Stand up for Libby Davies - part 3

112 posts / 0 new
Last post
Pogo Pogo's picture

Maysie wrote:

Hey George. oldgoat is a volunteer moderator. He said cut it out. That means stop.

One more time, George, and you will have some time away from babble.

I guess it's like the NHL, the player who retaliates gets the penalty.

Unionist

Cueball wrote:
This is why it is absolutely essential not to give an credibility to Rae's statement at all.

Thanks for the advice. Who the hell is giving credibility to Rae's statement? To whom are you preaching here?

Quote:
There is much more than Libby Davies to defend at this point.

That's what I thought. And that's where we part ways. For the sake of some historical argument, you will not even say a word in defence of someone whose head is mixed up but whose heart is right, and who can have far broader influence in this country than you or I ever can. That's why I accused, and accuse, you of having no clue about politics.

Quote:
And the pervasive use of this "anti-semitism" mantra being leveled at people for telling the truth must be opposed.

Thanks for the advice. Although who actually accused Libby of anti-semitism? Not even Harper or Rae or Mulcair, in their fanatical blood libels, went that far. You're mixing this up badly.

Quote:
There is a whole movement to be defended here, and accepting Libby's appology as appropriate is just being a Rae stooge.

Are you capable of telling us who - other than Layton - "accepted" her apology? I've written to her and said I disagree with her apology entirely, but I support her fully and urge her to carry on. Will you please do that?

Quote:
We do a greater service to Libby and the intent of her original statements by using the "political space" she wanted to "open up" than by barricading the door.

That political space is about BDS. That is the fundamental next step to take. Not some sterile debate about 1948 which you will never win. That one will be won by the Palestinian people themselves.

Cueball Cueball's picture

You seem to be trying extract some kind of formal right to determine the shape of the discussion on this board as determined by what you forsee as the best "political" strategy to take.

This is a message board. Not a Union, or a political party, or even an ad hoc committee that is issuing statements to the press. I am not interested in being whipped into line on the basis of your estimation of what is the best public relations strategy to pursue.

So. Given that I am not going to be whipped like a delegate at a convention. Why don't you content yourself by expressing your views on the subject as you see fit, as opposed to arguing with me about what "line" I should take on this issue.

Unionist

Cueball wrote:
Why don't you content yourself by expressing your views on the subject as you see fit, as opposed to arguing with me about what "line" I should take on this issue.

But that's exactly what I've been doing, Cueball. Am I not allowed? Do you want to dictate how I post?

Have I strayed from the topic of the thread (you know, the one you haven't commented on yet)?

 

Cueball Cueball's picture

Unionist wrote:

Cueball wrote:
Why don't you content yourself by expressing your views on the subject as you see fit, as opposed to arguing with me about what "line" I should take on this issue.

But that's exactly what I've been doing, Cueball. Am I not allowed? Do you want to dictate how I post?

Have I strayed from the topic of the thread (you know, the one you haven't commented on yet)?

 

You are losing the thread of this thing Unionist. I made no comments on your statements until you decided to take it upon yourself to try stop people from discussing the political and historical context of Libby's statements and more importantly the context of Rae's attack.

Where did I try and get you to stop talking about what you were talking about? No where. That was you.

KenS

Like I said, Jack Layton did not have to demand a retraction from Libby- she would have done it anyway, as soon as this went viral.

And you are being massively inconsistent Unionist. We both know that we are watching here a demonstration of what a diversion, and how it becomes a diversion, to stray from the internationally agreed consensus that Israel should be compelled to go back to the 1967 Green Line. Yet you call it a minor slip that Libby brought in the 1948 hot button.

[You also say that she didn't diverge from party policy in any significant way. Thats not true. Now I agree that diverging from policy is not what is going to get you in hot water. But you use that as fodder.]

"You learn very fast when to debate the issues (all the time), and when to unite and move forward (all the time)." And you have repeatedly asked people can't we just unite to protect Libby from attacks.

Try applying your own medicine. I don't aggree that Libby has been attacked by her colleagues. And I don't just disaggree, I strenuously object on principle.

Her colleagues did not attack her. She stepped on the hot button. They distanced themselves from her. Because its such a hot button they didn't just distance themselves nicely. End of story.

