Cheri di Novo self-destructs

boom!

All I can say is wow: http://sites.google.com/site/ricktelfer/eia/dinovo-rage

She has gone over the deep end riding, as one poster put it, "the Zionist playbook".

Holy crap. She really did self-destruct.

Will she quit before the next election? I don't think i've ever seen a politician so publicly attack their base support before.

Yes, it is the same. Glad that issue cleared up.

Michael Ignatieff doesn't lose any sleep over it.

I wonder if other politicians who supported this bill, or the sentiment expressed in the bill, have faced the same backlash?

wow...i am not a fan of her anymore.

I didn't realize that she is a queer woman and former street kid. Now that you mention that, maybe it makes her betrayal even more ironic. If you read her dirty little speech again, it harps on "peace". That's what she's preaching to the anti-apartheid activists that she is condemning. That's what she is preaching to the Palestinian people. She adds "justice" as an afterthought, but it's the "peace" goal which makes "inflammatory" language unacceptable to her.

Those who preach "peace" and "love" to the marginalized and the underclasses are not our allies. It may be a lesson she forgot as she climbed the social ladder to acceptability. Her aggressive tone with friendly critics and her deletion of comments she can't or won't answer bespeaks the same forgetfulness. But rather than speculate about her motives, I'm content to just see her dismissed with contempt wherever she shows her face - unless, and until, she does the right thing, recants, and asks forgiveness.

Someone on that Facebook page mentions wanting to meet with her. I hope someone does this.

Take away the pressure of the phone calls and whatever thats about, and its clear shes a Zionist and has that potent anti-Muslim rationalization. But there's nothing to be gained in just standing back and watching her morph into an active enemy.

The ones that caused this travesty and murder do not act as functionaries on behalf of people we elect to office. The list of atrocities that cry out for justice is quite long, they all deserve attention. Voices that are raised in objection only carry so far, and even here protest against what is wrought on our behalf is like talking to the wall on the best of days. Focusing effort where it stands the best chance of influencing the situation isn't entirely a matter of being selective with outrage.

wow, my take on this is, though I am in disagreement with Cheri's actions, reading that was like observing a teen age gang swarming of her and I really need to go have a shower.

Good to see Jerry West's name though, I miss him.

I saw the whole thing go down in real time last night on FB and I was shocked too.

To answer a question earlier in the thread - yes, I think the reaction to what DiNovo did in the Legislature would be the same no matter which NDP politician did it.  No, it's not the same for Iggy because we expect no better of him.  We know he stands on the side of torture and imperialism, and most of us don't vote Liberal, so it doesn't feel like a betrayal when he denounces activists.

That said...

I think what happened last night was sad, more than anything.  When I first saw it going down, it was a fascinating train wreck and I couldn't stop watching.  I was totally amazed and shocked that she was losing control like that.  At first, my reaction was of a rubber-necking bystander, the main emotion being, "Holy crap, LOOK what she's SAYING! Unbelievable!"  Especially when she called Andrew an idiot - definitely a low point. 

But as time went on, and I watched whoever it was (her? her handlers?) who scrambled to delete all the posts and then take her Facebook wall offline, I was feeling more and more uneasy and sad about the whole thing.  People have speculated that she might have been drunk when she said all of this.  Well, maybe she was.  I mean, certainly something was affecting her judgement. She also claims to not have slept for a week due to the phone calls she's been getting.  She also claims to have been threatened.

There was a whole lot wrong with what she wrote.  Personally, I think her calling Andrew an "idiot" was probably the easiest to excuse - who hasn't gotten into an online flame war at some point if they use online social media tools a lot (she asks, blushing)?  Obviously, it was the comments about how "the Left can't disagree peacefully" (maligning her entire base of support), and quoting Tarek Fatah calling the people who disagreed with her IAW motion support "fascists", and accusing "Left women" of not having said anything when Kazemi was killed in Iran and not supporting GLBT rights against fundamentalists that were most damaging, and are probably going to be the hardest for her to take back or live down.

And I was extremely unhappy and offended over her actions that sparked this whole thing, in the Legislature, standing in solidarity with the Conservatives as they called us antisemites and accused us of hate speech.

But after the initial rubbernecking "thrill" of reading something like this as it happened in real time, I started having growing feelings of unease and sympathy for her.  There is no glee for me in seeing Cheri DiNovo flame out like that, even if she did start it, and even if she did attack activists in her rambling speech in the Legislature, and even if she did "defriend" and delete the posts of a bunch of people on FB a few days ago.  (Some of whom, by the way, she has "friended" again.)

Because what we saw last night looked to me like a meltdown or a breakdown of some kind.  It didn't sound like a person in control of herself.  She says she hasn't slept in a week and has had threatening phone calls.  (Now, I have no idea whether she is just interpreting angry calls over what she said as "threatening" or whether she really has been threatened, but the point is, her state of mind was that she felt threatened by them.)  She has been under a great deal of pressure and stress.

On the surface, I agree with skdadl that people generally don't say the polar opposite to their real opinion in times of personal stress.  But then again, when I think about some of the stuff I've said in the heat of the argument (whether in real life or on babble), I know that I've rethought what I said later and realized, okay, I was probably wrong about that.  And hmm, I was probably wrong about that too.  DiNovo might be having that moment right now, waking up to the light of a new day and feeling sick over what happened the night before, and who knows, maybe wishing she could take it back.  Or, maybe she's still angry, but just unhappy with herself that she flew off the handle and called people "fascists" and "idiots".  Who knows.

There is so much problematic with the stuff she wrote, particularly about supporting Israel because women are oppressed by Islamic fundamentalism.  One of the other posters in that thread, Jason Kunin, took care of that argument nicely, so I won't get into that here. 

But after the initial thrill, my reaction to this is ultimately compassion.  She's a flawed human like the rest of us, and she freaked out.  She did what many of us do, but no politician is ever supposed to do - she had a human moment online and engaged in a flame war (and a pretty lightweight one too, at least by babble standards! :D ).  And she's going to pay for it in embarrassment and probably take a bit of a hit to her reputation, at least for a while.

And I suppose that is probably just.  I don't blame Andrew at all for posting her meltdown publicly after she deleted it - it was news, and she insulted him, and politicians need to know that you can't get away with doing that sort of thing to their allies and supporters (and I would be shocked if Andrew and many others who have been protesting her IAW action weren't supporters before that). 

But my personal hope is that after sleeping on it, and after this little scandal dies down, and once this is less of a "standoff" between DiNovo and Palestinian rights activists, she will be able to understand why her allies - and we are her allies - use the terms we do to describe Israel, and why we were so unhappy with her statement.  And I hope she will think twice before standing in solidarity with Conservatives to attack Palestinian rights activists, and come to realize that Tarek Fatah is not her "ally" simply because he is comforting her by calling the people she's upset with right now "fascists".  We all talk trash privately when we're upset with people, and that can be comforting in the moment, but often we realize once we cool down that we've gone over the top, and our trash talk is just that - a time of venting that doesn't really reflect our true feelings once the anger has subsided.

I also hope that we, the people who have been unhappy with her, can be satisfied with knowing that, even if she never agrees with us on the IAW issue, we have made our point and she has heard it loud and clear.  I hope that we can resist the urge to demonize her and completely write her off as a politician and a human being as a result of a (serious, I realize) political dispute and an angry exchange on Facebook.

And then, after all that, I hope she continues on with her otherwise excellent work as an MPP who is a real champion on domestic issues of poverty, homelessness, and labour.

Exactly what I thought when I read that.

We have workplace situations where (typically) the employer disciplines or fires a worker for having made "threats" against someone (often a supervisor or manager). Our response as union reps is: "Did you call the police?" When the answer is "no", we nod our heads, knowing that no one really took the threat seriously - and knowing that if management doesn't back off, we'll have a good chance of winning the grievance down the road.

I'm more interested in what the authorities said about the so-called "threats" that terrified Ms. DiNovo than what Ms. DiNovo said about them on Facebook.

In any event, I don't see anything fanatically Zionistic about what she said in public. She must be awfully shocked about what happened - all she did was ask the Palestinians to show some peace and love, and everyone not to use such terrible words as "apartheid" about Israel - and everyone got all upset and called her names! Combined with her pathetic whining on FB and her bizarre statements about Muslims and Jewish liturgy in her speech, one should not entirely write off the possibility that she is simply: (1) full of herself, and (2) not especially bright. A devastating combination.

ETA: Michelle, your analysis of the FB incident is based on a far closer knowledge of DiNovo than I could possibly have, but it doesn't take into account the days of denial, deletion of comments, etc. which make this appear more than a momentary meltdown. She is very angry, and at the wrong people.

I'm more interested in what the authorities said about the so-called "threats" that terrified Ms. DiNovo than what Ms. DiNovo said about them on Facebook.

I'm more interested in just getting it behind us.

You might have noticed over the years I don't often get into threads on middle east issues, precisely for this reason.   I mean, I'm not a carte blanche supporter of Israel, and I believe I can in fact take issue, if I had a mind, with the zoning decision of the Tel Aviv city council and not necessarily be an anti semite.

Too often, the debate becomes bitter because one isn't on someone else's side enough, or doesn't use the exactly precise word to describe this or that.  Then the accusations fly.

I don't live that far from the Beth Tefilah synagogue and the Or Shalom congregation, and there's times I've seen the Israeli flag and a protest march supporting Israel.  I don't doubt there's fanatical supporters of Israel that would indeed consider me anti semetic for not aggreeing with a zoning variation by a Tel Aviv city council.  And yes, that bugs me.

I can focus on that.  Or, I can focus on the fact that the Jewish and Islamic communities in London also work together for understanding, and charity domestic and foreign.

Stuff like that is probably much more common than the attention it gets would indicate.

And, that's where the only hope lies.

radiorahim and I were talking the other day about what union activism has taught us (well, mostly what it's taught him since he's been involved for decades and I'm a relative newbie).  And one thing is, trying to bridge gaps across ideological divides.  You get people of all political stripes in unions, and if you can't build solidarity across that, then you're screwed once it's time to go to the bargaining table for the stuff you do agree on.

Radiorahim is very wise.   For me, I look to my name's sake and the founding fathers of the U.S.  What is often forgotten is all the extremely significant--very extremely significant-- differences that the 13 colonies had with each other, and what had to be put aside in order for the common goal of independance to be realized.   The French couldn't do that in their revolution.

And, don't think we here are not chalk full of little Robesspiere's wanting to see the heads of their alllies more than their enemies.

More broadly, too, you realize that if we really are going to challenge the power structure, fight the patriarchy or whatever, we're going to have to actually build bridges, and for a time work along side people who hold some very different views than our own.

The fact that we are unable to do so is why we really haven't challenged any power yet.

I understand what you're saying, Michelle, and I certainly respect your generous spirit. My issue is not with politicians who say dumb things or who may be on the wrong side of an issue. That happens all the time. But I submit to you, that it was DiNovo who sought to marginalize us, to silence us, and to render us "alone" when she knowingly, consciously, and with forethought branded us all anti-semites because we place the human rights of displaced and persecuted Palestinians before the comfort and convenience of powerful interests that hold the lives of Palestinians, as they did with black South Africans, as so much rubbish to be swept away. And, worse, her response has not been to step back and examine her words and conduct in light of the public reaction, but to use the words of the abusers and the oppressors to further alienate those she offended.

On the left language is important, even critical, as the left is focused on education, empowerment, and justice. For the right, language is a means to an end, to be shaped, shifted, framed, and exploited where the end is the raw power of one people over another--the hierarchy of global, corporate capitalism. So the left views actions and language much more critically than the right who view errors as merely going "off message" on the way to consoldiating power.

No, I think the right also has a view on hypocricy.  You see them using that as a tool in the global warming debate, pointing to David Suzuki and Al Gore jetting around the country to decry co2 emissions.     They just see their own hypocricy as something else entirely-- it's a perk of being part of the aristocracy.  Of course there's one rule for them and other rules for others.   How else could it be?  It's not hypocricy, it's perfectly consistent.

Shouldn't that be head to head?

Yes, but note the right has a better understanding of us then we of them. They point to Al Gore to undermine leftist solidarity (as though the left is enamored with Al Gore). Their own hypocrisy, Rush Limbaugh with his wealthy, elitist lifestyle and drug addiction, for example, is a none issue for them, really. They obsess over what they perceive as our own hypcorisy because they correctly figure we will allow ourselves to become distracted by it in a way that their own overt and blatant hypocrisy never distracts them. Why not? Because, again, it is all just a program of distraction to obscure the actual goals which move along almost entirely unhindered. The true power elite, neo-liberals, only ally with the self-righteous moralaity crusaders in the same way sheperds ally with dogs--to do the corralling.  In fact, the greatest political setback to the right wing agenda hasn't come from the left but from corruption within their own ranks, the bank crisis. But even that served the primary goal, thus no consequences, of transferring wealth (derived from a living earth) from the many to the few and then turned the crisis of their own making into a positive by using it to raise Tea Party anger against the left. Genius really, if evil is your cup of tea.

skdadl wrote:

Your reading from watching the real-time experience (which I didn't -- I gather there was even more than we're reading in the screen cap?) is eloquent and sensitive, and I'm sure most people here -- as there at the time -- genuinely feel sorry about all this, not at all gleeful.

Yes, that's the whole of it - the screen cap got it all.

I'm not saying that people here are expressing glee.  I guess I said that wrong.  But there's kind of an avidity to it, which I felt also at first last night, but which wore away within about 10 minutes for me.  But I've had the feeling it hasn't worn off for a number of others yet on Facebook (not so much here on babble).  And perhaps that's even understandable, considering how many people seem to not just feel politically, but personally betrayed by DiNovo's original action in the Legislature.

You're right, of course - people can't keep getting away with racist constructions of foreign affairs issues, especially people who are supposed to understand.  And selling those of us who DO understand out to the Conservatives is beyond the pale.

But I guess I just wonder whether there's a way to deal with this without completely taking Cheri out.  Because I went to a lot of all-candidates debates in her riding in the 2007 campaign, and heard lots from the Liberal who was running against her.  It's not a pretty thought.  Seriously.

What I want to know is if there a way of calling her on it without wanting to see her fall.  I don't know if anyone wants to see her fall, but I'm seeing quite a bit of...I don't know how to describe it...glee is too strong, but something on that continuum...on Facebook.  And I'm just not feeling it myself, although I've felt it in the past about other politicians, so I certainly understand the feeling and I don't condemn those who are feeling it.  I'm just not there this time.

Bookish, I agree with almost your entire post, except for this...

Bookish Agrarian wrote:

What I have seen is that instead of working with someone of good concious to help broaden her perspective many lashed out at her almost violently.

Actually, I don't think that's quite accurate.  After she did this, people wrote to the party (and probably to her) to protest it.  And she did attack first by standing with the Conservatives against activists.

And those who were posting on that original FB wall discussion about IWD were actually quite reasonable and nice about it.  I know, because I read the posts - no one was rude, no one was mean, no one attacked her personally.  They were genuinely trying to explain their position.  It wasn't until she started deleting people's posts from the discussion (selectively, leaving most up that supported her, and only a couple that didn't) that people got annoyed.  And even then, they tried to post politely again, asking her to think about what they were saying instead of deleting their posts.

It was when she defriended a bunch of folks who had posted polite disagreement on her wall that the shit hit the fan on FB, and one of them started a group for people who had been defriended by DiNovo.

So really, DiNovo brought this mess on herself.  No one "lashed out violently" on FB until she started deleting reasonable posts and defriending people.  After having already helped the Conservatives accuse them of hate speech in the Legislature, that was probably the last straw for many of them.

That doesn't mean I think she should be hounded out of office.  And it sucks that it's gotten so polarized.  But I think in the interest of accuracy, it's important to recognize that many, many people did attempt to "broaden her perspective" in respectful ways, in the spirit of solidarity between disagreeing people on the same team.  She was the first to reject those advances and label them "sexist" (in the case of the posts people wrote on her discussion thread for IWD), and then to label them "fascists" in last night's thread when she went off the deep end.

But even that served the primary goal, thus no consequences, of transferring wealth (derived from a living earth) from the many to the few and then turned the crisis of their own making into a positive by using it to raise Tea Party anger against the left. Genius really, if evil is your cup of tea.

