Canada and the Nazi Thing

Canada’s parliament is currently embroiled in a rather weird partisan sex scandal that makes all parties look like moral disasters (listen to Harper quote “Canadian values” now).  While that has attracted all the attention of the media, a small news item emerged from RT News that managed to attract some small attention from the Canadian Press.

In a short item noted by the National Post, Canada’s representative at the Third Committee (1) of the UN General Assembly voted “No” for a policy statement with the voting title “Combatting glorification of Nazism, neo-nazism and other practices that contribute to fuelling contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance.”

According to the Post, “Canada objected because the resolution has a “narrow focus” and it draws on the controversial declarations of the 2009 World Conference Against Racism in Durban, South Africa, which Canada regards as anti-Semitic.”  Well, no not really, as the focus of the statement is rather broad, and the declarations of the 2009 Durban Conference are not anti-Semitic and cover much territory.

The Post article continues with the Canadian spokesperson saying the resolution  “regrettably includes references which are counterproductive to this goal, including by seeking to limit freedom of expression, assembly and opinion.”  If the reader cares to read the resolution, it most certainly does not “limit freedom of expression, assembly and opinion.”  Or is Canada becoming proud of its new fascistic warrior outlook in foreign policy?

The main irony from this article was the vote count.  115 states voted for the resolution, 3 opposed it, and 55 abstained.  Given Canada’s unqualified support of Israeli actions against Palestinians, the full irony is that Israel voted “yes” while Canada voted “no” along with the Ukraine and the U.S. (2)   It raises the question as to what is really going on with Canadian foreign/domestic policy – or are the Harper Conservatives just being their typical neoconservative knee-jerk uncritical unanalytical selves?   It is difficult to tell.

The current resolution refers to many previous UN resolutions and documents, the Nuremberg trials, and states in part:

Alarmed,  in  this  regard,  at  the  spread  in  many  parts  of  the  world  of  various extremist  political  parties,  movements  and  groups,  including  neo-Nazis  and skinhead groups, as well as similar extremist ideological movements….

Reaffirms  the relevant provisions of the Durban  Declaration and  of the outcome document of the Durban Review Conference, in which States condemned.  the  persistence  and resurgence of neo-Nazism, neo-Fascism  and violent  nationalist ideologies based on racial  and national  prejudice and  stated that  those phenomena could never be justified in any instance or in any circumstances;

Expresses deep concern about the glorification, in any form, of the Nazi movement,  neo-Nazism  and  former  members  of  the  Waffen  SS  organization, including by erecting monuments and memorials and holding public demonstrations in  the  name  of  the glorification  of  the  Nazi  past,  the  Nazi  movement  and neo-Nazism,  as  well  as  by  declaring  or  attempting  to  declare  such  members  and those  who  fought  against  the  anti-Hitler coalition  and  collaborated  with  the  Nazi movement participants in national liberation movements…

So Canada is voting “no” to protect its neo-Nazi self?  Or to protect the neo-Nazis in the Ukraine?  To pretend it thinks independently of Israel?  To indicate it is still a willing follower of the U.S.?  All of the above?

Because this vote refers to the Durban conference frequently, it might be best to look there.

Indigenous rights are mentioned frequently throughout the Durban statement.  This presents a triple entendre for Canada.  Its own record on indigenous rights is terrible.  Its support of Israel denies the indigenous rights of the Palestinians.  Its anti-Russian rhetoric denies the indigenous rights of the former Russian states of Donetsk and Luhansk.

Another interesting aspect of the Durban document are its statements about globalization.   The negative effects could include “poverty, underdevelopment, marginalization, social exclusion, cultural homogenization and economic disparities which may occur along racial lines.”   Canada’s recent acquisition to ‘free’ trade agreements with China and the EU are anything but free, except for the corporations to rule within their own set of ‘laws’ while ignoring domestic laws – including the indigenous rights of Canada’s First Nations.  I find it interesting how all these become entangled with one another.

As for Israel, the Durban document states, “We recall that the Holocaust must never be forgotten….” as well as a single statement on Palestine under the “Indigenous people” section:

We are concerned about the plight of the Palestinian people under foreign occupation. We recognize the inalienable right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and to the establishment of an independent State and we recognize the right to security for all States in the region, including Israel, and call upon all States to support the peace process and bring it to an early conclusion;

The document also includes statements about race, religion, women’s and children’s rights, xenophobia, discrimination, education and other elements of a just and fair society, hardly a “narrow focus.”

So what is Canada up to?  Probably no good.   Not denying fascism – in contradiction of its usual unqualified support of Israel;  protesting against the recognition of the negative effects of globalization, in particular because of the “indigenous” components and its ramifications domestically and for Israel;  attempting another poke in the eye for Putin (Russia voted “yes” for the document) while trying to be the tough guy on the block for the Ukrainian neo-Nazis.