If you really want unity, then drop the contentious insistence that her colleagues be included as attackers. [Leaving aside for the moment the question of whether its true and assuming it is: Which serves what purpose now?]

And if what you want is to defend Libby, not her words... I'm with you.

Unionist

It's such a pleasure reading Libby's Facebook page - and many many blogs - standing up in her defence, not by mealymouthed "but she apologized!" statements, but condemning in no uncertain term the neo-fascist attempts to suppress her voice, and by extension, our own. The same attempts we've seen the Harper government effect with Rights and Democracy, KAIROS, UNRWA, Durban, etc. The same attempts as the Ontario Legislature (and Cheri DiNovo). The same as the CPCCA, in which 3 of 4 parties still collude against democracy and freedom. The same as the City of Toronto and several cowards on the Pride board.

It's one struggle, and it does not hinge on ideological unanimity and academic precision.

What a pleasure, too, to read these letters from plain ordinary outraged Canadians in the [url=http://www.thestar.com/opinion/letters/article/825098--libby-and-the-isr... Star[/url] - all of them supporting Libby. Would you believe that the hysterics of Harper, Rae, Mulcair, Dewar, Marc Garneau, et al haven't fooled anybody yet? This is a cause for celebration.

A sampling:

Quote:

Sadly, the political and media firestorm in reaction to Libby Davies’ comments are all focused on the wrong story. The real story is that politicians are completely unable to debate the Israel-Palestine issue. The actions of the Prime Minister, Liberal party leader, and other politicians demonstrate that only one side of the conversation is permitted.

If anyone dares to say anything that does not look-and-feel like 100 per cent blanket support for Israel, they are attacked for “denying Israel’s right to exist” and are asked to resign. This is not dialogue.

Within Israel, politicians are allowed to publically speak on these issues. Why can’t we do the same in Canada?

Rebecca Hogue, Ottawa

Libby Davies is criticized for her comments about Israel. My question to those who support Israel is how can you justify someone moving in and taking already occupied land and not call it an occupation? If it was anyone else doing that, it would most certainly be called an occupation. Why is Israel so different?

Also, how do you expect to take land away from someone and not get violence in return? Those Palestinians have a right to protect their home.

More power to Libby Davies on this one.

James Knott, Mississauga

I was raised as a Roman Catholic, at a time when the church was seen as sacrosanct. Criticism of the church or its priests just didn’t happen. And we now see how wrong that belief was.

Stephen Harper clearly believes that “Israel can do no wrong,” which is delusional. All sovereign states must take full responsibility for their actions, and be justly criticized when they do wrong.

Dennis Ryan, Toronto

And there's more. Would that some of our babblers could take a moment to write like this.

Cueball Cueball's picture

KenS wrote:

Like I said, Jack Layton did not have to demand a retraction from Libby- she would have done it anyway, as soon as this went viral.

The statement did not deserve a retraction or an appology. A simple correction would have been fine. She should have clarified that she meant 1967, not 1948, and that is all.

Layton's position is that any discussion of the legality of the 1948 partition, or the consequent events, occupations and so on, require an appology. No they do not.

However, Layton is onside with Rae here in demanding an appology.

Cueball Cueball's picture

Unionist wrote:

And there's more. Would that some of our babblers could take a moment to write like this.

 

What? you mean in short snappy sound bytes meant to assert a "position" for political effect? That would be a fine board would it not? Everyone, asserting "positions", "yes or no", "for and against", as opposed to in depth discussions of related facts, and detailed analysis -- every post an assertion of solidarity with this, or with that, correctly tuned to avoid uncomfortable complexities, and pared down for maximum punch.

Perhaps you can strike a committee, and have people submit copy to you before it is submitted to the board for publication.

I can, and do write that kind of crap to mainstream media outlets all the time. However, this is not such an outlet. That is indeed the point of Babble, I thought.

KenS

Unionist wrote:

And there's more. Would that some of our babblers could take a moment to write like this.

And what makes you think we didnt? I did. But I also disagree with what you are saying here. They aren't mutually exclusive.

