He was not introduced as a Nazi, but as a WW2 veteran that fought against Russia.
??? Is this an especially poor attempt at ‘Never Play Defence’ alt-right play book stuff? That’s the same sentence twice with some words changed. It’s not sneaky and it doesn’t go unnoticed. This isn’t euphemism with plausible deniability. “I didn’t paint my house a dark colour, I painted it a black colour.”
You mean like this:
Okay, so in this article, there’s a short explanation of the situation. They explain that a Jewish rights group wants an apology, which means it’s not necessarily also a demand from everyone else in the country and the publication. Then there explicitly is not an apology.
“I have subsequently become aware of more information which causes me to regret my decision,”
This means he does not apologise. This is not an apology, profuse or otherwise. This is a justification and deflection. This is a bold faced lie designed to construct the narrative that this situation was not deliberate, and that the media is misreporting it. Which is also what you did. This man was intentionally brought out because he was a Nazi and honoured because he was a Nazi. This deflection does not apologise for honouring Nazis. Then somewhere later he apologises, using the words “deepest apologies”, but without the connecting tissue present, we can assume it came right after the deflection, voiding the apology, because he has not acknowledged his mistake. “My deepest apologies that you felt that way.” “My deepest apologies that I am being misrepresented”, “My deepest apologies that I was unwittingly part of a misstep.”
Then the article goes on to quote a special interest group, which means it’s not necessarily also the opinion of everyone else in the country and the publication. Then that group says they’re willing to accept an explanation that diverts guilt if adequate, softening their language.
Afterwards, they quote the Russian embassy to strengthen the connection with the news story, even though this really should be treated as a domestic story. The rest of the article is basically saying Russia is doing war and that’s bad and that should be the focus, not the thing the article is about.
So let’s look at the other article. Oh wait, this is DW. Now this is different, because DW actually has to take an anti-Nazi stand because their readers are often vocal in their criticism of Nazi ideology. But let’s see if they try to soften it anyway. They’re incentivised to soften it, because they are German propaganda in the literal sense, their job is to spread the world-view of the German government, and Canada is a German ally. But surely there’s no way to report this in a way that is sufficiently anti-Nazi without painting their ally in a bad light, unless the Canadian government really properly apologised. So they must’ve apologised profusely like you said. Let’s read.
Immediately it says he apologised, that’s good. But I’ve heard one of his apologies, and he didn’t apologise, he just went through the motions and then blamed Russian disinformation. DW isn’t quoting him. Is this because they want to imply he apologised when he really hasn’t?
“Yaroslav Hunka, a 98-year-old Ukrainian World War II veteran, received two standing ovations.
However, it emerged later that Hunka had served in the Waffen-SS Galicia Division,”
Look at this wording. It emerged later that he served in the Waffen-SS. This is true, this is information that was given to the MPs after they clapped. But it sorta sounds a lot like “It emerged later that he was a Nazi”. So they’re using factual reporting to imply something extremely misleading which would completely change the story. This story completely hides the actual fact that he was introduced as a Nazi. Wow, now that’s some proper misinformation propaganda!
Then they quote some lines from the apology. These are good lines, they sound like a proper apology. Though what I notice is that they’re still mostly worried about optics, even in this choice quote. But let’s keep reading. Oh wait, now he’s deflecting responsibility. “even though we did so unaware of the context”. Well that didn’t last long. But there’s no way the informed DW reader would accept that apology! What gives? Right, and this is why they had the wording they did earlier, specifically so that the DW reader isn’t informed. This article is a deliberate misinformation cover piece designed to give the false sense of being informed to readers so that they don’t need to research more, and reading only this, it sounds like a blunder was made and apologised for sufficiently for something that was a small misunderstanding or something else that could possibly not be deliberate. And then it ends with Trudeau saying “Stop talking about this” or “If you hear a different version of events, that’s Russian misinformation”.
how profusely they apologised after they found out he was a Nazi
They did nothing of the sort and these two articles point to nothing of the sort. Not even a little bit. No one single person was jailed. Not one single person was executed. Not one single person was exiled. They didn’t even fire the cabinet. Nobody even acknowledged their actual wrongdoing. These are not apologies. Nothing happened. One rich guy retired.
Russia is a much bigger threat to western freedom at the moment than Fascism.
Fascism isn’t tolerated in Canada and the rest of the west.
This is not true. Especially for the indigenous population but also for settlers, the primary threat has been and remains fascisms.
https://globalnews.ca/news/9985761/food-insecurity-poverty-report-canada/
Even if Russia was a substantial threat to people living in Canada, that shouldn’t have any bearing on this story or it’s coverage. Replace the government first, then go back to publishing stories about the need to stay vigilant against Russia. A society unfriendly to Nazis who have been properly informed about what happened would have no problem coming together in a time of crisis like this and help organise and vote in a new government.