Canada is trying to juggle multiple conflicting and entangled ideas.  This document never made it to mainstream media  – the Post only referenced it because RT News had picked it up and as the neo-cons main media support, was angling for anti-Putin comments on the blog.  That would indicate the willingness of Canada’s mainstream media to avoid critical thinking and analysis of Canada’s entangled and bizarre foreign/domestic policies on multiple issues. As usual for the ‘new’ Canada, command and control affects the news.

Now as I was saying about sex between MPs….

Jim Miles lives in British Columbia.


(1) The General Assembly allocates to the Third Committee, agenda items relating to a range of social, humanitarian affairs and human rights issues that affect people all over the world.

(2) The 55 abstentions were mostly EU/NATO countries, an interesting avoidance of concerns about their own rising right wing movements and their relationships with Russia vis a vis the Ukraine.

This essay originally appeared in the Palestine Chronicle.

More articles by:
Weekend Edition
February 21, 2020
Friday - Sunday
Anthony DiMaggio
Election Con 2020: Exposing Trump’s Deception on the Opioid Epidemic
Joshua Frank
Bloomberg is a Climate Change Con Man
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Billion Dollar Babies
Paul Street
More Real-Time Reflections from Your Friendly South Loop Marxist
Jonathan Latham
Extensive Chemical Safety Fraud Uncovered at German Testing Laboratory
Ramzy Baroud
‘The Donald Trump I know’: Abbas’ UN Speech and the Breakdown of Palestinian Politics
Martha Rosenberg
A Trump Sentence Commutation Attorneys Generals Liked
Ted Rall
Bernie Should Own the Socialist Label
Louis Proyect
Encountering Malcolm X
Kathleen Wallace
The Debate Question That Really Mattered
Jonathan Cook
UN List of Firms Aiding Israel’s Settlements was Dead on Arrival
George Wuerthner
‘Extremists,’ Not Collaborators, Have Kept Wilderness Whole
Colin Todhunter
Apocalypse Now! Insects, Pesticide and a Public Health Crisis  
Stephen Reyna
A Paradoxical Colonel: He Doesn’t Know What He is Talking About, Because He Knows What He is Talking About.
Evaggelos Vallianatos
A New Solar Power Deal From California
Richard Moser
One Winning Way to Build the Peace Movement and One Losing Way
Laiken Jordahl
Trump’s Wall is Destroying the Environment We Worked to Protect
Walden Bello
Duterte Does the Right Thing for a Change
Jefferson Morley
On JFK, Tulsi Gabbard Keeps Very Respectable Company
Vijay Prashad
Standing Up for Left Literature: In India, It Can Cost You Your Life
Gary Leupp
Bloomberg Versus Bernie: The Upcoming Battle?
Richard Klin
Loss Leaders
Gaither Stewart
Roma: How Romans Differ From Europeans
Kerron Ó Luain
The Soviet Century
Mike Garrity
We Can Fireproof Homes But Not Forests
Fred Baumgarten
Gaslighting Bernie and His Supporters
Joseph Essertier
Our First Amendment or Our Empire, But Not Both
Peter Linebaugh
A Story for the Anthropocene
Danny Sjursen
Where Have You Gone Smedley Butler?
Dave Lindorff
What’s a Social Democratic Political Program Really Mean?
Jill Richardson
A Broken Promise to Teachers and Nonprofit Workers
Binoy Kampmark
“Leave Our Bloke Alone”: A Little Mission for Julian Assange
Wade Sikorski
Oil or Food? Notes From a Farmer Who Doesn’t Think Pipelines are Worth It
Christopher Brauchli
The Politics of Vengeance
Hilary Moore – James Tracy
No Fascist USA! Lessons From a History of Anti-Klan Organizing
Linn Washington Jr.
Ridiculing MLK’s Historic Garden State ‘Firsts’
L. Michael Hager
Evaluating the Democratic Candidates: the Importance of Integrity
Jim Goodman
Bloomberg Won’t, as They Say, Play Well in Peoria, But Then Neither Should Trump
Olivia Alperstein
We Need to Treat Nuclear War Like the Emergency It Is
Eleanor Eagan
As the Primary Race Heats Up, Candidates Forget Principled Campaign Finance Stands
Jesse Jackson
Kerner Report Set Standard for What a Serious Presidential Candidate Should Champion
Home Sweet Home: District Campaign Financing
Kollibri terre Sonnenblume
The Latest BLM Hoodwinkery: “Fuel Breaks” in the Great Basin
Wendell Griffen
Grace and Gullibility
Cesar Chelala
Brazil’s Bolsonaro Says No to Democracy