Durrutix

Speaking of standing up, here's an excerpt from an article by David Orchard concerning Israel's most recent assault on Lebanon and Harper's failure to protect Canadian lives:

Standing up for Canada? The Harper government’s refusal to demand an end to the bombings of Lebanon

With 50,000 Canadians in harm’s way what has been our government’s response? Canada’s new UN ambassador, John McNee, told the Security Council that Israel’s action in Lebanon “was an exercise in its right to self-defence.”  The minister of foreign affairs, Peter MacKay, refused point blank to endorse the secretary general’s call for a ceasefire. Prime Minister Stephen Harper stated: “Israel’s response, under the circumstances, has been measured.” He announced that it was “too early” to call for a ceasefire. These words, in essence, signalled a green light from Canada for the bombing to continue.

Eight visiting Canadians, including four children, were killed by Israeli bombs. The Canadian government made no protest. Is this Mr. Harper’s idea of “standing up for Canada?”

Our government in Ottawa has, whether for reasons of religion or ideology, sided uncritically with a foreign government, in this case Israel’s, at the expense of our own national interests as Canadians and law abiding members of the world community.  

 

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=2821

--

Has anyone in any Canadian political party apart from Davies condemend the treatment of the Canadian citizen kidnapped and tortured in Israel during the Flotailla massacre?   According to his testimony he came within an inch of being shot.   Shouldn't these politicians at least pretend to represent the interests of Canadian citizens over foreign governments?  It's outrageous.

Unionist

When I am attacked by those who always attack the NDP as well as those who never attack the NDP, I feel I'm getting warm.

 

6079_Smith_W

Unionist wrote:

When I am attacked by those who always attack the NDP as well as those who never attack the NDP, I feel I'm getting warm.

 

 

*grin*

yeah, join the club.

N.Beltov N.Beltov's picture

Cue is making exactly the sort of points that ought to be made as a result of Libby Davies "opening up" the discussion. And this, whether the MP now wants to shut down the discussion, or makes public statementst to that effect, etc.. What we do here is our own business. They're not easy points to make because, as everyone knows who follows the politics around Palestine, there is so much misinformation and disinformation that people often have to separate themselves from the bullshit before they're able to absorb new facts.

Frustrated Mess Frustrated Mess's picture

Thank you for posting that.

Unionist

N.Beltov wrote:

Cue is making exactly the sort of points that ought to be made as a result of Libby Davies "opening up" the discussion. And this, whether the MP now wants to shut down the discussion, or makes public statementst to that effect, etc.. What we do here is our own business. They're not easy points to make because, as everyone knows who follows the politics around Palestine, there is so much misinformation and disinformation that people often have to separate themselves from the bullshit before they're able to absorb new facts.

No one will listen to or be persuaded by any of these debating points unless they are concretely in action, in outrage, in mobilization, in the process of having their received wisdom and their daily experience clash. No one will change because of some lecture. See, when I said everyone should speak and write about Libby, Cueball naturally assumed I meant posting on babble! Yet, there are real live organizing opportunities. People who know little about the problem are outraged at the attack on the flotilla - shocked at the attack on Libby - people of all walks of life and opinions. We should grab on to that and look for reasons to unite - not find microscopic excuses to attack from the "left" while the Harpers, Raes, Mulcairs and others are attacking from the right. Then, and only then, people will listen.

-=+=-

[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VeGAYc_9exs]Video[/url] of Marc Garneau denouncing Davies in the House.

No coalition with these twits.

N.Beltov N.Beltov's picture

I really think you've missed Cue's point about this being a message board, u.

 

leftypopulist

I'm impressed with the lack of policitally correct caving-in to rightwing pressure groups (and their authoritarian/dogmatic foreign policy hawks).

Frustrated Mess Frustrated Mess's picture

What a strange thread.

Unionist

N.Beltov wrote:

I really think you've missed Cue's point about this being a message board, u.

 

What did you think of this comment of mine upthread:

Quote:
Cueball, how about if I actually beg you (who are of good faith here) and the diversionary ones to open a new thread on the issue: "When did the occupation begin?" I promise to contribute to it. My opinion happens to be the same as yours.

Why wouldn't someone say: "Ok, I'll do that" - even if they didn't agree that it was the right thing to do? Just out of, I dunno, courtesy, compromise, whatever? If I want a thread just talking about the Libby phenomenon (which was actually happening for the better part of the first two parts here), I couldn't do it, right, because the same discussion would follow me there. Whose purpose is served by that?