Was that them, though or us?  For a few brief days, leftists and right wingers were out protesting together, in a rather spontaneous way, on Wall Street. 

The Teabaggers and whatever the Canadian equivelant of them are here can be a great resource for the left.  But we don't even try.  We just write them off as being too stupid, and therefore beneath our dignity to rub shoulders with.   The Teabaggers aren't wrong to be afraid, they are not wrong to be angry, they are certainly not wrong in wanting to take on government. 

They have just been aimed in the wrong direction.

dear michelle,

thank you for your thoughtful posts in this discussion.  i agree with most of what you say, not with the language necessarily, but with the spirit of it which, to my mind, shows your desire to humanize this discussion.  i think you show a good deal of sensitivity to both sides of the CDN wall and i thank you for that.  i share your sadness in seeing this situation unfold, and i know from public comments and private exchanges, that many of the people who joined the FB group feel similarly.  it's never fun to see someone whom you considered an ally fall into a self-dug pit.  as the person who instigated some of the FB response to CDN, i can tell you with certainty that neither i nor others whom i know personally and who joined in that campaign intended to take CDN down.  we are neither responsible for her comments in the legislature and their effects nor for her subsequent comments and actions and their effects.  many of us who originally wrote to her did so in the spirit of engaging her in a substantive debate on the issues.  there were no personality attacks.  unfortunately, what showed as things were unfolding was not just her intolerance of criticism but her deep-seated and unacknowledged racism.  it is very revealing that the people she kept deleting, defriending and then accusing of sexism and harassment, were precisely the people she keeps invoking to justify her position: gays and lesbians of muslim background, women of colour, and myself, an iranian woman whose work against islamic fundamentalism started way before CDN found the superficial language to speak of it.  there is no glee in that revelation.  only profound sadness and disappointment. that has been the emotive content of most of the posts i've seen on FB.

but whatever the emotions, the fact remains that not only did she betray her grass-roots allies (none of us are single-issue activists and many of us have worked in other campaigns that CDN attached herself to and contributed to her election campaigns too), but she also refused to engage in any discussion with people and then resorted to accusations.  we can't take responsibility for CDN's actions nor how she feels at this moment nor should we be burdened with that.  afterall, we have been on the receiving end of her indiscriminate lashing, and contrary to what may look on the outside, we're the ones who were agrieved to begin with.

i note this with some irony that these rabble discussions have been more of the space of gleeful bashing and personality recking than the FB discussions i've seen personally over the past week.  from what i see, and i do not claim to be speaking for anybody or respresenting any group, many people in the FB group are quite clear that this debate needs to be recentred on ONDP and federal NDP.  perhaps it is time that we collectively acknowledge our sadness for CDN, note the lessons we've learned, and move on to discussing how to pressure ONDP to take a clear public stance and how to pressure federal NDP to withdraw from CPCCA?  i personally look forward to that.

thank you for reading.

Contrary to popular politician belief, it hurts no one to admit error and strive to correct oneself. The public, in fact, tends to be quite forgiving of politicians who admit error AND strive to work things out (NOT admit error and keep on doing it, or do no corrective work)

Unionist and Gita, I totally understand your point of view and I share everyone's anger and disappointment about what she did.  I haven't changed my mind about that.

And I would ask you the same question, Unionist: what if, after she's heard our point of view (which I think she has at this point), she doesn't think she's wrong?  What then?  What if this is an issue we never agree on and she continues to hold her own point of view on this one issue?  What if she never does what you hope she'll do and apologize and retract?

Does that make her the enemy now?  On everything?  Or do we at some point move on, find points of solidarity with her that we can, and focus our energy on changing the minds of and putting pressure on the people who actually make the REAL decisions on foreign policy?

Wrong on what? On whether the legislature should publicly condemn activists organizing IAW? Then she should be denounced as being profoundly anti-democratic. Secondly, you write to the leader of the party and ask that she be forced to recant those comments, which she obviously made on behalf of the ONDP - or else be removed from caucus, as a minimum. Unless you think that this is a lesser offence than that of Bev Desjarlais?

Of course not. We're not some university scholars here (and my apologies to those who are, no offence). We unite with people every single day who are sexist and racist and homophobic and everything else in the book. At least I do, in the union movement. We don't get to choose who works in our workplaces, but life and struggle brings us to together, where we set aside our differences and work for common aims on specific issues.

So unite with her all you want on all those issues where (to believe some here, and I have no evidence to the contrary), she is the Second Coming of Our Lord and the greatest fighter since Boadicea. But if she retains her views as expressed in the legislature, and her fascistic suppression of debate and discussion, then how can she be a political representative that deserves support? Because as a political representative, you need integrity and confidence and (yes) the discipline of the organization across the board.

Would you be comfortable with an ONDP elected member and indeed spokesperson who said, "I think Pride Parade and its organizers should be condemned, because it flaunts homosexuality which offends against my faith"? You wouldn't? No? Then how can you be comfortable with someone who says, "All parties should condemn those who advocate that Israel is an apartheid regime, because it offends against my quest for peace and love!"?

This is pretty basic stuff, and when it becomes most crucial to take a stand is when the individual who is suppressing the progressive movement has such a wonderful reputation. Because they do the greatest damage to the movement and to democracy - not the "REAL" enemies. The "REAL" enemies are out there where we can see them.

Think of this as the CDN-test.

And by the way, Michelle - why are you asking me this "what if she doesn't apologize" question? You asked if there was a way out of this without taking her down, and I replied. So will you try that route before predicting failure?

Actually, if you generalize to foreign policy taken as a whole, Stockholm is quite wrong. The former Premier of Manitoba, Gary Doer, time and again used that repulsive "Support the Troops" mantra during provincial elections and between elections. Obviously Doer, clever fellow that he was, was of the opinion that his veiled warmongering would benefit him at the polls.So it's not always a disadvantage - discussing or covering foreign policy - is it?

Of course the "Support the Troops" mantra is deliberately couched in such a way that it is intended to be immune from criticism. But it's still foreign policy whatever the lying liars say it is.

However, just in case Stockholm mis-interprets my comments as encouraging HIM, in particular, to discuss foreign policy here then I must add that some babblers should stay as far away from foreign policy as possible. 'nuff  said.

Right on, N.Beltov.

And if we let the lying liars do it by default, it is still being done in our name. People of the Other are being kidnapped in our name, tortured in our name, and dying in our name, and we make that worse by pretending that we're just too innocent and nice to grasp it all.

Tommy, you may have bigger fish to fry, but I don't know of any bigger fish at the moment than torture. Fighting some of the torture conspiracies could actually bring the whole house of cards down (see the British High Court, who will set precedent for us and the Merkins too), but even if not, even if it's only for the history books, it is still the story of this most filthy, guilty decade of our lives (well, longer than that, but this past dishonest decade especially).

If there's a bigger story coming, it will be the Israeli attack on Iran. For that reason as well, we cannot stand by while free expression is being subverted in Canada, because there could come a day very soon when we will need it, when we will need so many voices raised in protest that we can prevent heinous international crimes.

"She's the universal soldier, and she really is to blame; her orders come from far away no more ..."

Michael, I think that's just some version of the mindless hash that people are being fed about ME/Central Asian politics -- see racist categories like "Islamist" -- well, they're all the same, don't you know; doesn't matter where you put them.

I doubt she has ever spent ten minutes wondering why Saudi Arabia is such good friends with the U.S., not to mention us, or why Egypt is either, or why Israel seems to get along fine with them both as well. The propaganda aimed at innocents here is that Saudis are oppressive bastards, which of course the ruling House of Saud is. But the same propagandists are just pleased as punch to be allies with that murderous bunch, and there are reasons for that, as I'm sure you know.

No one has said that, remind.

Not direct quotable stating of that,  but that is the overarching message and directed attack against her, both here and at FB.

Sounds like Bev Desjarlais to me. Michelle, did you think that comparison was apt? Or was Bev just plain bad through and through, not just on equal marriage?

Peterjcassidy, when Cheri's friends tried to deal with it "en famille", she deleted their posts. You apparently think her "courage" in stating her position outweighs the content of her position. That is astounding. You must appreciate Jason Kenney and John Baird too. Nothing scripted and mealy-mouthed about them.

Or do you maybe support what Cheri said in the legislature?

Sorry, Tommy, I didn't understand your post - are there worse people than DiNovo on those issues who speak on behalf of the NDP in a legislature? Surely that's the appropriate comparison. We know there are tonnes of people ready to crush pro-Palestinian activists, including a few on this board.

Do you think, Tommy, that if she doesn't recant her speech, she should be allowed to stay in caucus?

I have a lot of sympathy for what Cheri said in the legislature, including her reference ot how the death of Julius D. affected her. I ,ay or may nte agree with all the words, but I think she did take a postion in accord with her values after much thought, a position that I see in acord with NDP and democratis socialist/ social democratic valuse. I have a lot of symathy for what she is saying in the  semi-public cyber sphere  starting with the fact sheis   sharing her thoughts and feelings  in a manner some see as innapropriate.   Persoannly I like to see my legislatorrs cry and curse and rant and argue and be human.

Mostly men? On the Facebook page it looked like a roughly equal number of men and women. Does the Iranian woman who posted above not count? Do you agree with diNovo's views, remind? Should such reactionary opinions be overlooked because they were uttered by a woman? Just what is your point?

No one is upset with Cheri DiNovo because she is a woman.  People are upset with Cheri DiNovo because she voted to condemn them and she's saying ridiculous things about them.

I'm not saying sexism doesn't exist in society, but it's a pretty big leap to say that all these Palestinian solidarity activists, male and female, are a bunch of sexist men.  Just because someone has political criticisms of a female politician doesn't mean they hate women.  I think this is just more of you using the fact that an NDP politician happens to be female to deflect any criticism of her with allegations of sexism for partisan reasons.

Maybe she misspoke, but maybe she didn't.  Lots of people who identify as bi, for instance, wind up in monogamous hetero relationships.

Unionist, I'll come back to this later - I don't have the energy right now for a long response, and I'm still thinking. :)

got your call to action, eh!

"all these Palestinian solidarity activists"

you got evidence that they are that? sure we know a few are and know few here were involved with setting up IAW, but I am also aware people do those types of things all the time to self-promote, moreso than any real solidarity in cause.

It was one of the main things I learned in the feminist, and environmentalist movements, and being in  solidarity with FN's.

but beyond that we "know" squat about whom her incessant  carpers were/are.

and you like FM fails to read apparently so you can attack me, as I stated my disagreement with her positioning, long ago.

And oh ya, i have so much invested in the ONNDP that i would call this attack upon her person, not her politics, for partisan reasons. :rolleyes:

Like her, you apparently have trouble distinguishing between Jews and Israel. Because some Jew shared a dying regret with her, she decided Israel is a pretty cool place, and anyone who tells the truth about it should be silenced by an all-party vote. I should be forthright, honest, blunt (you appear to appreciate those qualities, or is it only in those you agree with) - your support for her on this issue disgusts me, as a Canadian, as a progressive person, and as a Jew.

My point - which, I concede, I didn't explicitly make - is if she said something so basic about her identity that is (far as I know) manifestly untrue, what else did she say that really isn't an expression of anything other than astoundingly bad judgement?

i wonder if her outbursts will actually help her politically, in terms of attracting voters from the right.

I'm sorry if I got confused with your sarcasm, but... oh, fuck it, I'm withdrawing from this shit.  I have too many personal issues right now to deal with babble.

She may have known that DiNovo was going to abstain on the motion but, unless she has precognition, it's unlikely she knew what DiNovo would be saying in her speech which is rambling and thus appears not to have been proofed by anyone other than DiNovo (more likely she spoke extemporaneously based on a few notes)

Anyway, while I agree that it would have been better had Horwath's letter been posted on the NDP website and had their been a press release it's ridiculous to allege that an "open letter" was somehow hush-hush. Horwath would have known, indeed expected that something called an "open letter" would be public domain and find its way into the media which is, in fact, what has happened.

double post

It is not for us to judge whether she is "queer enough" to fit other people's criteria.

The Israel-Palestine conflict can be seen as a global metaphor for the wars and civil unrests of our times:

A history of peoples oppressed and persecuted, to varying degrees broken and traumatized, pitted against each other like bear and dog, a match set by overlording masters who will mostly profit from the outcome whichever way it goes.

It so happens to be at the epicenter of a geopolitical timebomb that has been ticking for over a hundred years, long before Israel was born and Palestinians occupied. It started out about oil and industrial regional dominance, but has since transpired into a fundamentalist feud of world views, aka Plutocracy/Capitalism/Corporatism vs. Monarchy/Sheikdom/Islam, that makes the Cold War seem like nothing but a passing bout of indigestion.

A majority of Israelis consistently respond to polls in favour of a two state solution. Nearly half of the Palestinians living in Gaza and the West Bank also respond in favour. Nonetheless there are the hard memories, decades upon decades fraught with loved ones killed, homes and orchards razed, soldiers shooting, tanks and jets bombing, skuds, rapes, ambushes, suicide bombings, line-ups and checkpoints, murders and massacres...plus a temperament (or hard-headedness) that is legacy to mistreatment and abuse and having to fight for survival.

And then there is the apartheid wall. What is that, really, but an act of desperation so obvious that it should evoke our sympathy, or pity, more so than wrath?

We hate and point and throw more blame on the fire. My point being, it's more than complicated, should one take the time to really think about it. Or to research the subject...thoroughly.

Now back to Cheri DiNovo:

It is daring for anyone to profer their opinion on the matter, especially someone in the public service, in some way that is not obvious, or already done, to death. Now more than ever we need good people to speak their mind. I'm not sure what she said in Parliament, but I am fairly certain that Cheri DiNovo is not a Zionist and she is fully aware of the plight and circumstances of the occupied Palestinians.

Before the invisible Gerard Kennedy hobbled into this riding, the woman who served Parkdale for so many years--the one who wore the NDP stripes so favoured by many a RABBLE Champagne Socialist--would not likely strike anyone as being a bigot or a racist. I doubt very much that she harbours any surreptitious resentment toward the Arab world. She is likely one of the more informed and progressive municipal politicians in the city.

These times are desperate, and our leaders let us down daily by avoiding discussion about those things that truly matter. Meanwhile, the WAR WAYS aren't working. The US vs. THEM doesn't work. The BLAME GAME doesn't work. But it does suit some. There are those, we know, who stand to gain and even profit by it. And we're smart enough to know who they are. Aren't we?

Do you people really have nothing better to do than to devour one of your own?

And so the metaphor trickles down...

Thank you Gabriel.

Small mercies.

So let's see, criticizing Israeli apartheid is anti-semitic, and criticizing an NDPer who happens to be a woman for reinforcing the stupidity of the first statement is sexist. I do need to to keep up with the various inane devices useful for both derailing and chilling debate.

And one forum where such women may be heard is on campus during IAW week. An event DiNovo sought to delegitmize supporting, instead, the motion of a white male of privilege defending a regime that portrays pregnant Palestinain women on t-shirts, in crosshairs, with the caption "One Bullet Two Kills".

So how is this at all about promoting the interests of women? From Iraq, to Afghanistan, to the UofT, it seems the final refuge of a scoundrel has shifted.

This can't be allowed to go unchallenged. This is not a clash of civilizations. This is not a clash of ideas. This is not anything that evokes adversaries of equal capacity with opposing or competing goals, methods, and resources. This is a contest where one side, the majority world, doesn't even know there's a game afoot but finds themselves beset by poverty, repression, and violence without end.

The root cause, the oil, but not just, resources of every kind, is nothing but loot to be pillaged. The narrative of "a clash", of dangerous "Islamic extremism", of threats to our "way of life" (rampant consumerism), is for domestic consumption. So that we can enjoy our cheetohs and pepsis while CNN and FOX sell carnage as freedom.

Good Lord! Who writes this stuff? Honey, capitalism and sheikhdom R us! They are, like, teh same thing. Did you not get the memo?

How long is it going to take to get Canadians to think srsly about the House of Saud, and why Western governments (including Israel)  so mysteriously remain on good terms with it? Anyone wanna start a pool?