Cheri di Novo self-destructs

105 posts / 0 new
Last post
Michelle

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?

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Terrific post, gita. Thank you very much.

gita wrote:
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....

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.

Unionist

Michelle wrote:

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?

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?

Quote:
Does that make her the enemy now?  On everything? 

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?

 

Lord Palmerston

Stockholm wrote:

Once again, this shows why people in provincial politics should know better than to say anything about the Middle East. Its a lose, lose, lose proposition and the more you say about the Middle East the deeper a hole you dig for yourself.

Are you suggesting that Peter Shurman is going to face a backlash from his constituents?

N.Beltov N.Beltov's picture

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.

Kaspar Hauser

Does anyone know what she meant by "Saudi/Iran" apartheid?

skdadl

N.Beltov wrote:

it's still foreign policy whatever the lying liars say it is.

 

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 ..."

 

 

 

 

KenS

Michael Nenonen wrote:

Does anyone know what she meant by "Saudi/Iran" apartheid?

I can guess. But when people are ranting and going into pretzel logic, why bother?

skdadl

Michael Nenonen wrote:

Does anyone know what she meant by "Saudi/Iran" apartheid?

 

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.

 

 

remind remind's picture

Yep Cheri de Nova, is evil personified, and all women are to blame for all the world's ills,....mens, they are perfect to behold, in deed and public good will.

 

 

Michelle

No one has said that, remind.

Freedom 55

Unionist wrote:

Catchfire wrote:

Should we ask whether Cheri DiNovo, who is nevertheless wrong on this question, is taking a disproportionate amount of stick for her pro-Israel views as a queer woman and former street kid?

I didn't realize that she is a queer woman

I'm familiar with some of her life story, but before today I was unaware that she self-identifies as queer. I'm curious if this was the first time she's come-out and stated this publicly. Did anyone else know this?

And I have to agree with Michelle's comments. When this story first began I followed the drama on Babble and FB with a mixture of disappointment, frustration, and amusement. Now I mainly feel pity.

remind remind's picture

Michelle wrote:
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.

 

 

 

 

peterjcassidy peterjcassidy's picture

My sympathy and solidarity with Cheri.  Regardess of what people may think of her positon on this issue, she has the balls and the creds to put it out there/   She has walked the talk or paid her dues, call it what you will and right now is not playing this as some smooth talking head politican, She took a stand in the midst of some heavy duty issues and has publicly discuused, with some emotion, her thinking and her feelings on the issue and around  the reaction to her stand.  I don't have a problem with that. Why do you = think she shoudl suck it in,refuse to comment isue a prepared statement and stick to the talking points of some media consultant?Personally, I would rather see this dealt with en famille.

 

Unionist

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?

Tommy_Paine

Tommy, you may have bigger fish to fry, but I don't know of any bigger fish at the moment than torture.

 

I think you missunderstand me.   Yes, I think DiNovo was wrong for all the reasons already mentioned here.   But my point is, I can't get all fired up against her when people who took an active roll in the Arar affair are skating from their responsibilities.  It'd Cotler, a man of international reputation and long history of fighting for human rights giving his blessing on C 36, that lead a good ways down that path.   And, it's members of the RCMP and CSIS who should be garnering much more vitriol than Cheri DiNovo.  

And, there's a lot of good people on Parliament Hill that did nothing when the time came to do something, that more richly deserve to be impuned than Cheri DiNovo.

Which, just because there are worse people than DiNovo on this score, doesn't mean she should get a free pass or anything.   I just think because it's current, and she's accessable to a greater degree, she's catching it out of proportion.

Unionist

Tommy_Paine wrote:
Yes, I think DiNovo was wrong for all the reasons already mentioned here.   But my point is, I can't get all fired up against her when people who took an active roll in the Arar affair are skating from their responsibilities.

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?

peterjcassidy peterjcassidy's picture

Unionist wrote:

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?

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.

remind remind's picture

unionist wrote:
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?

No I for one, certainly do not, as Bev  had absolutely NO, I repeat NO, social justice credentials, nor indeed any meaningful societal actions to her credit.

 

tommy_paine wrote:
And, there's a lot of good people on Parliament Hill that did nothing when the time came to do something, that more richly deserve to be impuned than Cheri DiNovo.

Exactly, but hey let's just ignore the implicit sexism, and gang bullying of her by mainly men, as women really are to blame, eh!

 

 

Tommy_Paine

 

To be honest, I am not sure.  That's the leaders call, and as a member-- for now-- I have to wait and see what reasoning from that quarter is applied on the issue one way or the other.  

 

You might be asking the wrong guy.   If it was up to me, the ONDP and Federal NDP caucus' would be pretty small indeed if they were kicked out every time they ran afoul of my personal ethics.

 

 

Frustrated Mess Frustrated Mess's picture

remind wrote:

unionist wrote:
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?

No I for one, certainly do not, as Bev  had absolutely NO, I repeat NO, social justice credentials, nor indeed any meaningful societal actions to her credit.

 

tommy_paine wrote:
And, there's a lot of good people on Parliament Hill that did nothing when the time came to do something, that more richly deserve to be impuned than Cheri DiNovo.