Meanwhile, I see Libby attacked here from the left and the right, based on her words. Not her deeds. And I think that's a bad sign for the quality of activism reflected here.

N.Beltov N.Beltov's picture

I've undoubtedly made the same sort of request in the past, to prevent thread derailment or something, but the shoe doesn't fit here. Cue isn't derailing the thread; he's providing detailed information that is useful in a long-term sense.

Cueball Cueball's picture

Unionist wrote:

When I am attacked by those who always attack the NDP as well as those who never attack the NDP, I feel I'm getting warm.

 

I really think you are letting your pride get in the way of your thinking. I didn't attack you at all, until you entered in with your snarky remark at post 44. I didn't even respond to anything you said up until that point. All I did was defended myself, and my right to talk about the 'facts' as I see them. You started attacking me.

Unionist wrote:

N.Beltov wrote:

Cue is making exactly the sort of points that ought to be made as a result of Libby Davies "opening up" the discussion. And this, whether the MP now wants to shut down the discussion, or makes public statementst to that effect, etc.. What we do here is our own business. They're not easy points to make because, as everyone knows who follows the politics around Palestine, there is so much misinformation and disinformation that people often have to separate themselves from the bullshit before they're able to absorb new facts.

No one will listen to or be persuaded by any of these debating points unless they are concretely in action, in outrage, in mobilization, in the process of having their received wisdom and their daily experience clash. No one will change because of some lecture. See, when I said everyone should speak and write about Libby, Cueball naturally assumed I meant posting on babble! Yet, there are real live organizing opportunities. People who know little about the problem are outraged at the attack on the flotilla - shocked at the attack on Libby - people of all walks of life and opinions. We should grab on to that and look for reasons to unite - not find microscopic excuses to attack from the "left" while the Harpers, Raes, Mulcairs and others are attacking from the right. Then, and only then, people will listen.

This is just a crock. First and foremost, the presentation of an alternative narrative, however it is disseminated does not just occur in a vacuum. Here you are presenting the idea that somehow there is just this body of "ordinary" folks who just somehow glommed onto the essence of the issue of Israeli abuses of the Palestinians just out of the blue. Sorry, it didn't just "happen". What happened is that a chorus of better informed persons have been patiently and persistenly counter-acting the misinformation regularly presented in the mainstream media, and asserting an alternate view of the situation. Indeed, that view is the one being expressed in these comments you have brought forward.

This process happens here and elsewhere, and it did not happen just because some people issue rote publicity pamphlets demanding uniform solidarity around an issue. It happened through discussion and debate and the dissemination of alternative information in many different forums all over.

Sorry. I am not really interested in pre-formulated posturing for effect. There is a place for that, but this is not one of them. This is a place where the discussion and debate happens. I don't feel any need to comply with some uniform solidarity code in each and every statement that I make here or anywhere.

I also think it is entirely wrong for you to demand such, here, on this public message board. All of my comments are entirely on topic. You seem to think that this thread is some kind of petition that you started that you are now requiring me to sign, or not sign, and if I don't sign you think I should get off the thread.

I do sign, in fact. But I am not letting go of the basic facts. Nor will not say certain things that I think should be said, in the context of that signature.

Unionist

[url=http://www.opinion250.com/blog/view/16669/7/who+says+we+can%92t+criticiz... Says We Can't Criticize the State of Israel?[/url]

Quote:

Prime Minister Harper has since called for Davies to resign as deputy NDP leader and Liberal Bob Rae has accused her of “hostility and ignorance”. Even some members of her own party, the NDP, have attacked her, with Thomas Mulcair NDP MP calling her comments “egregious” and out of step with her party.

 
It is quite interesting that, while the caucuses of the Conservatives, Liberals and NDP are very quick to jump on Davies, they have made no criticism of the killings by Israeli commandoes of the nine people on the ships attempting to break the blockade of Gaza by Israel.

Cueball Cueball's picture

The only person who is really derailing the thread here is Unionist through his persistent attacks on me for not showing what he thinks is the requisite amount of solidarity to Libby Davies. Support must be unequivocal and without criticism or embelishment.

Fuck that.

In fact. I haven't been attacking Davies. I have been expressing specific underlying facts in which Davies statements, and her apology appear in, because this is a good opportunity to do exactly what Davies is talking about. Opening up the discussion in the political realm.

