University bans Pro-life groups, oh Canada, we stand on guard for thee

Then you define the Holocaust – and do it without being a Holocaust denier yourself.

Banning any political party is the first step on the road to Nazism.

The organized effort by the Nazi government and her allies to commit acts of genocide.

Banning any political party is the first step on the road to Nazism.

I believe you mean authoritarianism, not specifically Nazism. You should refrain from using Nazism, it is too strong of a charge to throw around as carelessly as you do. Do not forget that some of us have had family who have suffered at the hands of the Nazis and so they may take such an attack quite personally (unless of course, it is your intention to make a personal insult).

In any case, I personally do not believe that a citizen should have the right support or create the Nazi party. I consider it an act of great injustice to allow this to happen. To argue that this leads to authoritarian government is simply unfounded.

Authoritarian governments also argue that a citizen should not have the right to support opposition parties. Who’s the next party to be banned after the Nazis? They’re offensive and evil, but after that who defines what’s offensive and evil?

It is anything but “opposition parties” which are being targeted. It is specifically the Nazi party which is being targeted, for its historical atrocities. Canada works quite successfully on a multi-party system, and I regrettably haven’t seen a move to ban the NDP (a firmly rooted opposition party which rarely acquires provincial power, and has never gained federal power).

Canada does not have an authoritarian government, and remains so while keeping the Nazi party banned. Thus to argue that banning the Nazi ends in an authoritarian government is simply dismissed by the example of our nation.

Canada does not have an authoritarian government? Then explain the “Human Rights Commissions” that stifle any speech criticizing Islam or homosexuality.

This is certainly news to me, and my fellow Canadians.

What you are witnessing is the failure of “hate crimes” and not so much the Human rights commission, which is simply enforcing and investigating such crimes. Though there is of course problems with the commission itself.

This hardly makes Canada an authoritarian government.

So you deny that the organized effort by the **Japanese **government and her allies to commit acts of genocide – killing eleven million innocent Chinese in the process – qualifies to be included in the Holocaust?

There is precious little difference between Nazism and authoritarianism. And what difference there is hinges around demonizing a group of people – Jews, Catholics, or members of political parties.

When you start denying rights because you don’t like them, you are already an authoritarian in your heart.

What are you afraid of – do you think the people are so stupid as to be taken in by Nazism?

I do.

There is precious little difference between Nazism and authoritarianism. And what difference there is hinges around demonizing a group of people – Jews, Catholics, or members of political parties.

You clearly misunderstand Nazism, it is a specific idealogy which contains strong authoritarian principles.

Do you still fail to realize why using the charge of Nazism is to be avoided? Both my Ukrainian grandparents (and most of their siblings) were taken as slave labour by the Nazis, and my great uncle survived a concentration camp. Most of my Polish family was killed, and my grandparents fought in underground Poland, and with Polish army abroad. This is why I advise you not to throw around “nazism” so loosely, even merely implying that I support Nazistic principles, is extremely offensive to myself, I grew up with the horror stories.

When you start denying rights because you don’t like them, you are already an authoritarian in your heart.

I should hope no one likes them. It is society as a whole, Canadian society, which has decided to ban this party, through our democratically elected representatives. It is not merely myself.

If striving for justice makes me an authoritarian, so be it, but I strongly disagree with you.

What are you afraid of – do you think the people are so stupid as to be taken in by Nazism?

Yes.

Then you are a Holocaust denier. Go directly to jail. Do not pass GO, do not collect $200.

It is an authortarian mixture of socialism and narionalism.

I know a great deal about Nazism – enough to know that it started as you start, with the idea that certain people are inferior and should be suppressed, that certain ideas should be suppressed.

It is the acts of these democratically elected representatives in limiting democracy that chills the soul.

And suppose I made it against the law to disagree with me?

Vern: define holocaust
Freshman: Holocaust = x
Vern: Is “Y” included in the holocaust?
Freshman: No Holocaust = x, and x alone.
Vern: Then you deny the Holocaust.

That’s some stunning logic.

It is an authoritarian mixture of socialism and narionalism.

Your off to a good start.

I know a great deal about Nazism

Then you would realize that Nazism is a specific government, many other government fit under the umbrella of authoritarianism. You should not use nazism in replace of authoritarianism, not only is it less accurate, but it can be highly offensive.

– enough to know that it started as you start, with the idea that certain people are inferior and should be suppressed, that certain ideas should be suppressed.

Certain people are inferior? I said no such thing.

and yes, certain ideas should be suppressed, specially Nazism.

It is the acts of these democratically elected representatives in limiting democracy that chills the soul.

Yes, banning one of the most violent parties ever conceived is chilling. … That’s perfectly understandable.

And suppose I made it against the law to disagree with me?

It is not as simple as that, this is a specific case, demanding specific attention.

Government is ordained by God to carry out justice, I can see no reason as to why banning specifically the Nazi party would be considered unjust, when in reality it is an act of justice.

Perhaps Americans have become lost in their democratic “ideals” as to the true purpose of government and it’s source of authority.

It’s a stunning truth – you want to limit the Holocaust only to caucasians.:wink:

Other people, killed the same way, in the same war, for the same racial reasons are not admitted – not white enough!:eek:

Face it, you are a Holocaust Denier!

And we wouldn’t want to offend anyone by telling them the truth, now would we?:rolleyes:

If other people aren’t inferior to you, what is your justification from outlawing parties that you abhor? Are you not saying that you are smart, and your fellow Canadians are stupid – unable to see Nazism for what it is?

