09.21.2011 08:06 AM

Ontario NDP candidate Anthony Marco, in his own words (undoctored and updated!)

Ontario NDP candidate Anthony Marco in a TVO interview.

Yesterday, to defend her friend Anthony Marco, Andrea Horwath allowed a doctored transcript of Marco’s now-infamous words (National Socialism is a “religion,” and those who oppose Naziism are “pretty messed up”) to be issued to the news media.

Here’s his crazed podcast in its entirety.  Listen to it, especially around the seven-minute mark. Is this part of the “positive campaign” Horwath claims to be running?

UPDATE: And the crazy just keeps on coming! And we’ve only listened to a fraction of his online lunacy!

47 Comments

  1. Brian says:

    Devoting your life to convincing people to change their views from those that are hateful and ignorant to views that are inclusive and loving is probably one of the best things you can do with their life.

    Spending hours ranting on the internet is not, on the other hand, something that’s beneficial to anyone….especially Andrea Horwath in this case.

  2. Ted H says:

    C’mon now, that guy is just too obese to get elected, that’s not healthy.

  3. Nick says:

    I wonder if he’s eating his words right now?

  4. Jon Powers says:

    The guy isn’t advocating Nazism. In his incoherent manor, he’s just defending freedom of speech and freedom of relgion. To try to paint this as an NDPer who is pro-Nazi is extremely dishonest.

    • Ted says:

      I haven’t read anyone say he is pro-Nazi. Even Warren.

      But he is clearly totally accepting of Nazism as just any other viewpoint and that its not worth fighting.

      This goes beyond free speech. In fact, he is not talking about free speech at all. If you wanted to be charitable, you could say he is just talking about how futile it is to argue against someone’s belief. That’s a pretty ignorant and misinformed but not offensive view.

      But he actually goes beyond even that. By equating Nazism with religion, which it is not, and by saying we must be tolerant of Nazism like any other religion, he’s crossed a line into a dangerous level of tolerance.

      • Michael says:

        And he’s willing to show more leniency to Nazism than he is to those who oppose it.

        How can he be defending free speech if, on the one hand he gives Nazis a pass, yet on the other he essentially opposes, or at least is critical of, opposition to Nazism? That circle cannot be squared.

    • Philip says:

      Seriously not trying to troll you here, Jon,

      I always get interested when people mention freedom of speech. I have felt for awhile that most people view freedom of speech through an intensely personal lens, there being no one accepted definition of free speech. Personally, I think it is reasonable for a society to put some basic limits on speech but I recognize the potential for those limits to over power dissent and artistic expression, to name only two, aspects of free speech. A tightrope balancing act between the need for society to reflect it’s values and the liberty of the individual. As Canadians we don’t always get that balance right.

      Again, not trying to be a dick, just interested in other people’s views on this subject.

      • Jon Powers says:

        Fair enough. I can understand why people get uncomfortable with the concept of free speech when dealing with vile ideas. I don’t like defending douchebags with hateful ideas. But, they have a right to their beliefs. I happen to be an absolutist. How can you censor any kind of speech, and still claim to live in a truly free society? Who decides what is allowed and what isn’t? Me? You? Stephen Harper? Some un-elected government bureaucrat? Our society can deal with Nazi scumbags spewing hate filled literature on their blogs while living in their parents basement. The dangerous ones are those people with good intentions who are threatening to destroy our personal freedoms by trying to outlaw certain thoughts and beliefs. People always say, “well of course I agree with free speech, but we should put a limit on offenseive speech.” I say offensive speech is the very thing that needs to be protected.

        • Warren says:

          Fine. Should it also be elected?

          • Jon Powers says:

            You mean this Marco guy? No, he’s definitely not ready for a role in politics. Probably never will be. If your original point was that this guy is a potty mouth who has no business filling an important role as a member of parliament, then sorry – I guess I agreed with you all along. Can anyone run as an NDP candidate these days? How did they choose this guy? Maybe a pie eating contest.
            Sorry if I offended anyone with that last fat joke.

          • Philip says:

            No, I don’t think so but purely on the basis of the almost incomprehensible thought process. I do think a service has been done to the voters of his riding. They can judge for themselves if this is the sort of person they wish to represent them at Queen’s Park, or any other place for that matter.