??? Is this an especially poor attempt at ‘Never Play Defence’ alt-right play book stuff? That’s the same sentence twice with some words changed. It’s not sneaky and it doesn’t go unnoticed. This isn’t euphemism with plausible deniability. “I didn’t paint my house a dark colour, I painted it a black colour.”
Okay, so in this article, there’s a short explanation of the situation. They explain that a Jewish rights group wants an apology, which means it’s not necessarily also a demand from everyone else in the country and the publication. Then there explicitly is not an apology. “I have subsequently become aware of more information which causes me to regret my decision,” This means he does not apologise. This is not an apology, profuse or otherwise. This is a justification and deflection. This is a bold faced lie designed to construct the narrative that this situation was not deliberate, and that the media is misreporting it. Which is also what you did. This man was intentionally brought out because he was a Nazi and honoured because he was a Nazi. This deflection does not apologise for honouring Nazis. Then somewhere later he apologises, using the words “deepest apologies”, but without the connecting tissue present, we can assume it came right after the deflection, voiding the apology, because he has not acknowledged his mistake. “My deepest apologies that you felt that way.” “My deepest apologies that I am being misrepresented”, “My deepest apologies that I was unwittingly part of a misstep.”
Then the article goes on to quote a special interest group, which means it’s not necessarily also the opinion of everyone else in the country and the publication. Then that group says they’re willing to accept an explanation that diverts guilt if adequate, softening their language.
Afterwards, they quote the Russian embassy to strengthen the connection with the news story, even though this really should be treated as a domestic story. The rest of the article is basically saying Russia is doing war and that’s bad and that should be the focus, not the thing the article is about.
So let’s look at the other article. Oh wait, this is DW. Now this is different, because DW actually has to take an anti-Nazi stand because their readers are often vocal in their criticism of Nazi ideology. But let’s see if they try to soften it anyway. They’re incentivised to soften it, because they are German propaganda in the literal sense, their job is to spread the world-view of the German government, and Canada is a German ally. But surely there’s no way to report this in a way that is sufficiently anti-Nazi without painting their ally in a bad light, unless the Canadian government really properly apologised. So they must’ve apologised profusely like you said. Let’s read.
Immediately it says he apologised, that’s good. But I’ve heard one of his apologies, and he didn’t apologise, he just went through the motions and then blamed Russian disinformation. DW isn’t quoting him. Is this because they want to imply he apologised when he really hasn’t?
“Yaroslav Hunka, a 98-year-old Ukrainian World War II veteran, received two standing ovations. However, it emerged later that Hunka had served in the Waffen-SS Galicia Division,”
Look at this wording. It emerged later that he served in the Waffen-SS. This is true, this is information that was given to the MPs after they clapped. But it sorta sounds a lot like “It emerged later that he was a Nazi”. So they’re using factual reporting to imply something extremely misleading which would completely change the story. This story completely hides the actual fact that he was introduced as a Nazi. Wow, now that’s some proper misinformation propaganda!
Then they quote some lines from the apology. These are good lines, they sound like a proper apology. Though what I notice is that they’re still mostly worried about optics, even in this choice quote. But let’s keep reading. Oh wait, now he’s deflecting responsibility. “even though we did so unaware of the context”. Well that didn’t last long. But there’s no way the informed DW reader would accept that apology! What gives? Right, and this is why they had the wording they did earlier, specifically so that the DW reader isn’t informed. This article is a deliberate misinformation cover piece designed to give the false sense of being informed to readers so that they don’t need to research more, and reading only this, it sounds like a blunder was made and apologised for sufficiently for something that was a small misunderstanding or something else that could possibly not be deliberate. And then it ends with Trudeau saying “Stop talking about this” or “If you hear a different version of events, that’s Russian misinformation”.
They did nothing of the sort and these two articles point to nothing of the sort. Not even a little bit. No one single person was jailed. Not one single person was executed. Not one single person was exiled. They didn’t even fire the cabinet. Nobody even acknowledged their actual wrongdoing. These are not apologies. Nothing happened. One rich guy retired.
This is not true. Especially for the indigenous population but also for settlers, the primary threat has been and remains fascisms. https://globalnews.ca/news/9985761/food-insecurity-poverty-report-canada/
Even if Russia was a substantial threat to people living in Canada, that shouldn’t have any bearing on this story or it’s coverage. Replace the government first, then go back to publishing stories about the need to stay vigilant against Russia. A society unfriendly to Nazis who have been properly informed about what happened would have no problem coming together in a time of crisis like this and help organise and vote in a new government.