He also run paramilitaries nor was Germany a functional democracy in a modern sense of the word precisely because it allowed political violence in its system.
What If Faith Goldy Became Mayor?
- Thread starter glamphotographer
- Start date
He got elected in a legit election by people who thought it was a good idea to have him be president....
Firstly, the President was Paul von Hindenburg and Hitler became the Chancellor. Secondly, an election does not make democracy. In a democratic society, Hitler would have never been able to run in any election after what happened in 1923. He would be doing 20 years to life behind the bars and then deported back to Austria. Unfortunately, the German "democracy" was completely corrupted by competing interests, low level warfare on the streets of its cities and the economic devastation. In other words, a bad example to test one's commitment to freedom a speech and democracy. There's a case for support of Hitler's right to self expression in the pre 1923 Bavaria. There's zero possibility for extending the same support after he left the Landsberg prison.
How is that any different from Trump being allowed, despite hiding his taxes, committing fraud at Trump U and with his father, admitting grabbing women by the pussy and his repeated racist comments?
And he was still democratically elected, just like Hitler.
JC, it's difficult for even you to argue that the Weimar Republic wasn't a democracy when it held regular, free elections for 15 years. Hitler went to prison for a year or so after the 1923 Putsch. The fact that you think he should have been sent to prison for longer doesn't mean that the Weimar Rep was not a democracy. It just means Hitler wasn't jailed for as long as you would want.
Here you go. Wiki article on the 1932 German general election. It makes the point that the Nazis actually lost a large % of seats compared to the previous election.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_federal_election,_November_1932
Wrong. The actual page was quoted. Nowhere does it say they are required to give every political candidate all the ad spots they want. They are just required to give some time. And that time does not need to specifically be ads as the CRTC specifically includes campaign news coverage so they will be fine simply for covering that she disrupted a debate.
"Broadcasters in Canada are expected to cover elections, and they must give all candidates, parties and issues equitable treatment. Equitable doesn’t mean equal – it means that all candidates and parties get some air time to share their ideas on issues with the public. Equitable treatment applies to the following types of election coverage:"
p.s. I'd be willing to bet Bell has a pretty big team of lawyers working for them and the decision to reject her ads would have gone through them.
But if you want to vote for a person who's campaign is primarily xenophobia then go ahead.
Thanks, I don't need wiki articles. I received proper education in European history. The main reason Hitler received a light sentence and was released early was because the Weimar "democracy" was seen as a temporary condition, a plaything for the upper classes.
Right, but they refuse to give Goldy ANY airtime, and thats not very democratic.
If you're gonna shut out candidates because they're extremists or you dont like their message, where do we start drawing the line??
What if people object to communist party getting ads on the air and candidates allowed to enter debates?? I despise communism almost as much as nazism, so where do we start drawing the line after banning communists??
What you Lefties have to learn is in a true democracy everyone gets a voice. That means even the most extreme right- or left-wingers get a voice
The Commies are just a stale joke at this point in time. And nothing they do infringes core Canadian values like multi culturalism. The last time a Commie advocated violent overthrow of the government in this country was back in the 1930's probably.
I don't see violent street guys like antifa or anarchists asking to run ads - not that they would be interested. They would seem to be the true equivalents of the neo Nazis these days.
Not in Canada.
Nazis are subject to hate speech laws, as is everyone else in this country.
Would you also argue that radical Islamics should have the same platform as your gal?
She has never been arrested for hate speech law. Therefore she is innocent until proven guilty
Yes absolutely!! That way we can keep track of who the extremists are, and the government can also check voting records to see which "moderate" muslims living in Canada voted for them, and start keeping them under police surveillance
Incorrect. They have reported on Goldy so she's gotten air time. That meets the requirements the CRTC gives.
p.s. If she was an actual candidate rather than one of the 33 also-rans it might be a different story but thankfully most Torontonians reject her platform based pretty exclusively on xenophobia.
Despite their obvious failure at governance, communists don't go around pushing racism or other things that violate the Charter.
So you think Bell should be forced to run ads from radical islamist candidates? You also seem to suggest that the police should track anyone who votes for Faith.
I'm pretty sure you don't actually believe either statement.
No, reporting on Goldy is not the same as giving her an ad on the airwaves (which BELL has denied her)
I would love for them to do that. That way we know who they are and RCMP/CSIS can start surveillance on them
If Faith has broken hate-crime laws, then why hasnt she been arrested yet??
But if given a chance at governance I'm sure they'd like to take a stab at our other core value, which is capitalism
Of course it's not but the CRTC regulations clearly say that it is included in election coverage. She's a nobody candidate and deserves nobody coverage.
I must have missed where they included capitalism as one of our fundamental Charter rights.