            Thanks for letting me highjack the thread for a bit there.

        • Philip says:

          Thanks for responding, Jon. I do understand the absolutist stance on free speech. In fact, my personal position is very close to that end of the spectrum. Where absolute free speech butts up against the rights of others is where I see difficulties. The classic example, yet surprising relevant, is the shouting of “fire” in a crowded theatre. In this example, the right of the individual to say whatever they wish, whenever they wish butts up against the safety of the public at large. In matters of business, should I be able to say whatever I wish about a competitor, their products and their business practices or does the public have an expectation of fact in these matters?
          As a society we set limits on our behavior, some are important enough to be set into laws, others tend to be an unspoken rule or expectation of behavior. These would argue a set of boundaries on the absolute freedom of speech, boundaries which are set in common interest. We should all be able put voice to our opinions but should be we be able to pass those opinions off as fact to others?
          I’ll freely admit all I have are questions and not very many answers.

        • catherine says:

          Jon, what do you think Marco meant by “For some people the old politics of Nazi Germany might be their religion. And just as I can’t condemn other people’s religion, I can’t, …”

          It sounds like he is saying he can’t condemn Nazi Germany just like he can’t condemn other people’s religions. Why can’t he condemn Nazi Germany? He does make it clear that he doesn’t agree with people who hold Nazi Germany as their religion, but I don’t understand the suggestion that he can’t condemn that view. Why not?

          Or am I misinterpreting him? He’s not that articulate.

  5. International Progressive says:

    Anthony Marco should be imprisoned for hate speech. Anybody who speaks like him and tries to minimize nazism should be put in front of the Canadian Human Rights tribunal.

    And shame on Andrea Horwath for condoning Marco’s hate speech.

  6. the real Sean says:

    get in mah belly!

  7. Glen says:

    Agree he’s really just defending free speech in his own awkward way. He’s only guilty of using a bad (understatement) example to prove his point.

    Keep the fat jokes coming!

  8. Do the right thing says:

    There isn’t much room for incoherent ramblings on this though. National Socialism is NOT a religion. They can’t be defended the same way and fighting against the bigotry that is Nazism is a just and essential fight. Ms. Horwath needs to admit the mistake in vetting the candidate, cut ties and move on.

    • Ted H says:

      I agree, National Socialism is not a religion and it is not an acceptable political viewpoint by any civilized standard. There may be people as Mr. Marco suggest who regard National Socialism as a religion but they are generally disturbed white supremacist types of people.

  9. Campbell says:

    While I do think it is intellectually dishonest to imply that this guy is a Nazi sympathizer (or anyone in the NDP for that matter), I also think that his egregious stupidity makes him unelectable and that any party with a sense of respect for the public would remove him as a candidate as soon as possible. I refuse to believe that the NDP can’t offer up someone who is better than this.

    • Philip says:

      Your comment hits closest to the mark, in my opinion. Certainly no neo-Nazi, but just not ready for prime time. It says a lot about the Ontario NDP, if this is the quality of candidates they can attract.

    • Phil in London says:

      Of course he is unelectable! No matter who is writing here or elsewhere I have yet to hear even a joking notion that Hudak won’t win his seat. This candidate is the provincial answer to the bartender from Ottawa who couldn’t speak french and had never visited the riding. He is running because the rules seem to be that if the choice is between a jackass and no-one in any riding you have to look for a better jackass just so you can say you have a candidate in every riding. The only reason the Liberals are on this is they feel that now familiar Orange Crush coming at them in Ontario. Void of any new ideas and any integrity the McGuinty clan is suffering from the same disease as Paul Martin failing to believe they need to do anything but kiss union babies and sprinke the secret agenda pixy dust to get elected. It might just work but seems to me Paul Martin “won” a minority government that didn’t work out so well in the end.

      My Union tight ass brother in law can hardly have a bowel movement these days so don’t tell me they aren’t at least a little worried.