Cueball Cueball's picture

Unionist wrote:

[url=http://www.opinion250.com/blog/view/16669/7/who+says+we+can%92t+criticiz... Says We Can't Criticize the State of Israel?[/url]

Quote:

Prime Minister Harper has since called for Davies to resign as deputy NDP leader and Liberal Bob Rae has accused her of “hostility and ignorance”. Even some members of her own party, the NDP, have attacked her, with Thomas Mulcair NDP MP calling her comments “egregious” and out of step with her party.

 
It is quite interesting that, while the caucuses of the Conservatives, Liberals and NDP are very quick to jump on Davies, they have made no criticism of the killings by Israeli commandoes of the nine people on the ships attempting to break the blockade of Gaza by Israel.

Seems like this blogger didn't miss the underlying "anti-semetism" charge lurking underneath Rae's attack against Davies either:

Quote:
The latest public figure to get the “anti-semitic” label is NDP MP for East Vancouver, Libby Davies. She has had this pinned on her because she expressed support for the international campaign to boycott and sanction Israel for its blockade of Gaza, as well as suggesting that Israel has been “occupying” the land since 1948.

Yet inexplicably, Unionist, takes me to task up thread for making exactly the same connection at post 52:

Unionist wrote:

cueball wrote:
And the pervasive use of this "anti-semitism" mantra being leveled at people for telling the truth must be opposed.

Thanks for the advice. Although who actually accused Libby of anti-semitism? Not even Harper or Rae or Mulcair, in their fanatical blood libels, went that far. You're mixing this up badly.

Not sure why Unionist isn't taking Ewart to task for "mixing this up badly."

Unionist

From pogge's blog:

[url=http://www.pogge.ca/archives/002789.shtml]In support of Libby Davies[/url]

Quote:

Tom Mulcair should be ashamed of himself. And I'd say the same for Bob Rae but there's no point. Davies has more courage than the two of them combined. I hope Jack Layton reads Dobbin's piece very closely.

I just wanted to join with the bloggers at Rusty Idols, Troy's Journal and Judy Rebick blogging at rabble.ca in support of one of the few MPs we have who has been brave enough to really stick her neck out on this issue.

Update:

I hadn't seen Alison's post when I wrote this but you can add her to the list. And you can drop by her house if you want to see the video that started it all.

vaudree

All Libby Davies appologised for in the statement on her webpage was getting the date wrong.  That is all her party made her apologise for.  Katz knew that he was twisting her words - I don't think everyone else knew that right away.

Is there going to be an NDP presence at theThe 2010 U.S. Assembly of Jews: Confronting Racism & Israeli Apartheid this weekend? And is there anything in their official statement which is against NDP policy?

http://www.jewsconfrontapartheid.org/news/open-letter/

Now to watch a few videos - thanks!

 

ottawaobserver

People are reading these threads, by the way.

Cueball Cueball's picture

Well anyone who wrote that obviously didn't watch the video. As opposed to hate-filled, I would say Libby comes across as confused on some facts. She certainly didn't come accross as frothing at the mouth anti-Israel. It's plainly obvious that she did not know the answer to the either/or question fired at her, and that she simply picked a date. Construing that as being part of some heartfelt and well thought out opposition to Israel's right to exist is just plain old misrepresentation. If it were part of such a belief she would have said 48, right off the top of her head.

What planet is that guy on... never mind... I know those looney right wingers are all really hyper sensitive sentimentalist soft-touches. Naive, dreamy eyed idealists. The things they say are all very nice, but of course completely impractical and unrealistic foolishness.

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

Cueball wrote:

Unionist wrote:

And there's more. Would that some of our babblers could take a moment to write like this.

 

What? you mean in short snappy sound bytes meant to assert a "position" for political effect? That would be a fine board would it not? Everyone, asserting "positions", "yes or no", "for and against", as opposed to in depth discussions of related facts, and detailed analysis -- every post an assertion of solidarity with this, or with that, correctly tuned to avoid uncomfortable complexities, and pared down for maximum punch.

Perhaps you can strike a committee, and have people submit copy to you before it is submitted to the board for publication.

I can, and do write that kind of crap to mainstream media outlets all the time. However, this is not such an outlet. That is indeed the point of Babble, I thought.

