• Dr L Y Luciuk

    This article is factually incorrect and misleading in claiming that the Ukrainian Canadian Civil Liberties Association (www.uccla.ca) or the undersigned have ever asked for the Holodomor to “be given equal space with the Holocaust in the museum.” Our position was, and remains, that all of the galleries in this taxpayer-funded national institution should be thematic, comparative, and inclusive; obviously the Shoah must be included in the CMHR, most fittingly in a gallery dedicated to exploring the many incidents of genocide that have befouled human history, before, during, and since the Second World War, not only in Europe but in Asia, Africa, Latin America and elsewhere. What we have objected to is the elevation of any community’s suffering (including our own) above all others in a publicly funded national museum. In taking this position we find ourselves in agreement with the majority of Canadians who oppose preferential treatment for any group at the Canadian Museum for Human Rights.

  • Michael Kulyk

    there was already one written and signed promise by the Asper Foundation which was already reneged on, so I  don’t have much faith in this ‘promise’ by the CMHR

    fool me once, shame on you
    fool me twice, shame on me

    besides Gail Asper has been spewing hate by attempting to blame ethnic communities of anti-Semitism because some dared to disagree with her ‘vision’ of a Canadian museum of human rights, which really is a publicly paid holocaust museum

    if I hear an apology from her, I MIGHT start believing other fairly tales from the CMHR.

  • Serbyn Roman

    There is no
    museum anywhere in the world specifically devoted to the teaching and promotion
    of human rights. Nor is there a museum in Canada or elsewhere dedicated to the
    development of human rights on Canadian soil. The “Canadian Museum for
    Human Rights” could be just such a world-class institution encompassing
    both objectives. But to play this role, it must heed Professor Michael Marrus’s
    advice to focus on human rights, not human wrongs, and it must take to heart
    the suggestion of Professor Timothy Snyder to put in the centre of the museum’s
    exhibits Canada’s own experience with human rights.

    We hold human
    rights in common, they are the same for all of us and they unite us. Human
    wrongs are particular, we suffer them separately and they tend to divide us. We
    can all unite around the same principle of human rights, but we each want our
    particular human wrong to be shown just as much as the that of our neighbour.
    This psychological factor was not taken into consideration by the organizers of
    the CMHR. There will be little controversy over universal human right, but
    there is much controversy if the individual human wrongs are prioritized and
    even neglected. . Canadians of Ukrainian ancestry may have been the most vocal
    in their criticism of the museum’s selective approach in displaying the human
    wrongs but they are not the only who are not happy with the way the museum’s
    management proposes to organize the misplay material.

    Unfortunately,
    the cited memorandum does not address the two issues discussed above: a) the
    logical priority to human rights over human wrongs, and the utilization of the
    latter to demonstrate and illustrate the former; b) a balanced and equitable
    selection of display material on human wrongs with priority given to the abuses
    committed in Canada.