Exactly, but hey let's just ignore the implicit sexism, and gang bullying of her by mainly men, as women really are to blame, eh!

 

 

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?

remind remind's picture

Not going to repeat myself if you simply refuse to read FM.

 

 

genstrike

remind wrote:

tommy_paine wrote:
And, there's a lot of good people on Parliament Hill that did nothing when the time came to do something, that more richly deserve to be impuned than Cheri DiNovo.

Exactly, but hey let's just ignore the implicit sexism, and gang bullying of her by mainly men, as women really are to blame, eh!

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.

Sineed

This'll probably hit the MSM tomorrow - she needs to apologize.

I'm also a bit puzzled by her assertion that she's queer; maybe she misspoke.  She's married to her 2nd husband and has 2 kids.

Michelle

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. :)

skdadl

I think that remind was provoked in the first place by the play I did on Buffy Sainte-Marie's lyrics to "The Universal Soldier." I probably should have written "S/he's the universal soldier and s/he really is to blame ..." I didn't think of that at the time, although if you know the song, you know that shouldn't be necessary (try finishing that line, and you'll see). It's a song about the responsibility of every individual to have a conscience, to nurture it, and to act on the basis of it.

 

I don't find it that hard to say, eg, that if people are dying in Afghanistan, in some significant sense it is my fault. That's what Buffy was singing about and warning about. If Cheri DiNovo or anyone else does not think that s/he will be responsible for those who will die if Iran is attacked, then maybe it's worth singing the song again, eh? I very much doubt there are any Iranian women asking to be bombed.

 

 

remind remind's picture

genstrike wrote:
remind wrote:
tommy_paine wrote:
And, there's a lot of good people on Parliament Hill that did nothing when the time came to do something, that more richly deserve to be impuned than Cheri DiNovo.

Exactly, but hey let's just ignore the implicit sexism, and gang bullying of her by mainly men, as women really are to blame, eh!

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.

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:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

remind remind's picture

again skdadl you think way too highly of your own words and person.

Unionist

peterjcassidy wrote:

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.

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.

Unionist

Sineed wrote:

This'll probably hit the MSM tomorrow - she needs to apologize.

Thank you for putting it simply and bluntly. Some people here appear not to understand that point.

Quote:
I'm also a bit puzzled by her assertion that she's queer; maybe she misspoke.  She's married to her 2nd husband and has 2 kids.

I'm a bit puzzled why anyone would give a damn about Cheri DiNovo's sexual predilections, when what is under discussion is her prostrating herself at the feet of some two-bit Conservative enemy of freedom and justice. I personally don't care whom she likes to copulate with or how, and find her exhibitionism rather astounding.

 

Sineed

unionist wrote:
I'm a bit puzzled why anyone would give a damn about Cheri DiNovo's sexual predilections, when what is under discussion is her prostrating herself at the feet of some two-bit Conservative enemy of freedom and justice. I personally don't care whom she likes to copulate with or how, and find her exhibitionism rather astounding.

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?

rasmus

It's news to everyone I know that Dinovo is queer -- very queer-friendly, yes, but until now, no one had heard of her being queer, and the sudden revelation happened to come conveniently right after her own privilege was questioned.

Sorry, we're dealing with a sitting MPP who has attacked a justice movement, attacked and silenced individuals, and is using her pulpit to propagate hateful lies and stereotypes. I for one am not going to go out of my way to make excuses for her.

As to remind's hyperbole: perhaps if Dinovo hadn't defriended most all the women and people of colour who were critical of her, and deleted their comments, you would have seen a great many more women and people of colour taking issue with her position. Ironically, you yourself are silencing and ignoring those same women and people of colour in making your assertions. And it's quite ridiculous to say that anyone goes into Palestine solidarity activism for self-promotion -- there is no surer way to make yourself a target for vilification and hate.

 

 

takeitslowly

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

peterjcassidy peterjcassidy's picture

Unionist wrote:

peterjcassidy wrote:

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.

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.

Sorry, you feel that wa,but for my own reasons I can feel for Cheri. Does it help of I say I have been thinking a lot lately about issues like those explored in the song: Easy to be hard= especially those who believe in social justice?.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjOvjPJ3pXM&feature=related

genstrike

remind wrote:

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

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.

Sineed

It's an interesting thought, takeitslowly, but I'm thinking you don't broaden your support by attacking your base.

aka Mycroft

Jaku wrote:

I continue to be amazed at the amount of vitriol spewed at Cheri while Andrea gets away with utter hypocricy not engendering a peep. In fact she gets defended on her hypocricy.

Her alleged letter condemning Cheri was never really made public. It was used only to respond to those who complained about Cheri. Andrea knew what Cheri would do in the Legislature and only when some went bonkers did she pipe up (albeit very very quietly so as not to attract too much attention) and basically threw Cheri under the bus.

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.

joops

First-time commenter here, motivated by what I witnessed on Twitter last night.

