767
Oopsy daisies (lemmy.world)
submitted 1 year ago by Squorlple@lemmy.world to c/memes@lemmy.ml
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] spankinspinach@sh.itjust.works 64 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Canadian here. Minor correction: he didn't speak, but he was invited as a Ukrainian "hero" by the speaker of the house (a member of the sitting elected party). He was applauded - twice - for his "service". Including by Ukrainian president zelensky.

The only 'defense' I can offer is that our prime minister had no input on the matter, and Hunka's Nazi service came out after the fact. Canada does not support fascism or Nazism...

But it's a bad look, no matter how you cut it...

[-] EmpathicVagrant@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago

Having no input on a Nazi guest in your house is the opposite of a good thing. Silence is complicity.

[-] spankinspinach@sh.itjust.works 22 points 1 year ago

I agree that silence is complicity, but that only applies if you know there's something worth being silent about, no?

In this case, the PM had no input because the speaker doesn't have to ask permission to invite people from his constituency. So it falls to the speaker to validate his invitees. As such, PM has no input, but also no more fault than anyone else told to clap for the "Ukrainian hero" in this scenario... Is my understanding

[-] tryptaminev@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago

so is the Canadian House and PM office that incompetent that noone knows how WWII went?

It is a disgrace for the House and the PM ehose office did not care to inform themselves, when clearly doing something with a foreign policy context.

[-] SilentStorms@lemmy.ca 10 points 1 year ago

That's not how our parliament works. The amount of people calling for an end to the speaker's independence is concerning.

The speaker's job is to uphold decorum of parliament. This one spectacularly failed to do that, and resigned as he should. That doesn't mean we should make it a partisan position.

[-] tryptaminev@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago

I never talked about parisan positions or whatever. I expect both the house and the presidents office to have staff looking into some more details about things and raising the issue with the respective position, if it could be in violation of values of the respective institution or the country in general.

That does not involve any change of authority and i struggle to imagine that there weren't staff people raising these issues beforehand. So i think it to be more plausible that their voice was ignored by the speaker and president, or the information was deliberately not passed on to them.

Either reason, lack of background check, ignorance by the political leaders or holes in the communications chain, speak of general problems in the organization that need to be adressed. These issues are specific to organizations and it doesnt matter whether it is a political party, a governmental institution, private business or NGO.

[-] sailingbythelee@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Canada doesn't have a president. The Speaker of the House is the top official when it comes to running Parliament. He definitely fucked up, but it was his fuck-up and he resigned because of it. I don't think it means we have to re-write the rules for how Canada's Parliament operates. I mean, it's not like we actually elected a Nazi, unlike some countries.

[-] tryptaminev@feddit.de 1 points 1 year ago

I'm sorry. i meant the premiers office. And again nowhere did i propose that they need to change anything, except for running their staff better.

[-] sailingbythelee@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

You certainly did unknowingly imply that changes need to be made when you said that the "president's" staff should be vetting the Speaker's decisions. However, I understand that you aren't familiar with how Canada's Parliament is structured. To be clear, it is not currently the Prime Minister's prerogative or job to vet those whom the Speaker invites to speak in Parliament.

[-] Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de 12 points 1 year ago

"Sir we invited an Ukranian war hero, is that ok?"

What was he supposed to do, order a quick background check on that old dude before applauding?

[-] spankinspinach@sh.itjust.works 11 points 1 year ago

I can't tell if this is tongue in cheek, but the opposition is staying that this is exactly what should have happened before allowing the Nazi entry.

My read on this situation is that it all seems obvious after the fact, but that's cuz now we know. I believe the vetting process is being reviewed because of this event. Definitely a gaffe on the part of the speaker, if this info is truly so readily accessible

[-] FrostyCaveman@lemm.ee -5 points 1 year ago

Yes probably they should’ve thought of that beforehand. It’s literally politicians’ jobs.. lazy twats

[-] FunderPants@lemmy.ca 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

No, that's not it, in Canadian Parliament it is the speaker of the house who has ths sole responsibility for both inviting guests to the gallery and for recognizing them in the official remarks. Other members of the house and government weren't even given notice the guy would be there. The speakers office arranges guest vetting, but it is only a security vetting not a political one. That is the PPS and RCMP decide if the 98 year old, legal Canadian immigrant is likely to put the house and guesses physical danger, they don't consider at all if the guest will cause a political headache.

So the fallout is that the speaker (who in fact was solely responsible for what happened) has resigned, and the PM has offerd an official apology on behalf of all Canadians. There could be more political fallout domestically, as the opposition parties are misleading Canadians and stoking ignorance of our procedures to paint the government as responsible , which I emphasize again, they were not.

[-] TheBat@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

Hunka's Nazi service came out after the fact.

He fought Russians in WW2. Wonder which army he belonged to...

[-] Valmond@lemmy.mindoki.com 8 points 1 year ago

Could have been Poland, Romania etc I guess. But well it wasn't.

[-] Comment105@lemm.ee 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

No, the Russians were the good guys in WWII, everyone who fought them were bad and Nazis or Nazi-adjacent. This is basic Hexbear 101.

The Russians were just spreading worker solidarity.

[-] PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago

They were so nice they even helped with repopulating all the countries they helped liberate!

[-] OutlierBlue@lemmy.ca -1 points 1 year ago

No, the Russians were the good guys in WWII,

The Russians were definitely not the good guys in WW2. They happened to end up fighting the same guys the Allies were, but that's it.

[-] SMT42@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

that comment is 100% heavy sarcasm

[-] cows_are_underrated@feddit.de -2 points 1 year ago

The Russians weren't exactly the food guys. They helped with the invasion of Poland and split it with the Nazis. After Hitler marched into Russia they turned into "the good guys" but weren't from the beginning.

[-] OutlierBlue@lemmy.ca -3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

They didn't turn into any kind of "good guy". They took all of eastern Europe from the Nazis and kept it for themselves, ruling it just as brutally until the dissolution of the USSR. They were entirely out for themselves and didn't do anything for justice or the good of the conquered nations.

[-] PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmy.ml -5 points 1 year ago

The only ‘defense’ I can offer is that our prime minister had no input on the matter, and Hunka’s Nazi service came out after the fact.

Hunka granddaughter posted that he met Zelensky and Trudeau before.

this post was submitted on 28 Sep 2023
767 points (96.7% liked)

Memes

45902 readers
1742 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS