Thomas Mulcair

178 posts / 0 new
Last post
Stockholm

Mulcair has no "fixation" with Israel. I think he talks about other issues about 99.9% of the time. It's people on babble who are "fixated" on Israel as anyone reading this thread would attest! Take a long hard look at yourselves people. Mulcair has had an illustrious political career in federal and provincial politics for the past 16 years - yet when someone tries to start a thread about his strengths and weaknesses as a potential NDP leader - it quickly degenerates into 150-odd posts where people try to read between the lines about two or three instances where he said something about the Middle East - as if that was the one and only issue that mattered in Canadian politics and as if there weas nothing else about him worthy of debate or discussion.

If you want to know why the "left" in Canada is often so marginalized its because there seems to be about a thousand times more "zest" for debating whether or not to use the word "apartheid" to describve Israel than there on any issue that actually affects ther day to day lives of vulnerable people in Canada!

 

KenS

laine lowe wrote:

Unlike the foes of the Palestinians and their fight for rights, anyone with any sense of what it means to be oppressed would easily use that term. The South Africans have not trademarked the word "Apartheid" so why should anyone else.

Dont go lumping people together just because they dont pass your litmus tests.

As if anyone except "foes of Palestinians" would 'easiy' use the word apartheid. and definitely dont presume to speak for what Nelson Mandela would say. Obviously, you should not anyway. But based on the approach he uses, I would say it is very likely he would NOT use apartheid as a term when talking about Israel and Palestine.

I do not and would not use the term. And I dont appreciate being lumped in as therefore "foe of Palestinians."

For what it is worth, here is the fuller take on that. I have no objection to others using it. I think it is unwise and not helpful for moving fence sitters. But even that much, I consider to be just my tactical opnion. I think its possible that overall, the use of the term may be of net benefit despite alienating people who are neither "foes of Palestinians" or pretty unqualified supporters of Israel.

In circles I travel in, I could not possibly use the term 'apartheid' without huge long explanations that would be more distraction than anyone else. Where and when I can make the chance, I'm much better served by opening people's eyes with actual descriptions of how Palestinians face a system of opression, not simply 'misguided' 'excesses of force.'

Stockholm

laine lowe wrote:

I freely use the term apartheid to describe Canada's treatment of First Nations.

Some would argue that if we really wanted to remove every trace of "apartheid" from Canada we would do the following - repeal the Indian Act, shut down all First nation reserves and governance, declare that there is "One Canada" and that all citizens are equal and end any and all recognition of First nations as "nations" and instead have a "one state" policy for Canada where everyone First Nations and non-First nations alike have exactly the same rights. It all sounds good in theory except that if any Canadian government tried to do that - it would lead to a virtual insurrection by First nations etc... 

KenS

Where I live and work, using the term apartheid when talking about First Nations people would be the ticket to guaranteeing they dont hear any of the content of what I am saying. A numer of indidual exceptions to that of course.

ElizaQ ElizaQ's picture

Life, the universe, everything wrote:

If you bothered to read for anything other than your own brilliance you would find my comment flows directly from the previous comment I made in the thread.  One just does it using the techniques learned in Mrs. Johnstone's Creative Writing course.  Now you might quibble about whether it was a sucessful use of those techniques but it is germaine to the direction this nonsensical thread has gone.

 

I thought it was quite successful.  It made me smile and I understood what it was saying and thought it was as germaine to this thread as anything else.   Maybe I got it though because I'm sympathetic to what it was suggesting.

remind remind's picture

Concur Eliza, thought Life was quite on point and witty.

Unionist

I supported Thomas Mulcair enthusiastically, until he started (last June or so) frothing at the mouth about Libby Davies and BDS - for no apparent reason. Then I couldn't support him any more, unless he backed off. There was never any need for him to go crazy on the issue of Israel, especially by attacking a Deputy Leader of the party.

If he had, in June, made some public attack about "we've got to stop coddling First Nations or women or transsexuals" - I would have reacted the same way - and everyone here would have concurred with me.

If he had said, "Canada can't leave Afghanistan - we have to finish the job" - most here would have concurred with me.

But when he freaks out about Libby Davies and when he says that anti-zionism is a cover for anti-semitism - hordes of apologists step forward aggressively to attack all comers.

Conclusion? Some people on the left have a serious blind spot on the issues of Zionism and Israel and Jews and Palestinians.

The fortunate thing is that such people have become a significant, though rather desperate, minority on the left.

 

 

George Victor

Indeed, Life..the Univ. (and later, Stockholm) were vital in attempting to restore sanity to this incredible stream of consciousness ...and near consciousness.

And Winston, bless him, presents the Canadian voter's dismay with ideologues very well...framed the problem.

George Victor

dp

Unionist

It's unfortunate that self-proclaimed supporters of Israel are still able to post on this forum.

 

KenS

Unionist wrote:

But when he freaks out about Libby Davies and when he says that anti-zionism is a cover for anti-semitism - hordes of apologists step forward aggressively to attack all comers.

Conclusion? Some people on the left have a serious blind spot on the issues of Zionism and Israel and Jews and Palestinians.

The fortunate thing is that such people have become a significant, though rather desperate, minority on the left.

"Hordes of apologists." What a hoot.

And the left is already a small minority. But after you finish turfing the rest of us as beneath respect, you can claim some credit for the 'desperate' and decling part.

Fidel

genstrike wrote:
Actually, when the Canadian government massively supports Israeli apartheid (to the point of being the Israeli state's #1 or #2 ally, depending on who you ask), it is all of our business. 

Excellent point. So we should vote strategically against the Canadian government and any Liberal parties which happen to be propping them up since 2006 or so. 

Unionist

KenS wrote:

"Hordes of apologists." What a hoot.

Oh, don't worry Ken, I was kidding about "hordes", as you would know if you bothered reading the rest of my post. The Israel-boosters in the left are diminishing to zero.

Quote:
And the left is already a small minority.

Spoken like someone who can't see the real life movement out there - someone for whom "left" is a label worn, not a life lived.

 

George Victor

But what a great difficulty hereabouts, riding the knifedge distinction between unter and ubermensch.  Always, the struggle to meet the test, fall into line. Wink

ElizaQ ElizaQ's picture

George Victor wrote:

But what a great difficulty hereabouts, riding the knifedge distinction between unter and ubermensch.  Always, the struggle to meet the test, fall into line. Wink

 

Just do what I do.  Refuse to take the test in the first place or just consider it irrelvant.  Paper degrees aren't always what they're cracked up to be. :)

Unionist

ElizaQ, when someone attacks Mulcair or Obama, some people here take it as an attack on themselves. If they were just prepared to discuss these public figures, they wouldn't need to feel as if they themselves were being "tested".

George Victor

Yes, just a value-free, objective, dispassionate evaluation, without heat...anywhere.  Laughing

 

ElizaQ ElizaQ's picture

Unionist wrote:

ElizaQ, when someone attacks Mulcair or Obama, some people here take it as an attack on themselves. If they were just prepared to discuss these public figures, they wouldn't need to feel as if they themselves were being "tested".

 

Well if that explination floats your boat then motor away.  It doesn't float mine.

Fidel

We refuse to dis Mulcair, so therefore we must be pro-Israeli!! We're blown. Charade we are.

KenS

Unionist wrote:

ElizaQ, when someone attacks Mulcair or Obama, some people here take it as an attack on themselves. If they were just prepared to discuss these public figures, they wouldn't need to feel as if they themselves were being "tested".

Actually, all of us here, or at least most of us, are indeed discussing Mulcair as a public figure, just as much as you are.

And for what its worth, I know that litmus tests are being applied to me, and I object to it on principle. But I dont feel "tested."

pogge

Winston wrote:

I'm just wondering: what the f*ck does the Palestinian conflict have to do with the Federal Canadian political scene anyway?

Ask Irwin Cotler. Or Jason Kenney, Scott Reid or any of the other MPs who are members of the CPCCA. They're the ones who feel it's acceptable to use their status as elected officials to promote an organization that most certainly is not parliamentary but benefits from the fraudulent appearance that it is. Ask these elected officials who have less interest in standing up for the rights of all of their own constituents to express their opinions than in using the position we've given them to intimidate some of us into silence in an effort to protect a foreign government from the consequences of its own actions.

Canadian MPs turned this into a Canadian issue. So did Tom Mulcair with his attendance at the recent meeting of the international parent organization of the CPCCA and his willingness to throw the deputy leader of his own party under the bus in defence of that same foreign government. Ask your question of Mulcair because he's now on board with the rest of them who have turned this into a Canadian political issue.

 

Unionist

ElizaQ wrote:

Unionist wrote:

ElizaQ, when someone attacks Mulcair or Obama, some people here take it as an attack on themselves. If they were just prepared to discuss these public figures, they wouldn't need to feel as if they themselves were being "tested".

 

Well if that explination floats your boat then motor away.  It doesn't float mine.

Right at this moment, my boat couldn't sink if I weighted it down with anvils. Where the heck is your boat that it won't float right now??

ElizaQ ElizaQ's picture

Unionist wrote:

ElizaQ wrote:

Unionist wrote:

ElizaQ, when someone attacks Mulcair or Obama, some people here take it as an attack on themselves. If they were just prepared to discuss these public figures, they wouldn't need to feel as if they themselves were being "tested".

 

Well if that explination floats your boat then motor away.  It doesn't float mine.

Right at this moment, my boat couldn't sink if I weighted it down with anvils. Where the heck is your boat that it won't float right now??

Let me rephrase to make my comment clear enough. 

I disagree with your explanation. My opinion differs from yours and your comment does little to change it and any further discussion along that line of thought (at least directed at me in particular) is not going to move it much further.   We're in different boats on this particular question and issue.

Unionist

We sure are, ElizaQ. I was referring to the fact that all bodies of water around these parts are frozen over right now.

KenS

I'm glad you added that. I didnt get it.

 

#175....

Life, the unive...

So Thomas Muclair - I presume by this thread he only talks about Israel and Palestine 100 per cent of the time.  How did he manage to do that when Environment Minister in Quebec.  That must have been a neat trick.  If only all politicians had such message discipline.

"Hey Sheldon - that's sarcasm"

oldgoat

Closing for length

 

Pages

Topic locked