocaust was (probably) a globally devastating event that could have been avoided. She also probably believes that Global Warming is a potentially globally devastating event in the making that can be avoided. She's paralleling the 'appeasement of the issue'... she's not saying a new Hitler will rise to slaughter climatologists.

You have to use a bit of imagination and alternate point-of-view's when considering an example made by someone who isn't you. When comparing things abstractly you can't say 'but Chamberlain is dead!', thats interpreting the comparison too literally.

Who's the Conservatives program appeasing, big Oil, industry, the people that are oppossed to Kyoto on various basis. Are these people to be compared to Hitler and the Nazi's?

Guess it depends on how you want to perceive it. Do you honestly think Elizabeth May said/believes the Conservatives are Hitler and the Nazis? I think its a stretch to really believe this... you'd have to want to believe it, in my opinion.

And the whole religon overtone of her statement. Again if Harper had said that even when he was in the opposition would have been rammed through with a spit and turned slowly over the fire of the Liberal's, the NDP and the Canadian Voters.

I hear ya... the only thing I'd suggest is that she made the comments in a church service... sometimes politicians at church services make statements that are a bit more 'preachy' than you'd hear outside of church. Politicians pander to the crowd at the moment. Its also important to understand that she was referencing author George Monbiot with her comments, they aren't directly attributed to her;

At a church service, Ms. May referenced comments made by journalist George Monbiot, long-time correspondent with the Guardian and author of the best-selling book Heat. Mr. Monbiot spoke as an invited guest at the Green Living Show in Toronto on Saturday at a session hosted by Canadian author Margaret Atwood. At this session, he spoke of what he sees as an axis of evil - world leaders who he believes are not taking real action to combat climate change, including US President George Bush, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Australian Prime Minister John Howard. Mr. Monbiot stated that in the eyes of history, these leaders would prove to be more culpable than Neville Chamberlain in his attempt to appease the Nazis.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by FireFly

Well, I've heard he's actually a humanist, so that makes sense. And seperate issues, yes. However, should we create a new thread just to discuss May's other comments? I think it should be okay to talk about them here.

This thread is fine for both. It just seemed that some people are thinking that people are getting up in arms about the religious quotes, when I think all the commotion is about the Nazi comparison. That's all.

I think the Nazi comment was in complete bad taste. And she should apologize for it. People throw Nazi and Hitler comparisons around all the time, and almost one hundred percent of the time they are out of line. Especially when they add the word "worse" to the mix.

But what does concern me more is her religious motivates. I am a very stanch believer that church and state be separate. While I agree that we should clean up the environment I don't agree that we should be doing it because of what what some book may or may not say.

[JimmytheT]

In almost any debate, making analogies to Hitler and/or Germany under Nazism, is a great way to lose any credibility in an argument.

The only things I can think of in the last century analgous to Hitler are Stalin, Pol Pot, Rwandan Genocide etc. Comparing a modern Canadian policy makers to decisions made regarding a brutal regime some 70 years ago is ridiculous.

[Agamemnon]

Was she comparing Harper's actions to Hitler's? Or to Chamberlain's appeasment of Hitler? Are those the same thing?

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by Burninator

This thread is fine for both. It just seemed that some people are thinking that people are getting up in arms about the religious quotes, when I think all the commotion is about the Nazi comparison. That's all.

I think the Nazi comment was in complete bad taste. And she should apologize for it. People throw Nazi and Hitler comparisons around all the time, and almost one hundred percent of the time they are out of line. Especially when they add the word "worse" to the mix.

But what does concern me more is her religious motivates. I am a very stanch believer that church and state be separate. While I agree that we should clean up the environment I don't agree that we should be doing it because of what what some book may or may not say.

Perhaps that's part of the problem. It's understandable that everyone gets up in arms about the Nazi comparison, but maybe what we find more disgusting is her religious views and the double standard that apparently exists for her in comparision with... oh, just about any Conservative MP.

And lots of books say we should clean up the environment... we shouldn't do it because of them either? Or it's just that particular book that bothers you?

[Cube Inmate]

Originally Posted by FireFly

I think her point is that unless we do more for the environment, we're condemning the human race to death, which would be slower and indiscriminate form of genocide, but genocide, nonetheless.

gen·o·cide [jen-uh-sahyd]
–noun the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.

By definition, genocide cannot be "indiscriminate." The human race does not qualify as a national, racial, political, or cultural group. It is such careless use of words that suppresses rational discussion and leads to nothing more than empty rhetoric.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by Cube Inmate

gen·o·cide [jen-uh-sahyd]
–noun the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.

By definition, genocide cannot be "indiscriminate." The human race does not qualify as a national, racial, political, or cultural group. It is such careless use of words that suppresses rational discussion and leads to nothing more than empty rhetoric.

Well, it would be national in that they're condemning Canadians to death. Does that count? That's the extermination of a national group, no?

[Cube Inmate]

Thanks for proving my point about empty rhetoric.

[moncton golden flames]

I was a suppoter of the Green Party, but after those religious statements, not anymore. Go Red!

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by FireFly

Perhaps that's part of the problem. It's understandable that everyone gets up in arms about the Nazi comparison, but maybe what we find more disgusting is her religious views and the double standard that apparently exists for her in comparision with... oh, just about any Conservative MP.

And lots of books say we should clean up the environment... we shouldn't do it because of them either? Or it's just that particular book that bothers you?

Well that is one reason I don't vote Conservative. At times their actions do seem motivated by religious thought. But I know you are talking about the media double standard, which is unfortunate. This could be a reason I'll stop voting Green. It'll depend on how this gets handled by them.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by Cube Inmate

Thanks for proving my point about empty rhetoric.

Well, I'm not the one who made the original comment, but since you're feeling the need to get technical, I'll use your own definition against you...

Originally Posted by Cube Inmate

gen·o·cide [jen-uh-sahyd]
–noun the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.

By definition, genocide cannot be "indiscriminate." The human race does not qualify as a national, racial, political, or cultural group. It is such careless use of words that suppresses rational discussion and leads to nothing more than empty rhetoric.

The Nazis didn't JUST kill Jews. They killed many people of many nationalities. According to your definition, that would not be considered a genocide either. It's just a massacre.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

I hear ya... the only thing I'd suggest is that she made the comments in a church service... sometimes politicians at church services make statements that are a bit more 'preachy' than you'd hear outside of church. Politicians pander to the crowd at the moment. Its also important to understand that she was referencing author George Monbiot with her comments, they aren't directly attributed to her;

2 things:

(a) The Nazi comment was George Monbiot's. The religion comments are all hers
(b) She's being truthful in her religious thoughts:

Liberal MP Glen Pearson, who invited May, an Anglican minister-in-training, to speak to his church after defeating her in the byelection in the London-North-Centre riding, likened the Green party leader to an Old Testament prophet at the conclusion of her speech: "(May) is one such prophet."

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by calculoso

2 things:

(a) The Nazi comment was George Monbiot's. The religion comments are all hers
(b) She's being truthful in her religious thoughts:

Ok, 1 thing... why is she being burned at the stake here for her Nazi comments? Seems to me more are upset about that than her religious comments.

And, again, she was in a church talking at a church service... I'm sure every political party's leader has moments of pandering to the crowd, depending on which it is. Do you think she'd be spewing all the God junk if she was adressing a Sanitation Union? University? Is she known for these kinds of comments and do they reflect her real political opinions?

How many here think she's a devout Christian ala George Bush? How many here think she was pandering to the crowd like any other politician?