 

Hopefully. I'll remember to put this in the HOF.  Made my mind spin.

Sean in Ottawa

Looks like some agendas are beng satisfied.

Anyone else think that the baiting of Davies is related to the nice uptick in the polls the NDP had recently?

That this is all too convenient?

That this is being pounced on by people with an agenda, that the indignation serves another purpose?

I can only imagine how torn Davies must feel as some of her so-called, self described defenders are in fact gunning for what she has built and is loyal to.

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

I support Libby 100%

vaudree

Glad to finally hear Libby's speech.  She was talking about the events of the last three years.

OttawaObserver about the link.  If having a Jewish wife makes Rae an expert on Gaza, his stunt on Rick Mercer should make him an expert on Hugh H and Larry Flint's sexual preferences.  He has the right to his opinion, but - well how many times was his wife mentioned in that one article!  If the party holds her views in such high esteem, then she should be writing the blog, not Bob.

 

Cueball - Katz's point was that what happened in the past justifies what Israel does in the present.  That is why the date is so important to him.  One can always find a reason in the past to justify the committing of war crimes in the present by dressing it up as revenge.  What we see as war crimes, he sees as honour killings. 

Libby D is a popular MP and the Libs and Tories have no chance of getting their hands on her riding as long as she's there.  I think that the reason they are making such a big deal about this is because they want her out of the picture.  That said, Libby's stature is such among grass root memebers of the party that I think that she can make a few more missteps than most and still keep her positions.  Libby D is more apt to face attack because she is prominent but being prominent also protects her within the party.

Unionist

Letter to Jack Layton from Vancouver Rabbi David Mivasair:

[url=http://rebdavid.blogspot.com/2010_06_01_archive.html#3002382674389795855... Layton wrong to censure Libby Davies[/url]

Quote:

Dear Jack,

Shalom to you.  I am a card-carrying New Democrat active in Vancouver and a modest financial donor to the party.  We met a few years ago as you and Libby Davies were walking out of Vancouver City Hall and I was walking in. 

I also am a rabbi with a Vancouver synagogue.  I lived in Israel four different years since 1971.  I am very deeply tied to that land and its people.  My son is there now and my daughter is going in less than a month for a year.   I am involved with Israel daily and know its realities well.

Unfortunately, you make a real mistake in criticizing Libby Davies for her comments about the Israeli occupation beginning in 1948.  (http://tinyurl.com/369ggcm)  You fell into a trap, Jack.  A blatantly manipulative political ploy was set up to capitalize on a volatile and emotional issue.  You played right along. 

Libby said that she thinks the Israeli occupation began in 1948.  Well, it did.  I can introduce you to Palestinians living here in Vancouver who were forced out of their homes at gunpoint by Jews in 1948 and their villages destroyed.  That’s occupation.  It happened.  Denying it doesn’t change a thing.

Cueball Cueball's picture

vaudree wrote:

Cueball - Katz's point was that what happened in the past justifies what Israel does in the present.  That is why the date is so important to him.  One can always find a reason in the past to justify the committing of war crimes in the present by dressing it up as revenge.  What we see as war crimes, he sees as honour killings.

Who is Katz. And what does s/he have to do with anything I said?

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

I can only imagine how torn Davies must feel as some of her so-called, self described defenders are in fact gunning for what she has built and is loyal to.

Directly you mean to say what? Perhaps you are saying that Libby puts her loyalty to an institution that you are a member of above that of the principles she hopes it is a platform to promote? I rather thought that she was above that kind of thing. Perhaps i am wrong?

Cueball Cueball's picture

Seeing as you are now speaking for Katz, maybe you can explain to me what happened in 1948 that justifies what happened in 67. since that seems maybe to be what you are getting at?

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

vaudree wrote:

Katz is the citizen journalist who ambushed Libby D and started all this.

 

Precis.  [I don't have accents]

ottawaobserver

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Anyone else think that the baiting of Davies is related to the nice uptick in the polls the NDP had recently?

That this is all too convenient?

That this is being pounced on by people with an agenda, that the indignation serves another purpose?

I had the very same thought.  I wonder what the Conservatives' internal tracking polls are showing?  But, I also think the right-wing baiting over Israel is related to the flotilla fiasco,

vaudree

Katz is the citizen journalist who ambushed Libby D and started all this.  Though to be fair, he was just trying to discredit her as uninformed and someone else took the ball and ran with it (though he put that ball in motion).

