| HN Mirror

flycaliguy 1743 days ago

Regarding seals, you are stepping into a debate which includes aboriginal rights. There is nothing clear cut about that one.

Now that you bring it up, the residential schools were pretty progressive too: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/24/world/canada/indigenous-c...

Last one closed in 1996.

These two examples are effectively cherry-picking two data points to make an extremely BROAD argument that "Canada is not Progressive".

Canada provided (and still provides) shelter for nazi war criminals (e.g. Helmut Oberlander).

refurb 1743 days ago

Wow, that's a pretty lazy and misleading description of the situation.

He was stripped of citizenship and it was instated 3 times by the Canadian court system. Why? "2013 Supreme Court ruling that guilt by association is not sufficient grounds to be considered a war criminal."

What you called "sheltering nazi war criminals" I would call due process. You know, not actually punishing people unless they've been fairly judged as guilty according to the law.

He's not the only one. I read about him recently that's why I was able to remember his name. There were/are others like him.

Even more, in Canada there're memorials dedicated to nazi war criminals, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Shukhevych

mafuy 1743 days ago

I don't know much about this topic, but: Please do not use that guy as an example in your earlier post if he is not a good example. It made it sound to me as if your goal is to convince, not to lead others to truth. Instead, just point to your strongest point (the memorials, I believe).

Regarding the memorials, I could not find this in the link. Could you point me at it?

https://www.rcinet.ca/en/2018/08/13/shukhevych-monument-cana...

The article you link does not mention any memorials in Canada for this person - nor did they ever even live in Canada. He was shot by the Soviet security agents in 1950 in Ukraine while fighting for Ukrainian independence. ...and then his entire family was imprisoned to set an example to others.

There is also no evidence that this person committed any war crime at all. The notes in the link document that his military division committed war crimes.

Guilt by association? Collective punishment? Really?

He joined the nazi forces, infamous Schutzstaffel (SS) during WW2. He participated in killing tens of thousands of Jews (and Russians, but that doesn't count in the western world anymore).

He isn't guilty by association - he was a leader of death squadron and he is directly responsible for extermination of tens of thousands of non combatants.

These are all your guesses. The article doesn't say literally anything about him killing anyone or ordering anyone to be killed.

kingofpandora 1743 days ago

Such a monument exists: https://www.theprogressreport.ca/monuments_to_nazi_collabora...

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsion_of_the_Acadians

Wondering if they gave the same due process to Acadians that were savagely deported from their homes? [0]

refurb 1743 days ago

Canada didn’t exist 270 years ago so this isn’t relevant.

Forgot it materialized out of thin air one morning.

Same crown as today was in charge back then. Same head of state.

That's ridiculous.

This is a classic "whataboutism" argument.

The Acadians were deported literally hundreds of years before.

Maybe we should demand Mongolia apologize for Genghis Khan as well?

HWR_14 1743 days ago

This is why the US makes you sign forms promising you are and were not a Nazi in Germany during the 30s/40s and were never affiliated with various terrorist groups as as part of the customs paperwork. It's unclear what US laws could apply to all those members, but lying on that form is a clear and serious felony.

fmajid 1743 days ago

When I went through my US naturalization process, I was surprised to note that while they still ask whether you were a Communist or a member of a terrorist organization, they no longer explicitly ask if you were ever a Nazi. Then again, this was under Trump.

HWR_14 1743 days ago

I mean, the question was specific to the German WWII Nazi party. The youngest person who could check yes is probably 80 if they were a 6 year old in their first year of school right before Germany surrendered, and 90 if they could make an adult decision.

Seems slightly early for it to go away, but the question did have a finite lifetime.

ivalm 1743 days ago

To be fair, reading wikipedia it really does seem that they are trying to deport him: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helmut_Oberlander

Yes, after 26 years of attempts to postpone this.

MattGaiser 1743 days ago

It seems like the government tried, but was limited by process. Revoking citizenship is a touchy and complicated subject up here.

Still - one data point does not prove a trend.

petre 1743 days ago

Except they're not trying hard enough.

[0] https://www.foxnews.com/world/omar-khadr-ex-gitmo-detainee-w...

They also paid 8 million dollars and apologized to a known terrorist who brutally murdered an American soldier in Afghanistan. [0]

I wish I was making this up.

sofixa 1743 days ago

This bullshit again... He was illegally detained without due process, tortured and confessed to killing an enemy soldier (murder implies civilian circumstances, it was a fight with US soldiers where he was injured and fought back). He recants his confession, and even if it's true, not getting tortured is a human right. (Not getting your country invaded also, but that's a whole different matter). And he was 15 at the time. A kid getting tortured for fighting in a war that was brought to him ( he was taken to Afghanistan by his father, and the US army came to fight them)? What the fuck are you on to consider that appropriate?

I'm glad he sued and won compensation.

> murder implies civilian circumstances

We can play on words, that won't bring back his victims.

> Not getting your country invaded also, but that's a whole different matter

He was rather quick to claim Canada was "his" country despite having brutally murdered an allied soldier. Also, he was fighting "his" country pretty hard until it became convenient not to.

sofixa 1743 days ago

> We can play on words, that won't bring back his victims

I really disagree with calling a soldier on a mission, an agressive overseas mission, getting killed in action "a victim". A casualty, yes. If anyone's a victim, it's the innocent civilians getting blown up by both sides in a conflict they didn't ask for, not the combattants on either side.

> He was rather quick to claim Canada was "his" country despite having brutally murdered an allied soldier. Also, he was fighting "his" country pretty hard until it became convenient not to.

He says he did so to be extradited there so that he actually has some human rights and dignity restored, because, remember, he was tortured for actions he did when he was 15. He's still technically a war criminal if he did indeed kill the US soldier (not being a regular soldier in uniform), but the US had no jurisdiction over him, illegally detained and tortured him for an alleged crime he committed while being a minor.

Anyone involved with this on the US side should rot for life in The Hague ( of course that would never happen).

> an agressive overseas mission

A NATO operation. A NATO operation "his country" was very much involved in (and where citizens of "his country" paid the highest price).

Keep in mind he could have surrendered at any time.

> He's still technically a war criminal

Indeed.