Jump to content

Talk:Canadian Heritage Alliance: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 27: Line 27:


The authorship of the article is not sufficient proof of inaccuracy or POV. [[User:CJCurrie|CJCurrie]] 19:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
The authorship of the article is not sufficient proof of inaccuracy or POV. [[User:CJCurrie|CJCurrie]] 19:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

== Fix or remove (or I will) ==

In the article it is stated that the CHA was formed as a "broad racist group" but the article that I assume is supposed to support this says nothing of the kind. If such a point is in fact supported by references, then post them. Otherwise, I will edit the article to remove what currently appears to be a seirously POV'd ststement, followed by a fake reference.

Revision as of 22:51, 1 August 2006

Homeontherange -what are your grounds from calling The Canadian Heritage Alliance a "white-supremacist" orgainization? Please site your sources.


The Canadian Heritage Alliance is not a "white-supremacist” organization. According to their platform they are in fact a Canadian Nationalist Orgainization. Continued usage of the term “white-supremacist” in relation to the Canadian Heritage Alliance is libel. Any and all information which is fact, can be found on their website; www.canadianheritagealliance.com.

Melissa Guille was not a Heritage Front member.

The Canadian Heritage Alliance has never been involved with "Straight Pride” protest event in London Ontario in any official capacity. This was and is a Northern Alliance sanctioned event. (anonymous)

Anonymous person: 1) see Talk:Melissa Guille for sources re Guille's HF membership and her views. 2) The article never said the CHA was involved in any "official capacity" in the Straight Pride Day protests though pictures from various years makes it clear they were present and mentions on the CHA website make it clear it supports the event. Nevertheless, I've rewritten the passage so it now refers to CHA members participating in the event without implying any "official" capacity.Homey 09:53, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Homeontherange -what are your grounds from calling The Canadian Heritage Alliance a "white-supremacist" orgainization? Please site (sic) your sources.

The London Free Press refers to the CHA as "white supremacist" in numerous articles (see, for example, "Hate in the Forest City: Why are they Here" by Randy Richmond, published in the London Free Press, March 26, 2005). Homey 12:15, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Material on the CHA website included calls for ethnic cleansing or genocide against Jews: "We must now solve the most urgent of all problems, and that is, of course, the Jewish Problem; there are only two alternatives: we must expel them, or we must massacre them!"

There is more than ample evidence of what kind of material was promoted by the CHA on their website from the text of the federal human rights complaint currently ongoing against them at: www.recomnetwork.org/articles/04/10/21/2221245.shtml


I submit that the facts and neutrality of this article on the Canadian Heritage Alliance should be disputed. The article was largely edited by [speculation on name removed], who is known to be personally antagonistic towards anyone on the opposite end of the political spectrum.

Further to the dispute regarding the neutrality of this aricle;

"Exposés" written by professional anti-racist Matthew Lauder are not neutral and reliable sources. Lauder is known to be involved with Anti-Racist Action and has repeatedly made defamatory and libellous statements about members of right-wing political groups. Dogmatic 16:41, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The authorship of the article is not sufficient proof of inaccuracy or POV. CJCurrie 19:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fix or remove (or I will)

In the article it is stated that the CHA was formed as a "broad racist group" but the article that I assume is supposed to support this says nothing of the kind. If such a point is in fact supported by references, then post them. Otherwise, I will edit the article to remove what currently appears to be a seirously POV'd ststement, followed by a fake reference.