didn't they give standing ovation to a literal nazi last time ?
this post was submitted on 16 Sep 2025
76 points (92.2% liked)
Canada
1663 readers
5 users here now
English
This is a community dedicated to Canada and Canadians!
Rules
- Posts must be relevant to Canada or Canadians
- No misinformation
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Français
Il s'agit d'une communauté dédiée au Canada et aux Canadiens !
Règles
- Les postes doivent être pertinentes pour le Canada ou les Canadiens
- Pas de désinformation
- Pas de contenu NSFW
- Pas de discours de haine, de sectarisme, etc.
Related Communities / Communautés associées
Community icon by CustomDesign on MYICONFINDER, licensed under CC BY-NC 3.0
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
They thought they were applauding a Ukrainian WW2 war veteran. He was that, but fought for the Nazis. They didn't know that. Many apologies were given out (as is tradition) and the person who invited the Nazi resigned.
Their competence and knowledge being shit is not the gotcha you think it is. Also at least some of them including PM met with Hunka before.
It seems like there are two things that could account for the situation.
One is that the government knowingly invited a Nazi to be celebrated in front of the Jewish president of Ukraine to mock and embarrass him.
The other is that Hunka never told people he was a Nazi and just said he fought for Ukraine. He seems to have been active in the community and even had an endowment fund set up at the University of Alberta, so maybe he was riding a wave of assumptions for a while.
I guess we could look at how Canada has acted toward Ukraine. That should tell us which of these is more likely.
Since the start of Russia’s full-scale invasion in February 2022, Canada has committed nearly $22 billion in multi-faceted assistance for Ukraine, including over $12.4 billion in direct financial support – the largest per capita financial contribution among G7 countries. source
Both are absurd nonsenses. First completely ignore that Ukraine does in fact celebrate SS Galizien division which Hunka was member. Second means Canadian Parliament and all its memebers have zero knowledge gathering ability, and as such is at best completely useless intitution.
They knowingly invited known nazi to celebrate him, read something that Canadian-Ukrainian professor Ivan Katchanovski wrote on the topic of neonazism in Ukraine and Canada and their ties.
I'm puzzled at your assumption that the Jewish president of Ukraine would be uncomfortable around open nazis
Lol. The idea that they hadn't thought to do even the most cursary verification of the guy they were bringing in to give a standing ovation to because he "fought Russia in World War 2" is so absurd that I can't believe anyone takes it seriously. They knew who he was.
If you didn't know and just heard the apology, you'd think the fault was retweeting a Russian hoax.
https://youtu.be/RHkFD4zKEOw
Fucking chodes
Is this fucking real? Wtf
I linked the video.
Thanks! Fucking unbelievable, well I guess it's the second time in recent history that a nazi gets applause in the house
Canadian government try not to make random shit about them challenge 1000% impossible
Canadian Parliament and standing ovations for fascists, name a better duo.
Standing ovation for yet another Nazi. I really hate living here.
smh, Standing ovation for a genocide apologist.
Do canadians have to get reminded that they're not american?
At this point the 51st state is more a part of the US than puerto rico.
I'm confused
Motion pushed by the conservative but (if I’m not mistaken) some Liberal vote for it to pass.
Edit: I’m mistaken
You're mistaken. It was just a statement against political violence that got a standing ovation. Shocking that politicians would applaud that notion. There was no voting on anything here.
eh, it wasn't just a statement against political violence. it also made some minor tribute to Charlie, and asked for sympathy for erikkka and his kids
not much, but more than just a statement on political violence (all of which I agreed with)
she could have left Kirk out of it. it would have been a stronger message. instead, it just comes across as gross
Thanks
Wow, even the Brits weren't nutty enough to do that, and that's saying something. Guess that 51st state is happening after all. Good luck out there.
Over my dead body
for a podcaster. oh, Canada.
Classic Kkkanada
that's gross.
MCGA just doesn't roll off of the tongue.
Twitter doesn't have space for nuance. The MP gave a speech about how being able to share diverse perspectives and opinions is important and a Canadian value. That's what got a standing ovation, not Charlie Kirk.
Incorrect. She praised Charlie Kirk as an "outspoken advocate for faith, family, and freedom".
A conservative defending "diverse perspectives" is the liberal (idealist) concept of free speech -- strong hypocrisy. I know little about Canada, but in the US, for example, the regime allows "free speech" for racism, misogyny, homophobia and transphobia; but anti-genocide protesters are brutally repressed by the police. Students are expelled; diplomas are canceled; immigrants (including legal) are deported. Assange was detained for over a decade and almost died in prision. Edward Snowden is in political exile. The Black Panthers were massacred. McCarthyism. Federal funding is cut from universities that allow political dissent.
The regime allows speech that does not destabilize the regime. The US regime allowed Charlie Kirk to spread his bile because that bile posed not threat to the ruling class.
Diverse perspectives doesn't include spreading hate like kirk did
Yes, yes it does. That's why it's so hard to be the good guys.
No, it goes against society, it doesn't, and it can't be given equal weight to hate
That's an absolutist position. It only works if there's a singular definition of hate that is universally accepted.
If you aren't careful with how this is addressed, you end up with people being arrested for calling someone a muppet.
The response to hate cannot be to muzzle it, but to call it out and make sure its impact is understood.
Once you open the door to muzzling people, the next guy in charge can abuse the shit out of that. A measured, thoughtful approach has to be the answer.
In a similar vein to what is considered "reasonable" in courts, is how it needs to be done yes it can be abused, it already is. If someone said we need to kill all russians, they are all bad and I want everyone to know how they are the cause of all bad things, should we allow that person to continue? We can call them out, and we do, but then they have followers who will inevitably start attacking russians, or perceived russians. That's why it can't be accepted.
I don't disagree that it can't be accepted if they are inciting violence, that's already a different classification of speech. If he or anyone else ever openly advocated for violence against anyone they should be shut down and brought up on charges.
And the fun part is, people like kirk lead people to these views points, like stand by and stand down. You need to be able to read between the lines. Kirk talking about abortion being like the Holocaust will incite some of his listeners to action, which starts small with protests and grows into bombing abortion clinics
That's a leap. If you start banning speech based on what might happen if it's interpreted a certain way by extremists, the game is lost.
It's not a leap, it's exactly what happens, it's why kirk was shot, it's stochastic terrorism.
Not the first time their "diverse perspecitives" that are important Canadian values and got a standing ovation include fascism, racism etc.
then she should have left Kirk out of it
I mean I just think this is a naive way to look at it. That speech wasn't removed from Kirk. It was clearly about him. It was clearly about lionizing him. It was clearly about making a martyr of him. It was clearly about celebrating him. Remove him and that speech isn't given. You can't take out the motive and context of the speech and pretend it's something entirely different.
remove hi(s assassination), and that speech isn't given
Yeah man are you not understanding that I'm talking about him in the context being dead? That's the whole point. It's hard to martyr someone who's alive, though God knows conservatives try that enough.