      • Pat says:

        I agree… but if you are going to put someone who is totally unelectable in Hudak’s riding, you would think they would work to avoid someone who could have a negative impact on the whole provincial campaign. Ideally, you get someone who works all campaign to compile and report on Hudak-related dirt, with the pretence that they are fighting hard with Hudak for the constituency… that way they could have some sort of positive impact on the campaign, by perhaps taking him a little off his game by being overly ferocious. But for the love of God, don’t pick someone who will step into this kind of quagmire…

        • Phil in London says:

          During the federal election I wrote that the NDP was thin outside of Jack and Mulcair in Quebec and I mused aloud what would happen if something happened to Jack after the bartender turned MP was being hounded to show up. My point is for God sake just don’t run someone if you can’t do anything better then this.

          Than again Liberal MPP Dave Levac (already ELECTED) spewed stupidity today about a carbon tax being on the table (who has the secret agenda?) and of course PC Randy Hillier (former leadership candidate) managed to drag himself down by being a tax cheat.

          Candidacy being what it is you had better do a little more research than just vote for the leader or the pretty signs REGARDLESS of what party you support.

          • Pat says:

            Exactly. Sometimes I think that while politics attracts some genuinely intelligent and engaged people, it attracts a hell of a lot more shady characters who should NEVER be elected.

  10. allegra fortissima says:

    Silly, silly, silly are his statements. Time to clarify, apologize and/or to step down, Signor Marco.

    Just as silly: Liberal stiletto kicks ( Too short? Wear stilettos, but do practice walking first) at Andrea Horwath and the NDP.

  11. Scotty Rowe says:

    He looks like Grimace from McDonalds.

  12. scott d says:

    He is actually less hyperbolic than you Warren. I listened to his ramble and it made sense in its own meandering way but I did not find anything offensive about it in the least. I dont think he is advocating Nazism at all.He has a long winded and sometimes confusing train of thought; he is basically riffing. But calling him a Nazi makes me question your judgment more than his. I lurk here for the occasional nugget but really I have to admit that some of your stuff is so over the top that I find it hard to see any value of coming here any more.

  13. Ford says:

    I agree with his basic premise (if you can find it in his ramblings). Read Mein Kamf..read everything and anything to get a different point of view. Ever read the Unibomber’s Manifesto?…crazed but a good window on the extreme end of some of the beliefs out there. I would rather have a knowledge of these beliefs then “burn them”.

    I also agree…holy donut factory..is this the best the NDP can do?? I always thought that to be a politician you had to have something going for you. Brains? Looks? Experience? After the Layton coat tail riders got in federally and now this…I think I will nominate the guy who I give quarters to who has debates with his inner demons…at least he has street cred

  14. Matt says:

    “All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.” Strangely, Mr. Marco is himself advocating for the repression of free speech. The fact that few were able or willing to speak out about Nazi policies was one way that Hitler was able to pull of the wool over the eyes of the general public. I think that Mr. Marco should have a good listen to those who have devoted their lives to speaking out, and if necessary trying to change minds, in order to ensure the same mistakes are not repeated. His views are ultimately disempowering and cynical.

  15. William Mc says:

    If this NDP guy gets elected to the legislature, will he get two seats? Will that mean he gets two votes?

  16. smelter rat says:

    Weight Watchers. It really works.

  17. Lumipallo says:

    So with Warren abandoning the fight against Hudak and the Tories should we conclude that the PCs are no longer a threat to the Liberals and that the Libs’ main competition for government is now the NDP, or is it that the Libs are no longer a threat to the PCs and that the Libs’ main competition for official opposition is now the NDP?

  18. Why is anyone even spending any time on this guy I wonder?

    • Warren says:

      Because she’s stood by him. It’s totally bizarre. Chretien, Harper, Dion, Hudak, Ignatieff, Tory, etc. – all of them would have dumped him long ago.

  19. Adam Jensen says:

    The NDP prove that they can’t manage a bingo, never mind government. Liberals prove that they are more interested in looking for skeletons and spinning an issue rather than debating issues. Does anyone really think that an NDP candidate and labour activist would support any facet of Nazism? Wishful thinking, but not likely.

    Warren, do you not think the Liberals over-reached here? If I was in your war-room, I would have fought to hammer away at this gaffe from an NDP organizational/management angle only, and left Ontarians to fill in their own blanks. Farber should have been muzzled (if that is even possible… which is why we love him, lol). Just looks too desperate. I think Hudak is the only one to win here.

    – Former NDP riding campaigner and union leader who is either voting for Hudak or staying home this election.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*