From: schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck)
Subject: Re: Senate Interrogation
Reply-To: Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Distribution: can
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 18:29:05 GMT

wlsmith@valve.heart.rri.uwo.ca (Wayne Smith) writes:

>In article <schuck.721181588@sfu.ca> Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca writes:
>>
>>The Senate has as much right to question McKennas *version* of
>>history.

>As far as these old farty senators goes, just what is their job description?

They were once considerd the "Chamber of sober second thought" or
something like that. At one time they played a useful role as they
were packed with bankers etc, and held hearings on obscure tax law
that nobody in Parliament spent any time worrying about.

>They can be asleep for years as far as canadian politics goes, and as far
>as being a service to Canadians goes, and then they decide to champion
>the cause of prosecuting the politically incorrect V&H documentary.  Where
>on earth are they coming from?  Aren't there more pressing issues that  
>effect more canadians in which they can play a more direct role?

Nobody else in Ottawa gives a damn about Veterans. There are enough
vets in the Senate that a so-called documentry semaring there former
comrades becomes a pressing issue.

>>The Senate is under no obligation to allow funding to continue to the
>>NFB for revisionist history, just as they are under no obligation to
>>allow funding for someone with Zundels point of view.

>They can't stop a money bill, not now, and (to dig up a little recent
>history) they wouldn't have been able to kill a money bill under the
>now dead CA either.  

Dissloving the NFB would not be a money bill. Not that I think they
could do it but they could try.

>Hey, I wouldn't mind seeing the NFB "canned", but not for reasons concerning
>the V&H.

>>Free speach does not include the right of access to the public trough.
>>
>>McKenna can say whatever he wants , but I resent paying for it.

>Then it's time the gov't got out of the entertainment business.  I'll
>aggree with that too, but not for your reasons.  If McKenna knowingly
>bent his account of the air raids, what was his motive? 

Left-wing pacifist guilt revisionism -- to use some code words.

People not from the WWII era feel free to judge people they know
nothing about in modern terms. McKenna is anti-war. Therefore soldiers
are murdering scum [to simplify].

I think he knows nothing about WWII at all.

> They spent over
>a year (I think) on that story.  They could have found out early on if
>they had a bona-fide story...

I'm sure they did, and didn't let that stand in their way.

The bombing campaign was a response to Nazi V-1's , V-2's, raids on
London. England came very close to losing in the 1940. If the germans
had continued to attack RAF airfields for another few weeks, the
Battle of Britain would have gone on the history books as a loss.
If McKeena choose to portray bombing in black and white terms without
putting it into the context of WWII it may sound cruel.

But WWII was total war, a world war, and Britain and the Commonwealth
were not the aggressors. They were defending themselves against Nazis,
mass murderers, aggressors who had conquered all of Europe and was
trying to finish off Britain. 

To protray bomber crews and "Bomber Harris" as war criminals in that
context is obscene.
-- 
============================================================================
"We've got to get bigger guns" -- Dick Durkin                  schuck@sfu.ca
============================================================================
Xref: sparky can.politics:9587 soc.culture.canada:8468