I'll preface this by stating that I believe diNovo is wrong to condemn Apartheid Week. BUT I think some of the comments she made on FB yesterday aren't wrong - specifically her points on women's activism and the problem w/ a male-dominated debate. We all know there are many Palestinian women activists, Iranian women activists, etc. - but Cheri is right to say that in Canada they are rarely heard outside of (small) progressive circles. Now, the fact that Cheri herself could spend some more time listening to women of colour as mention by gita above - absolutely. But diNovo is already half right when it comes to women. Which is frankly more right than most other people.

My reading of diNovo's FB comments, and Andrew's response, was different from many posters here. It seems to me like it was a frustrated response to violent threats against her family. And for someone to be in a state of fear, anger, & defiance, who is already upset with white men dominating the debate, who continues to get nasty phone calls (from men) threatening her family, to be told by a guy to "back away from the computer," I mean, come on! It's easy to see how that can be interpreted as patronizing, even if Andrew didn't mean it that way. So the "idiot" comment, jeez, let that go. He picked the wrong time to boss her around on her own FB wall. And frankly, Andrew's claim that Cheri "told me to call her office to set up a fight" - that's not what I read. She was referring to the dudes making threats  - I don't think that had anything at all to do with him. But he was sure eager to jump on it and make it about him and declare she was having a "meltdown."

Cheri is obviously wrong not to accept that what is going on in Israel is apartheid. But that, to me, isn't a deal-breaker for a provincial MPP. I am so frustrated today with people eager to jump on her and tear her down. Dippers have a habit of tearing each other apart over who is more "true to the cause." Cheri might come around eventually on Israeli Apartheid, but she sure as hell won't do it if fellow "progressives" keep ripping in to her for one frustrated rant that followed a week of harassment and threats to her family. The way to go is to keep engaging her, not tearing her apart. And on a hell of a lot of other issues, she's right.

The opinions of one Ontario MPP are not going to make a difference in the Middle East, and maybe this is naive but I don't think they'll make that much difference to the future of our party. But if we lose her seat because we made a mountain out of a molehill and bring down one of our own, that will sure make a difference to Ontario.

Le T Le T's picture

People can be queer and married with a child. Her sexual orientation came up because she was saying that it's only "straigh white men" who are opposed to her support of apartheid. Following that a queer man asked that she not lable him as such.

joops

Sineed wrote:

unionist wrote:
I'm a bit puzzled why anyone would give a damn about Cheri DiNovo's sexual predilections, when what is under discussion is her prostrating herself at the feet of some two-bit Conservative enemy of freedom and justice. I personally don't care whom she likes to copulate with or how, and find her exhibitionism rather astounding.

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?

 

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

takeitslowly

I am also of course willing to give Cheri another chance, I am impressed by her stance on transgender issue and even her issue on Tibet independence, I don’t know how someone like her can support Israel’s foreign policies.  I do hope she change her mind.  Queer is too much an all encompassing term to mean anything concrete.

Gabriel Sinduda

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...

 

 

Unionist

takeitslowly wrote:

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

Nonsense. Right-wing voters who like to see anti-Zionists suppressed? They know whom to vote for, and it isn't anyone with an NDP label - no matter how hard DiNovo fawns over Shurman. Why vote DiNovo when you can have the real article with a Shurman clone, without the overlay of peace and love?

 

Le T Le T's picture

double post

NorthReport

Thank you Gabriel.

Unionist

Gabriel Sinduda wrote:
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.

1. She's not in "Parliament". 2. Why don't you just read what she said before posting all these paragraphs? 3. What if she is a Zionist? That's her business. She is being condemned here not for having the "wrong opinion" on Israeli apartheid, but supporting an all-party move to condemn activists right when they were organizing IAW. It would be like supporting an all-party motion to condemn all those who favour Québec sovereignty.

Did you actually read anything before sitting down to lecture us?

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

She's not one of "my own", and who the hell are "you people"? What do you mean by that? United Church ministers?

 

Frustrated Mess Frustrated Mess's picture

remind wrote:

Not going to repeat myself if you simply refuse to read FM.

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.

 

 

Kaspar Hauser

Frustrated Mess wrote:

remind wrote:

Not going to repeat myself if you simply refuse to read FM.

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.

 

 

Frustrated Mess Frustrated Mess's picture

joops wrote:

We all know there are many Palestinian women activists, Iranian women activists, etc. - but Cheri is right to say that in Canada they are rarely heard outside of (small) progressive circles.

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.

Unionist

The revelation in these threads, and elsewhere, is that a blanket condemnation of pro-Palestinian activists is not considered "as bad" as condemning anti-racist or pro-LGBTQ or pro-feminist or pro-choice or pro-union activists.

It shows what grave danger is posed by the Harper-Kenney onslaught against KAIROS, UNRWA, Rights and Democracy, Durban II, Palestinian rights in U.N. forums, and any hint of criticism of Israel in Canadian political life.

Harper is a brilliant political survivor, and he understands the importance of vacillation in the midst of those who should be the natural allies of the Palestinian people.

We have a difficult job to do, and it is made far more difficult by the likes of DiNovo and her apologists.

 

Pages

Topic locked