Because it’s their technique – ban the opposition.

Actually, it is that simple – by banning parties you don’t like, you are using a Nazi tactic.

Right – and when another party obnoxious to you springs up, will you ban them, too? And the next party and the next?

I never definied the Holocaust as only targetting Caucasians, that’s you. Indeed the distinction of “Caucasians” irrelevant to the Nazis, they had their own system of racial profiling.

You are confusing Holocaust (the specific organized genocide of various peoples by the Nazis and her allies) with genocide.

If we want to discuss other genocides, we can, but they were not part of the Holocaust which refers to a specific historical case.

And we wouldn’t want to offend anyone by telling them the truth, now would we?:rolleyes:

Listen here punk, I tried to be nice my first two posts, but you want to continue to be an *******. My sweet grandmother, was only 13 when the Nazis took her away at gunpoint, and ripped her apart from my family, she was considered to be good for nothing but a lifetime of enslavement, my grandfather was 15, and from a different village.

My other Grandfather was 17, and was headed to medical school, before tanks rolled into his village. Soldiers burst into his home, and took away much of his family, we don’t know what happened to them.

I won’t even get into what the Soviets did to my family.

My family lived the holocaust, how ****ing dare you accuse me of being a Nazi. Maybe if you didn’t have **** for brains, you’d realize that Authortarianism and Nazism are two completelfy different concepts.

If other people aren’t inferior to you, what is your justification from outlawing parties that you abhor? Are you not saying that you are smart, and your fellow Canadians are stupid – unable to see Nazism for what it is?

The atrocities that they have willing associated themselves with. Anyone who stands up for the filth that these men did, deserve to be thrown in jail. That is sweet justice.

Because it’s their technique – ban the opposition.

You really can’t think can you? That’s authoritarianism not Nazism, your sensationalist tactic of labeling your opposition as Nazis is both daringly bold and stupid.

Perhaps if you actually had your sweet grandmother cry as she retold her story to you, you’d think twice about labelling someone as a Nazi, or even implying it.

Actually, it is that simple – by banning parties you don’t like, you are using a Nazi tactic.

How ****ing incosiderate of you.

Right – and when another party obnoxious to you springs up, will you ban them, too? And the next party and the next?

Depends, can the meet the filth of the Nazi, an army of pure evil and hate.

**** this, I’m out.

Okay lets get back to the topic at hand. If someone wants to debate the merits of free speech then they can start their own thread.

Universities are banning pro life groups because the pro life message rattles the consciences of those who want abortion.

GENERAL WARNING

This thread is off topic. Please return to the discussing of the topic of universities recently banned pro-life groups.

If the thread does not return to the topic of the original post, it will be closed.

It seems to me that with promiscuous sex so rampant these days that abortion fits into this lifestyle because those people who are into sex aren’t doing it to have children but just for the selfish pleasure of the sex act.

Abortion advocates will try to use biology (its a fetus, not a person) to try to justify abortion but for them it was never about biology but about convenience. Evidence of this is the fact that they are opposed to abortion for sex selection reasons (couple want a specific gender child and when ultra sound shows it the other gender than what they desire, they have an abortion). While abortion advocates strongly say that abortion is between a woman and her doctor, they have no qualms about imposing their morality by speaking out against that type of abortion.

They condemn it for themselves because they want to increase and multiply!
It is to the infidels that they encourage abortion!
One could say this is pretty cleaver !
Less of them*…*** more of us!
*The confused ones are the **ones aborting *their own flesh and blood!
.

As a pro-lifer myself, I see this as a good thing. These are desperate acts from the liberal elite and anyone with half an “open mind” will begin to grow skeptical of those trying to squash debate on the issue. People are suckers for the truth and I honestly think abortion will be all but done for in a generation…

The article said that she and her friends had proposed a “ban on all student organizations that oppose abortion and believe that life begins at conception.” So apparently the idea that life begins at conception is also to be a prohibited belief.

Now biology commonly notes the beginnings and endings of individuals of any given species. No one who studies human embryology can doubt that a new individual of the human species has its beginning at conception. Otherwise we would have to propose that the genetically distinct individual which starts at conception is either something other than a new human being, or that it ends development immediately before birth, then transforms into a new individual of the human species only upon exiting the birth canal.

Quite a stretch for biology.

I can see what you are saying as it can interiorly confirm that what you are doing is correct, but the pro life message needs to be constantly put out there so that students can be truly informed as that will NEVER happen with the Pro Choice side.

Hi ChildofMary-do you have "senior-itis yet? Congrats on graduation!

Anyways, I agree that the message needs to be out there—and it blows my mind that there would be this suppression of speech/thought in a university in the western world. To an extent education on the topic is helpful - we learn about the effects (besides the obvious primary effect of death on the child) on the mother - the wounding of the mother, the depression, the increased incidences of breast cancer, future miscarriages, etc… We learn more and more about how quickly the baby develops in the womb. These are all important to know. But I believe we learn most about being pro-life in our day to day. You visit an expecting couple and they have a sonagram photo on their refrigerator. 99.9% of us either know someone who is about to give birth or who has died. There are euphemisms for both of those events, but everyone knows the truth behind each. It’s ingrained in us. Part of life. A 2 year old child can recognize a pregnant woman and knows what is going on. She’s not carrying a watermelon in there! So, while getting shut out of the universities isn’t a great thing, that isn’t where to get the message across anyways (in my opinion) and there are some fringe benefits that come along with being repressed by academia when you are clearly the holder of the truth!

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.