 

Feeling a bit sick so may have exaggerated his position slightly.  Past grieviances justifying present actions does make killing seem honourable.

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

Katz started this Q.

ottawaobserver

I hate Babble sometimes.  Mods, can you delete the in between posts?

JKR

In its editorial today, the Vancouver Province managed to combine racism and twisted logic in an attempt to marginalize Libby and the NDP.

Quote:

Vancouver Province

Editorial: Davies' goofy views must be denounced

One wonders if Vancouver East MP Libby Davies has ever imagined what her life would be like if she lived in the Gaza Strip, or in nearly any other Muslim territory.

As an extremely left-wing, outspoken, lesbian woman, there's a very good chance that if she hadn't been murdered already for everything she represents — either by the state or possibly her family — she'd long ago have been buried away in some dark cell, out of sight and mind, to prevent her ideas or example from spreading to others. If Davies and her backers think standing up to authority is tough in Canada, they should turn their minds to what critics face in the brutal, undemocratic theocracies of the Middle East and beyond.

Within that region, there is just one democratic state. One nation where human rights mean something. One state that legally enshrines rights for gays, women, people of different colours, political views and faiths. One country that promotes free speech, the right to vote and the critical notion of one law for all. That country is Israel.

The situation in Gaza and the West Bank is complex, without an easy solution but largely necessary for Israel to defend itself from unceasing attacks by its enemies. It is a geopolitical problem that won't resolve until both sides stop attacking each other, accept the other side's legitimacy, and negotiate. So far, only Israel has shown a consistent interest in doing that.

Whether Davies remains deputy leader of the NDP for her one-sided and dangerously simplistic views about Israel is for her party to decide. But Canadians should judge her harshly for characterizing the Israeli/Egyptian blockade of terrorist-ruled Gaza as a "siege," that Israel is to solely blame for the region's woes and for calling for Israel's economic destruction through boycotts.

NDPP

Caissa wrote:

One could support the partition plan of 1948 and argue that additional land that Israel secured through war constitutes the land which was occupied in 1948. Of course, we all know 1948, 1956, 1967 or 1973 are not the issue.

NDPP Libby Davies statements were entirely correct. Israel seized lands NOT included in the UN mandate if you wish to get technical Of course this is all moot since she recanted and pronounced her 1948 statement 'a mistake'

Maysie Maysie's picture

ottawaobserver wrote:

I hate Babble sometimes.  Mods, can you delete the in between posts?

Hey OO, I deleted all the extraneous posts, but some text may have been removed at post #90, I'm not sure how or why. Please re-read it and add in the missing text if you wish.

KenS

Unionist wrote:

Meanwhile, I see Libby attacked here from the left and the right, based on her words.

When was Libby attacked here from the left?

For saying she made a mistake? Which was not an initiating point. It was a response to you soliciting condemnation of her colleagues [and not just Mulcair].

 

ottawaobserver

I think I'll just let sleeping dogs lie on that one.  Thanks, Maysie.

ottawaobserver

Meanwhile, while some of the commentariat was prefacing its harrumphs by saying that only Israel recognizes gay and lesbian rights, the Canada-Israel Committee didn't miss the opportunity to do a little gay-bashing of its own on Twitter this morning.  It's wiped out now, but an enterprising Tweep saved a screen capture in time.

See: http://twitter.com/Kim1811/status/16473164207

What do you want a bet that by the end of the week, the overkill becomes the story.  Even the question to Jack Layton at his session-ending news conference was about his reaction to the reaction to the story (this from a former Middle East correspondent, too).  I saw the news conference on CPAC last night, but they don't seem to have the video up on demand at their website (yet?).

ottawaobserver

I guess it's too much to hope that people will file equivalent or greater outrage with the Canada-Israel Committee for this homophobic slur.

remind remind's picture

OO, that link to Steve Janke's blog should have been forwarned, had I known whose it was I would not have gone to it.

 

Hvaing said that, it would appear the CONs are worried about something, or they would not be reacting with such nonsensical diatribes over this.

 

They desperately want to change the channel for their war crimes, and support of war crimes, it would seem.

Pages

Topic locked